Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

My Turn · Senior Member

RE: Amendments

BoxDog · Guru

MyCat8it wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Yep. Here's a question: Where are all those straight married people whose marriages were ruined during the time those 18,000 gay couples in California were legally married? If gay marriage threatens straight marriage then I want to see the "damaged" people. Until someone can present those "vicitms" of legalized GLBT marriage, I demand the right to defile the sanctity of marriage just like my straight brothers and sisters can and do.

Here's another question: Why is it that gay marriage defiles the sanctity of marriage, but television shows like Cheaters doesn't? How does a show that drives around town looking to uncover someone cheating on a spouse on national television preserve this sanctity?

Is infidelity and adultery so prevalent that an entire television series can be made of it? But gays and lesbians ruin marriage??? It seems to me they have no problems ruining it all on their own.

I would go a step farther and suggest that all those pseudo-proponents that claim "civil unions" are "good enough" and bear similar enough necessary legislation to protect the rights of the same sex collaborations forfeit their individual wedding certificate, notice of marriage, assignment of benefits for their "wedded" partner, pension, decision making authority, military entitlements et al., and keep the word marriage where it apparently belongs, in a church. The problem in every single discussion or argument around the issue of marriage versus committment ceremony or civil union is one that ends in "the Bible and Jesus and God almighty say......well, give it up for the Bible and keep your f*cking marriage a church gesture only. Leave the rest of us alone. Every single man and woman in a hetero relationship, stuck together by a certificate of legal marriage should be required to turn them in for an "equally" acceptable, notice of "civil union". F*ck em.

Keep the marriage in your churches and I swear to your god I'll keep my gay ass out of your church, forever.

MyCat8it · Senior Member

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Yep. Here's a question: Where are all those straight married people whose marriages were ruined during the time those 18,000 gay couples in California were legally married? If gay marriage threatens straight marriage then I want to see the "damaged" people. Until someone can present those "vicitms" of legalized GLBT marriage, I demand the right to defile the sanctity of marriage just like my straight brothers and sisters can and do.

Here's another question: Why is it that gay marriage defiles the sanctity of marriage, but television shows like Cheaters doesn't? How does a show that drives around town looking to uncover someone cheating on a spouse on national television preserve this sanctity?

Is infidelity and adultery so prevalent that an entire television series can be made of it? But gays and lesbians ruin marriage??? It seems to me they have no problems ruining it all on their own.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

BoxDog wrote:

It failed in California, with a huge amount of cash supporting it's passage versus a pawltry though loud support for its ban. It failed in Arizona and Florida as well. Of course, and as always, the HRC was kind enough to make certain most of the cash raised for the props were directed toward Ca. assumably under the notion that it stood the greatest chance of passage of the three states. Well, it didn't. Now all that cash for the LGBT community from HRC, the 100k each that Ellen and Brad and others kicked in over in CA is out the window. And the highlighted words above are the near exact phrased wording of each of the four candidates in this recent election. So, pass or not, the propositions and amendments never really mattered.

Every one of the four used those words. A marriage is between one man and one woman. WTF? What about the Mormons?

now that is a good question:) hmmmm

Of course, the greatest irony I find in this sad mess is that the "numbers" and exit polls are showing that the ginormous turnout for obama is what killed proposition 8 in CA. Well, that's probably quite true right here too. Arizona? I'm not so sure what happened there. It was astonishingly close. But close is not at all like being a done deal. Just ask Hillary, or Al Gore for that matter.

----------------------------------------------------------
See, I take heart in the fact that it was close. The homophobes outspent the rest of us 15-1, with advertising which suggested that all the propsition was going to do was say that marriage was between a man and a woman (and not mention that it would EXCLUDE certain kinds of marriages) and it was "close."

We are the home state of the republican candidate for president (who carried this state) who was (locally) a proponent of the ban on gay marriage, endorsed it, and yet ... even with the "get out the vote" draw of a home boy running for the big gig, it was "close."

Maybe if Barack and Janet hadn't given up on us as a state, it wouldn't have passed. Maybe if the HRC had put a little of that national money into other states, it might not have passed.

But pass it did.

----------------------------------------------------------
whats so surprising in california is that the rights were already in place. its not just a denying of them its a taking away rights from a group of people and that has to be a first.
Yep. Here's a question: Where are all those straight married people whose marriages were ruined during the time those 18,000 gay couples in California were legally married? If gay marriage threatens straight marriage then I want to see the "damaged" people. Until someone can present those "vicitms" of legalized GLBT marriage, I demand the right to defile the sanctity of marriage just like my straight brothers and sisters can and do.

Psych Lit · Guru

Maybe it is time the gay and lesbian community made some sacrifices. Maybe we need to start protesting like African Americans did during the civil rights movement. In protest of Rosa Parks trail, a one day protest was planned to boycott busses in Montgomery. That protest turn into a year long protest with black citizens taking cabs, carpooling, or walking. As a direct result of the Montgomery Bus Boycott the US Supreme Court ruled segregation of busses was unconstitutional. <---my turns post

great post. i hope that your friend had this published somewhere?

Psych Lit · Guru

BoxDog wrote:

It failed in California, with a huge amount of cash supporting it's passage versus a pawltry though loud support for its ban. It failed in Arizona and Florida as well. Of course, and as always, the HRC was kind enough to make certain most of the cash raised for the props were directed toward Ca. assumably under the notion that it stood the greatest chance of passage of the three states. Well, it didn't. Now all that cash for the LGBT community from HRC, the 100k each that Ellen and Brad and others kicked in over in CA is out the window. And the highlighted words above are the near exact phrased wording of each of the four candidates in this recent election. So, pass or not, the propositions and amendments never really mattered.

Every one of the four used those words. A marriage is between one man and one woman. WTF? What about the Mormons?

now that is a good question:) hmmmm

Of course, the greatest irony I find in this sad mess is that the "numbers" and exit polls are showing that the ginormous turnout for obama is what killed proposition 8 in CA. Well, that's probably quite true right here too. Arizona? I'm not so sure what happened there. It was astonishingly close. But close is not at all like being a done deal. Just ask Hillary, or Al Gore for that matter.

whats so surprising in california is that the rights were already in place. its not just a denying of them its a taking away rights from a group of people and that has to be a first.

Psych Lit · Guru

Gunnita wrote:

Hello folks~

I am lucky enough to live in Massachusetts where gay marriage was legalized almost 4 years ago. I couldn't believe it when I heard that they had passed the ammendment in California. I think that it will be repealed. I can't imagine that it will stay.

For shame for those who voted for it. As good Christians they should know that when they get to heaven they will pay for their sins. God save them then.

Not that I'm that good of a catholic lol the church doesn't believe in me... It's just the way I was raised :)

Lois

and even in mass and ct there were several attempts to overturn this and thankfully these attempts have been unsuccessful. it seems so odd to me that california is one of the states to have done this. when i think of liberal states, cali is right up there at the top along with new york and nevada and yet none of these states has succeeded in doing what is right. mass and ct with their puritan backgrounds seem unlikely places and yet here we are.

im very happy to see that our sisters and brothers in california, oregon, illinois and washington state have taken to the streets to protest. i hope this can be the beginning of stonewall 2. i read an article having to do with the mormon church and their dismay that they had been targeted. the article said something to the effect that they wished that the discussion could take place in a civil way. theres nothing civil about funding efforts to deny civil rights to anyone and i can only hope that any organization that targeted and funded any anti gay legislation reaps what they have sown. take it to the streets, shut down their services, peacefully of course:) go after their tax exempt status, make some noise. put faces on their discrimination. i hope they keep it up and i hope it spreads across the nation.

nottattlbytch · Member

that's something I don't understand either--when I lived as a straight woman, a married woman, no one enquired about anything "private"--however, as someone who is still pretty much out, I see where the gay community faces a lot of intrusions into their "private" matters. I do not appreciate that at all. Simply because the public at large, our government, and our Moral Majority doesn't respect our point of view, our private matters suddenly become public. they certainly wouldn't dream of making snide comments about anything regarding our private matters if we were heterosexual, married women. Ugh, what a narrow minded Republic our Nation has become/is.

MyCat8it · Senior Member

Gunnita wrote:

Hello folks~

I am lucky enough to live in Massachusetts where gay marriage was legalized almost 4 years ago. I couldn't believe it when I heard that they had passed the ammendment in California. I think that it will be repealed. I can't imagine that it will stay.

For shame for those who voted for it. As good Christians they should know that when they get to heaven they will pay for their sins. God save them then.

Not that I'm that good of a catholic lol the church doesn't believe in me... It's just the way I was raised :)

Lois

A few days after the election, the local news channel ran a story about how the passing of Amendment 2 would affect the seniors. They interviewed a few of them who remained unmarried to help them get by and be able to afford both food AND medicine.

Where were they before the election? I'll tell you. They were running stories about how Amendment 2 is the "Gay Marriage" amendment and interviewing the advocates who said repeatedly, "no one loses benefits".

I sure hope they all slept well last night.

Gunnita · Newbie

Hello folks~

I am lucky enough to live in Massachusetts where gay marriage was legalized almost 4 years ago. I couldn't believe it when I heard that they had passed the ammendment in California. I think that it will be repealed. I can't imagine that it will stay.

For shame for those who voted for it. As good Christians they should know that when they get to heaven they will pay for their sins. God save them then.

Not that I'm that good of a catholic lol the church doesn't believe in me... It's just the way I was raised :)

Lois

My Turn · Senior Member

an excellant vent from an aquaintance.....it is a bit lengthy but i believe it is worth the read....

Tuesday night and Wednesday morning were a mix of emotions for me. On one hand I was so proud of our country for not only voting into office a man who will help guide our country down a much wiser, less divisive path for all Americans, but we also elected the first African American to the highest office in our country. Regardless of your politics I believe most people see that as a very large, very positive step for our country. On the other hand voters in California, Arizona, Florida and Arkansas voted yes on propositions that will change the constitutions in those states or create laws to allow discriminatory actions against homosexuals. I believe that these amendments and laws will be overturned; maybe not this year or next, but they will be overturned and homosexuals will be given the same basic human rights as every other American. It is just a matter of time.

The first time a politician tried to get involved in dictating who can marry whom was in the 1870s. People were afraid that the fourteenth amendment to the constitution would render laws banning interracial marriage unconstitutional. So, a new amendment was proposed to make interracial marriage illegal nationwide. That amendment to the Constitution would have taken the right to marry anyone of your choosing away from all Americans. As a white person you would not have been allowed to marry a black person regardless of the amount of love you felt for them. In todays terms we see that as discrimination and against basic human rights.

In the early 1900s Seaborn Roddenberry again proposed an amendment to the US constitution. When Roddenberry brought the issue up to Congress he said, "intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy" (Gilmore, 1975, p.108)

The trial judge in the case of Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving (1959) said when they were convicted of miscegenation (marrying or cohabitating with a person of a different race) [a]lmighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Today most people, and certainly all decent people, would look at those statements and be embarrassed at how our society and elected officials behaved. As a country we look at that time in our history as something to be ashamed off (and we should). However, we slowly learned from those experiences and we changed our laws, our society changed and we evolved into a country which understands that it does not matter what color your skin; is if you love a person you should have the right to marry that person regardless of skin color.

Both of the arguments listed above are the same arguments used today by people who are against gay marriage: society doesnt like it and God doesnt like it. Many people will argue, God says in the bible that man should not lie with man. Anti-miscegenationists would argue the bible also states interracial marriages are immoral and wrong in the eyes of god. That was simply how they interpreted the bible. Peoples interpretations have changed over the years and today I would hope the vast majority of the United States believes there is nothing wrong with two people of different races marrying. Again, as we evolve as people and as a society our definitions and interpretations do change.

California voters have allowed an outside organization to come into their state and determine their laws. One of the most disturbing things to me is the fact that exit polls showed roughly 70% of African Americans voted to deny us the same rights they had to fight so hard to get; the right to marry the person of their choosing. These voters bought into the lies spread by the Mormon Church. They allowed this church to be their moral compass, a church that up until 30 years ago used the same arguments against them. I do understand that many African Americans have a strong belief in God and homosexuality is culturally a taboo in general; however, I would have thought that as a group African Americans would ultimately be against discrimination of any type, even if it goes against their personal beliefs. If for no other reason then the simple fact that people have used their personal beliefs to discriminate against African Americas for so many years.

One of the main arguments against gay marriage is that by banning it you are somehow protecting children. This argument could not be farther from the truth. In actuality, by banning gay marriage the millions of children with same sex parents are less safe; are less secure. The ads said your children would be forced to learn about gay marriage in school; what school teaches children about heterosexual marriage? The problem with this thinking is homosexuals are having children and starting families together and there is nothing the church can do to stop it. Yes there are laws on the books and being added to the books prohibiting gays and lesbians from being foster parents or adopting children. That is not the only way to start a family. My partner gave birth to our son thanks to the advancements of modern science. Gay men use surrogate mothers. No law will change the fact that we are a family. No law will change how much I love her. Laws will, however, keep my son or partner from getting my social security when I die, which is not equal to my straight friends. Laws will keep us from getting the same treatment from insurance companies: that is not equal to my straight friends. Laws will keep me from seeing my partner in the hospital: that is not equal to my straight friends. Yes, domestic partnerships afford us some equal rights, but not all. Equal rights are not special rights.

For those that do not know about the law in Arkansas, voters there passed a law banning same sex couples from fostering or adopting children. The really sad thing about that law is that allowing children to stay in the foster care system instead of being adopted by two people who will love and care for them does not make society stronger. It is sad to see how many people would rather see a child suffer in the foster care system then be adopted by two people based solely on the fact that they are of the same gender. Those are some mixed up priorities. I think my son as well as his teachers, coaches, family and friends would disagree with the argument that we are not fit to be parents.

My partner and I both volunteer in our sons classes at school, we both belong to the PTA, we both have helped coach his baseball or soccer teams and we both volunteer for school functions. The fact that our son has two moms is not a secret; every single child in his class or on his sports teams knows who we are. Their biggest concern is what types of treats we bring them. So, whether the parents of these other children want to deal with the issue of homosexuality or not is beside the point. Their children are being exposed to it on a daily basis. You might think, yes but we live in a small town and are immune from lifestyles like that, and you would be sadly mistaken. We live in a small Idaho town with a population under 8000. We are not the only other same sex family living in the area or with children in the school system. You can continue to try and deny us our rights as American Citizens but we will still live our lives, build our families, contribute to our communities and try our best to protect our children from the laws which are being created. We will continue to fight for our civil rights and we will get them. A constitutional amendment can be undone, and it will be.

Maybe it is time the gay and lesbian community made some sacrifices. Maybe we need to start protesting like African Americans did during the civil rights movement. In protest of Rosa Parks trail, a one day protest was planned to boycott busses in Montgomery. That protest turn into a year long protest with black citizens taking cabs, carpooling, or walking. As a direct result of the Montgomery Bus Boycott the US Supreme Court ruled segregation of busses was unconstitutional. Maybe it is time we, as a community, go on strike. The Mormon Church is less then 2% of the US population based on the most recent census. Yet because of their ability to organize they can be very effective. We need to get organized and start using our wallets. We need to stop supporting companies that do not support us and we need to start supporting companies that do support us. We need to speak to everyone that will listen and even some that wont. We need to not be afraid to be out. We need to show affection to each other in public and not be afraid of what people will think, say or do. I have seen straight couples giving each other a peck on the cheek in the grocery store. Why is it okay for them and not us? We are no different from them our love is no less. We need to make ourselves not only heard but seen as well.

The Declaration of Independence states in the preamble We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. We are being denied these rights and we need to demand them.

Many people will look at the word Creator and interpret that to mean their God, the one they believe in. However, the beliefs of our founding fathers are heavily debated with each side making their own claims. The one thing we do know for sure, based on the Bill of Rights is that they did want freedom of religion. They did want a separation of religion and government. Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State means you can not force your religious beliefs on me, and I have the right to not believe in your religion, or any.

I do believe we will come to a day when the majority of people (I think we are already very close) will realize allowing homosexuals to marry will not destroy marriage, it will not destroy the American family, it will not destroy our country it will only make our families and our country stronger.

A few quotes from the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

-- Edited by My Turn at 07:34, 2008-11-09

BoxDog · Guru

MyCat8it wrote:

Sadly, Amendment 2 in Florida passed with an overwhelming majority. This defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and no other union will be recognized in the state.

It was an important amendment for all of us here in Florida, and while the majority of the people thought it was meant to keep gays from infiltrating the marrital process, it really harms all unmarried couples - gay or straight.

What amendments in your state passed or were shot down? Owl, didn't you have a marriage amendment on your ballot, too?

It failed in California, with a huge amount of cash supporting it's passage versus a pawltry though loud support for its ban. It failed in Arizona and Florida as well. Of course, and as always, the HRC was kind enough to make certain most of the cash raised for the props were directed toward Ca. assumably under the notion that it stood the greatest chance of passage of the three states. Well, it didn't. Now all that cash for the LGBT community from HRC, the 100k each that Ellen and Brad and others kicked in over in CA is out the window. And the highlighted words above are the near exact phrased wording of each of the four candidates in this recent election. So, pass or not, the propositions and amendments never really mattered.

Every one of the four used those words. A marriage is between one man and one woman. WTF? What about the Mormons?

Of course, the greatest irony I find in this sad mess is that the "numbers" and exit polls are showing that the ginormous turnout for obama is what killed proposition 8 in CA. Well, that's probably quite true right here too. Arizona? I'm not so sure what happened there. It was astonishingly close. But close is not at all like being a done deal. Just ask Hillary, or Al Gore for that matter.

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

You know, personally, one of the reasons I think it would be cool for us to have the same rights as everyone else ...

If I'm in the check out line at the market, chatting away with the cashier, and she says: "Are you married?" ... how do I respond? "No, I'm in a civil union. Unlike you, I don't have the right to get married to the person with whom I'm sharing my life."

i like this answer:) its subtle yet very effective.

I know this seems fairly insignificant, when compared to the other elements under consideration, but even so, I think it matters on some level, and really isn't "just" in the way I perceive justice. It would be so much better if, in that situation I could just reply: "Yep."

there is also the sexualized component to this. when someone asks a het are you married? the first thing that pops into the heads of those around is not the sexual aspect of marriage but the taken aspect or the family aspect of the question but if you say im a lesbian and we cant marry the first thing that pops in their heads is the imagining of the sexual aspects of that for those within earshot. thats what makes it particularly creepy when the question is asked in the checkout line with the whacko male standing behind ya, youre thinking shared benefits, love, the picket fence and the goldendoodle and hes thinking of chesty morgan and lola laflamme gettin it on for his benefit.

-- Edited by Psych Lit at 11:37, 2008-11-07

-- Edited by Psych Lit at 11:38, 2008-11-07

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote:
i know common wisdom is that we have to be a bit patient but why? ok, i get the whys behind taking things to the supreme court right now but everything else should be on the table. i think we should at least all be voting with our purse strings and in a very vocal way. any state that passes these kinds of laws should get the old tourism boycott and a boycott of any products made in that state.
That would sure throw a lot of business to the remaining seven states....

and well all be waiting for the biz with open arms! seriously, i do think the two best ways to force issues of civil rights are to disrupt the peace and quiet and to hit them in the purse strings. im pleased to see our sisters and brothers have taken to the streets of west hollywood by the thousands. i hope this keeps up. imagine all of the police overtime that costs the good taxpayers of la county. not to mention the disruption of traffic and commerce:) theres nothing like adding to the plus side with a lot of lost commerce opportunities while you wait for the streets to clear. they assume the protests will end. id suggest random hits all over the state several times a week until something changes.

on the more peaceful side of things the williams institute states the economic impact for cali would have been 683 million yearly. thats 693 million that wont be spent on marriages and all the foo foo stuff that goes with it, 2178 new jobs that wont be created to service this market and 63 million that wont go into the state tax coffers. mass and ct would be happy to have that 683 million along with the tax bennies and jobs etc and if we took that farther and only purchased from corporations that scored a perfect 100 on the hrc list we'd create a climate that allowed the bigots to see the benefits or feel the loss in their own wallets. in cali alone thats 861,000 people who would not purchase products or services from anyone that did not support full glbt rights. melissa etheridge suggested not paying taxes. not a bad idea. hold them in some sort of limbo account until real representation occurs.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

You know, personally, one of the reasons I think it would be cool for us to have the same rights as everyone else ...

<taking a moment to take that statement in...>

...aside from the economic disadvantage, the fact that unike with marriage, our civil unions don't travel with us from state-to-state, employers are under no obligation to recognize civil unions, and civil unions provide none of the federal rights extended to straight couples, is the uneasy feeling that they ... sort of force us to ... "out" ourselves regarding our inherent inferiority.

If I'm in the check out line at the market, chatting away with the cashier, and she says: "Are you married?" ... how do I respond? "No, I'm in a civil union. Unlike you, I don't have the right to get married to the person with whom I'm sharing my life."

I'm not closeted at all, but even so, I don't think I should be obliged to "out" myself to the creepy looking character standing behind me in that line -- I shouldn't be obliged to inform that person right there in the grocery store that I'm a queer, yanno? Of course I'm not -- I could lie, and say yes, but I don't lie, so that would be a problem. I could simply answer "no" but that wouldn't be truthful in intent, really, since I would consider myself, in some way "married" if I'd gone as far as I legally could to make that commitment.

I know this seems fairly insignificant, when compared to the other elements under consideration, but even so, I think it matters on some level, and really isn't "just" in the way I perceive justice. It would be so much better if, in that situation I could just reply: "Yep." smile

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

I suspect it will be a little more difficult to turn this map from red to blue...

Laws Regarding Same-Sex Partnerships in the United States Same-sex marriages Unions granting rights similar to marriage Unions granting limited/enumerated rights Foreign same-sex marriages recognized Statute bans same-sex marriage Constitution bans same-sex marriage Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions

------------------------------------------
Crud. The map didn't copy, and since I can't slap it into AOL Pictures and then drag it over here, I guess you'll have to click the link to see it.

Image:Samesex marriage in USA.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 08:41, 2008-11-07

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:
i know common wisdom is that we have to be a bit patient but why? ok, i get the whys behind taking things to the supreme court right now but everything else should be on the table. i think we should at least all be voting with our purse strings and in a very vocal way. any state that passes these kinds of laws should get the old tourism boycott and a boycott of any products made in that state.

That would sure throw a lot of business to the remaining seven states.... smile

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

FWIW:

<shifting thought pattern>

OK, I looked at this again:

Prop 102 - Marriage

i wonder too if the wording played a part in the confusion? some of those props are confusing in their wording so you think youre voting one way and it turns out that youre voting another way? or even that despite all of the money spent on ads, perhaps people didnt know what they were voting for and thought heck ill vote yes anyway? usually i am right there with reframing negative things but these laws irk me. i know common wisdom is that we have to be a bit patient but why? ok, i get the whys behind taking things to the supreme court right now but everything else should be on the table. i think we should at least all be voting with our purse strings and in a very vocal way. any state that passes these kinds of laws should get the old tourism boycott and a boycott of any products made in that state.

Total Number of Votes Percent
YES

1063937 56.5
NO

820654 43.5

And yeah, it's a loss, but then I looked closely at those numbers.
Take into account here that the proponents of this proposition outspent the opponets fifteen to one. For every dollar "our side" had for signage, and TV ads, they had fifteen dollars. And even with that ... look at how close it was! Sure, I know it's been called "overwhelming" passage, but really, I think it's something that in my state eight hundred, twenty thousand six hundred and fifty three people other than me said: "NO!"

Really, that's pretty cool, when you look at it that way, ya know?

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

FWIW:

<shifting thought pattern>

OK, I looked at this again:

Prop 102 - Marriage

	Total Number of Votes		Percent
YES		1063937	56.5
NO		820654	43.5

And yeah, it's a loss, but then I looked closely at those numbers.
Take into account here that the proponents of this proposition outspent the opponets fifteen to one. For every dollar "our side" had for signage, and TV ads, they had fifteen dollars. And even with that ... look at how close it was! Sure, I know it's been called "overwhelming" passage, but really, I think it's something that in my state eight hundred, twenty thousand six hundred and fifty three people other than me said: "NO!"

Really, that's pretty cool, when you look at it that way, ya know?

Psych Lit · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

It was a hit on my heart, to be sure (and I think the only proposition on the ballot to pass.) Even so, I still think the equitable way to go remains "civil unions -- for everyone."
Let both straight and GLBT people have access to civil unions, and equal legal rights, and let the religious organizations fight amongst themselves over the "marriage" thing.

the local alternative rag had a fact sheet on same sex marriage and cautions before proceeding this week. here are a few things mentioned that i didnt know

you cannot serve in the military if you marry a same sex partner. dont ask dont tell.

you cannot adopt from many countries or states which you can do as a single person.

because of the DOMA, you will get all of the rights afforded to het marriages within state law but none afforded federally and that includes ss, joint tax returns, and if your partner works for the federal govt no pension or survivor benefits in addition to the other 1,000 plus rights.

the marriage will not be recognized outside of a few states so dont think about moving to a cooler/warmer climate.

i was surprised by the military and federal pension and survivor rights, i would have assumed that people could name anyone as a beneficiary and have it stick. i was also surprised by the list of the many states and countries that do not allow same sex partners to adopt. i assumed here that the state home study acceptance would be all that is needed as long as the state of residence is either mass or ct.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

yanno i dont understand why it is that hets want to prevent same sex marriage. youd think that they would enjoy the opportunity to regulate our sexual behavior to the same extent that theirs is regulated.

It's bigoted bullying, Psych.

Really.

That's all it is. It's saying: "I have something you can't have, neener-neener I have more than you, so I'm better than you." That, and the whole "you're a sinner" BS.

I'd dare anyone to give me any convincing argument to the contrary.

So: When you see someone who supports that? Recognize them for what they are, say I.

Psych Lit · Guru

MyCat8it wrote:

Sadly, Amendment 2 in Florida passed with an overwhelming majority. This defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and no other union will be recognized in the state.

It was an important amendment for all of us here in Florida, and while the majority of the people thought it was meant to keep gays from infiltrating the marrital process, it really harms all unmarried couples - gay or straight.

this one surprised me. florida is a state with a huge older population and i would bet that many of those over 50 folks live with partners without the benefit of marriage since to do so would hurt their incomes. many women over 50 worked at a time when they didnt make much money and if they survived their spouse they got the higher ss amount. i havent heard that this has changed, or has it? as i recall they cant remarry until they get to 60 or they lose that benefit. also a lot of those employer sponsored pension plans might have clauses that end the survivor payment if remarriage happens and for those divorced widows who got to share in their former spouses pensions and ss payments? what happens when they get remarried before 60?

What amendments in your state passed or were shot down? Owl, didn't you have a marriage amendment on your ballot, too?
::::::waving hand::::: i get to smoke weed now if i want. lol. that one cracked me up. tho apparently if i get caught smoking weed theyll still take it away and spank me. i think im about 30 years to old to benefit from this one but its nice to know i have the option if i ever decide to go wild some weekend.

all is not lost on the same sex marriage front tho. ct voters turned down the question on their ballot to allow a constitutional convention. while this question is asked every 20 years the religious folks pushed it hard this year as a way to turn back the recent decision to allow same sex marriage in ct beginning next week. everybody knew this was a code phrase for slamming same sex marriage and the vote was overwhelmingly no. new yorks gov patterson has also said that new york will recognize same sex marriages performed in mass and ct so thats sort of a back door way in for new york. honestly, i was surprised by the no vote in ct. i am a native daughter of the state and ive found it to be just about the most homophobic place ive ever lived which is why, among other reasons, i no longer live there. were i to try and describe what that vote was about, id say that most in the state of ct find same sex anything distasteful and odd but they find denying rights to anyone for any reason more so.

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

So? Seems to me it's time we came up with a new word, like ... "UBERmarriage."

It was a hit on my heart, to be sure (and I think the only proposition on the ballot to pass.) Even so, I still think the equitable way to go remains "civil unions -- for everyone." Let both straight and GLBT people have access to civil unions, and equal legal rights, and let the religious organizations fight amongst themselves over the "marriage" thing. If some church wants to discriminate against me, and taunt me with that one silly little word, then fine -- I'll go to another church.

The passage of these propositions is just a bully's shout out to bigotry, pure and simple. I figure ... let 'em have it. Just because they've locked and bolted shut the front door doesn't mean we can't use the side entrance. Yeah, we shouldn't have to, but ... I think the most important thing in this case is the final destination, and we will be served up our equal portion at the table laden with equality aplenty which awaits us inside.

personally id like to see all of the advocacy groups take a very tough stance right now. marriage is between a man and a woman? and theyll give us the second tier? well, ok, fine, but lets start attacking those rights given to heterosexual marriages and no tax breaks for the children born of those unions, no passing the wealth on to the surviving spouse. well if they file separate returns well let one of them take the tax deducations for the kids. no federal or state to state recognition, no tax breaks, nada, nothing, nil, zip, zero. seems like these fruits of these amendments could be challenged simply because of the content of these amendments. hit them in the pocketbook and i predict well see a huge opening up of minds. same with the foster and adoption laws. you cant do either and have a life partner because you arent married and you cant get married because its against the law? id be ok with these kinds of laws involving children if same sex marriage were legal in all 50 states. i would be uncomfortable with any person in the home with foster or adoptive kids who was not invested emotionally or legally in that childs care or who was not checked out as a part of the child study and i dont think a parade of sex partners is particulary good for kids to witness, but if you make the solution to that illegal, well thats just nuts.
yanno i dont understand why it is that hets want to prevent same sex marriage. youd think that they would enjoy the opportunity to regulate our sexual behavior to the same extent that theirs is regulated. im no fan of marriage for anyone gay or straight really, i think it an archaic institution, that often keeps people thethered for the wrong reasons. the whole idea could use some reworking to say the least BUT i think whatever options are in place for hets should be in place for us, if we choose to opt in or not and that we should abide by the same restrictions that would face hets if they decided to opt out and simply live together.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Here's another 2008 election blow to the GLBT community:

Arkansas

Adoptive Parents

A proposed act providing that a minor may not be adopted or placed in a foster home if the individual seeking to adopt or to serve as a foster parent is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage which is valid under the constitution and laws of this state; stating that the foregoing prohibition applies equally to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals; stating that the act will not affect the guardianship of minors; defining "minor" to mean an individual under the age of eighteen (18) years; stating that the public policy of the state is to favor marriage, as defined by the constitution and laws of this state, over unmarried cohabitation with regard to adoption and foster care; finding and declaring on behalf of the people of the state that it is in the best interest of children in need of adoption or foster care to be reared in homes in which adoptive or foster parents are not cohabiting outside of marriage; providing that the Director of the Department of Human Services shall promulgate regulations consistent with the act; and providing that the act applies prospectively beginning on January 1, 2009.
Option Vote% Total Votes
YES57% 573,873> NO43% 434,40695 % Reporting Updated 2008-11-05 12:36:10 EST

What this means, of course, extends beyond what is obvious to straight people who envision those "gay recruiters" invading orphanages and corrupting America's youth. What this says too, as we know, is that at least in Arkansas, if I had, a kid, and had been partnered with someone that whole kid's life -- if my child had spent her whole life knowing two Moms, and say on that kid's 12th birthday I suddenly became terminally ill, my partner, who's co-reared my daughter her whole life would not only not have any "rights" to my child, but would also (now) be prohibited by law from getting any rights to "our" child. And if I were to die that same year, my daughter would not only lose me, but also her other Mom, whom my daughter has known her whole life, and be made a ward of the state.

Now, of course if my widow agreed to never again share a home with a partner, she could apply for adoption after I was dead, but not before; this is a long and drawn out process, though, and in the meantime, one of my straight relatives could swoop down and take my daughter away.

It's just a terrible thing, when you think about it. Who would want to ask their partner to have to choose between their child and ever having another relationship under one roof?

The whole "foster home" thing is just so ... terrible I can't even really discuss it rationally.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Here's another 2008 election blow to the GLBT community:

Arkansas

Adoptive Parents

A proposed act providing that a minor may not be adopted or placed in a foster home if the individual seeking to adopt or to serve as a foster parent is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage which is valid under the constitution and laws of this state; stating that the foregoing prohibition applies equally to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals; stating that the act will not affect the guardianship of minors; defining "minor" to mean an individual under the age of eighteen (18) years; stating that the public policy of the state is to favor marriage, as defined by the constitution and laws of this state, over unmarried cohabitation with regard to adoption and foster care; finding and declaring on behalf of the people of the state that it is in the best interest of children in need of adoption or foster care to be reared in homes in which adoptive or foster parents are not cohabiting outside of marriage; providing that the Director of the Department of Human Services shall promulgate regulations consistent with the act; and providing that the act applies prospectively beginning on January 1, 2009.

Option Vote% Total Votes

YES57% 573,873> NO43% 434,40695 % Reporting Updated 2008-11-05 12:36:10 EST

cry

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

MyCat8it wrote:

Sadly, Amendment 2 in Florida passed with an overwhelming majority. This defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and no other union will be recognized in the state.

It was an important amendment for all of us here in Florida, and while the majority of the people thought it was meant to keep gays from infiltrating the marrital process, it really harms all unmarried couples - gay or straight.

What amendments in your state passed or were shot down? Owl, didn't you have a marriage amendment on your ballot, too?

Yup. 102 Passed. Here's the entire text of the proposition: "ONLY A UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED AS A MARRIAGE IN THIS STATE."

So? Seems to me it's time we came up with a new word, like ... "UBERmarriage."

It was a hit on my heart, to be sure (and I think the only proposition on the ballot to pass.) Even so, I still think the equitable way to go remains "civil unions -- for everyone." Let both straight and GLBT people have access to civil unions, and equal legal rights, and let the religious organizations fight amongst themselves over the "marriage" thing. If some church wants to discriminate against me, and taunt me with that one silly little word, then fine -- I'll go to another church.

The passage of these propositions is just a bully's shout out to bigotry, pure and simple. I figure ... let 'em have it. Just because they've locked and bolted shut the front door doesn't mean we can't use the side entrance. Yeah, we shouldn't have to, but ... I think the most important thing in this case is the final destination, and we will be served up our equal portion at the table laden with equality aplenty which awaits us inside.

I don't know how this ended up in the court, or if it has been resolved, but here's a portion of an article of interest:

Wording of Proposition 102 faces court challenge

By HOWARD FISCHER
Capitol Media Services
Saturday, August 23, 2008

PHOENIX -- Secretary of State Jan Brewer has gone to court to keep from having to tell Arizona voters that same-sex marriage is already illegal under state law.

In a lawsuit filed Friday, Brewer is asking Maricopa Co. Superior Court Judge Bethany Hicks to rule that the only thing she needs to explain is that approval of Proposition 102 would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. More to the point, she wants to limit the legally required explanation of the effect of voting "no" on the measure would "have the effect of retaining the current laws regarding marriage." And she wants the judge to block efforts by Attorney General Terry Goddard to add to that explanation that those existing laws already include "a statutory ban on same-sex marriage."

Brewer said she believes the measure is clearer without the language Goddard wants. But she admitted to Capitol Media Services that one reason she wants the shorter version is she heard from the group pushing Proposition 102 that mentioning the existing law would confuse voters -- and cause many to vote against the measure.

Goddard, however, said voters are entitled to know what laws already are on the books.

And he contends that adopting the limited description Brewer wants actually could cause more confusion. He said some people might conclude that if they vote against Prop 102 they would be allowing gays to marry.

Goddard also pointed out that the language he wants describing the effect of a "no" vote is exactly the same as was used two years ago when a similar measure was on the ballot. Goddard said neither side filed legal protests to that wording.

<snip>

The lawsuit, filed Friday in Maricopa County Superior Court, is actually one of two challenging the wording.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's of interest to me, in part because it reveals what some of us have long known about Jan Brewer. If Janet Napolitano were to not complete her second (and final) term as our governor (because, say, she went to D.C.) the vacancy would be filled by the secretary of state -- Jan Brewer.

Meanwhile, Terry Goddard is one of our shining stars here in Arizona, and comes from good line ... I still have my "Go Goddard" campaign button from his Dad's run for governor (he served from 65-67) with the Goddard roadrunner on it, and his son Terry is now serving my state well, and Attorney General. (And coincidentally, I spent a good portion of election night 1972 in his home, so he's not just a liberal flash in the pan.) TG is one of the truly "good" politicians in this state ... and speaking of great democratic families from Arizona, a big ole shout out to both Mark Udall of Colorado and Tom Udall of New Mexico for their democratic US Senate wins last night. Mo and Stew would be right proud of their boys.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

MyCat8it wrote:

Sadly, Amendment 2 in Florida passed with an overwhelming majority. This defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and no other union will be recognized in the state.

It was an important amendment for all of us here in Florida, and while the majority of the people thought it was meant to keep gays from infiltrating the marrital process, it really harms all unmarried couples - gay or straight.

What amendments in your state passed or were shot down? Owl, didn't you have a marriage amendment on your ballot, too?

Yup. 102 Passed. Here's the entire text of the proposition: "ONLY A UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED AS A MARRIAGE IN THIS STATE."

So? Seems to me it's time we came up with a new word, like ... "UBERmarriage."

It was a hit on my heart, to be sure (and I think the only proposition on the ballot to pass.) Even so, I still think the equitable way to go remains "civil unions -- for everyone." Let both straight and GLBT people have access to civil unions, and equal legal rights, and let the religious organizations fight amongst themselves over the "marriage" thing. If some church wants to discriminate against me, and taunt me with that one silly little word, then fine -- I'll go to another church.

The passage of these propositions is just a bully's shout out to bigotry, pure and simple. I figure ... let 'em have it. Just because they've locked and bolted shut the front door doesn't mean we can't use the side entrance. Yeah, we shouldn't have to, but ... I think the most important thing in this case is the final destination, and we will be served up our equal portion at the table laden with equality aplenty which awaits us inside.

My Turn · Senior Member

Three states -- Arizona, California, and Florida -- are considering amendments to their state constitutions defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Here are the latest results from Associated Press...

Arizona

     Yes, 877,204 - 56 percent
     No, 684,143 - 44 percent

California

     Yes, 1,413,435 - 55 percent
     No, 1,174,958 - 45 percent

Florida

     Yes, 4,271,481 - 62 percent
     No, 2,609,097 - 38 percent

latest results i could find cry

-- Edited by My Turn at 05:31, 2008-11-05

MyCat8it · Senior Member

Sadly, Amendment 2 in Florida passed with an overwhelming majority. This defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and no other union will be recognized in the state.

It was an important amendment for all of us here in Florida, and while the majority of the people thought it was meant to keep gays from infiltrating the marrital process, it really harms all unmarried couples - gay or straight.

What amendments in your state passed or were shot down? Owl, didn't you have a marriage amendment on your ballot, too?