Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Psych Lit · Guru

RE: "Gay 'sin' = murder"

Psych Lit · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

Does California have a sight that list donors?

knowthyneighbor.org

thanks for this. i first put.com in and got some other site. lol. cali wasnt on this list yet tho mass was and i was looking at that. looked like they targeted areas surrounding "gay areas" the upper cape, springfield, worchester, and a few on the nh line. it was also interesting to read the notes from the people who said that they either didnt sign this petition or that the info presented was misleading.

BoxDog · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Sometimes, I forget about these sorts of people roaming around, shooting off their mouths. Well, that's not such a bad thing, I guess, to forget about it momentarily ... I mean, who would want to be thinking about this kind of stuff ALL the time? But once in a while, I think it's important for us to remember that a lot of the people who have made it their mission in life to control the lives of other people, presumably because it makes them feel more powerful, are in positions where they can actually do more than just irritate us -- they can serve as legal barriers between us and our just equal rights, and pursuit of happiness.
if im not mistaken prop 8 stuff comes before the cali SC next week.

Yeah, I think opening arguments are on the 5th.

It will be interesting to see how that plays out. i wish the arguments were rights based tho. if cali falls i wonder how many others will fall?

I don't have a particularly "good" feeling about this ... The California Supreme Court is really pretty conservative.
Isn't Jerry Brown's argument that prop 8 messes with "inalienable rights" also going to be heard, or did that get dropped from the mix? The whole "illegal revision of the state constitution" argument does seem a little iffy, and it would sure seem sounder footing to argue that it's illegal to deny citizens (who aren't felons) equal rights, but I suppose those presenting the case know better than I where their best shot lies.
I get the sense that really, a majority of voters in California had a big "oh, SH*T! What have I done?!" moment right after the election. It would be interesting to see what would happen should this issue be put before the voters again at a later date.
BTW, did you see where people had requested the court keep secret the names of the financial donors to the Pro-8 campaign, because they were being harassed, and the court said no? Seems the church of LDS spent a $180 grand on that one campaign, and close to another hundred grand in "time compensated for church employees." Of course, that's only the church per se ... who knows how much its members contributed as individuals.

I hope the court overturns prop 8, but would be happily surprised if that happens. I don't think we should hang our hats on a positive outcome and drop all other ways to undo this wrong.

Meanwhile, my state of Arizona passed at the same time a similar propositon, and I really don't know yet how I'm going to address the situation here at home. I'm sure there are local fringe organizations which are poised to deal with our new law, but it's a matter of knowing where one most wants to put their energies and resources, I guess.

Meanwhile... I think it's just terrible that so many register voters are encouraging people to live in sin, without the sacred mantle of marriage affirming the relationship. Shame on them, and their sin-promoting ways.

Same with Florida, Proposition 4. But, all the HRC funds to push A legislative marriage prop through was sent to California. Specifically, I refer to HRC. Not MY HRC, THE "Human Rights Campaign", (my ass). I recall seeing a long list of individual donor names from CA immediately after election day. What struck me in a very unsettling way was the number of professionals, accountants, dentists, lawyers, doctors and the likes were on that list. That's not to say that's where the big Cali cash came from because of their financial means, but it speaks more to me as a reminder of what exactly we walk amongst every single day, that look us in the eye, work with us, work for us, work on us, and without our knowledge, hate us. This is the very reason I've always advocated the rights of the haters to speak their minds and wave their signs. They otherwise simply blend in, and I'd say we pretty much count on our politicians for that role.

-- Edited by BoxDog at 21:35, 2009-03-02

Date: Mon Mar 2 12:23 PM, 2009

Does California have a sight that list donors?

knowthyneighbor.org

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Sometimes, I forget about these sorts of people roaming around, shooting off their mouths. Well, that's not such a bad thing, I guess, to forget about it momentarily ... I mean, who would want to be thinking about this kind of stuff ALL the time? But once in a while, I think it's important for us to remember that a lot of the people who have made it their mission in life to control the lives of other people, presumably because it makes them feel more powerful, are in positions where they can actually do more than just irritate us -- they can serve as legal barriers between us and our just equal rights, and pursuit of happiness.
if im not mistaken prop 8 stuff comes before the cali SC next week.

Yeah, I think opening arguments are on the 5th.

It will be interesting to see how that plays out. i wish the arguments were rights based tho. if cali falls i wonder how many others will fall?

I don't have a particularly "good" feeling about this ... The California Supreme Court is really pretty conservative.
Isn't Jerry Brown's argument that prop 8 messes with "inalienable rights" also going to be heard, or did that get dropped from the mix? The whole "illegal revision of the state constitution" argument does seem a little iffy, and it would sure seem sounder footing to argue that it's illegal to deny citizens (who aren't felons) equal rights, but I suppose those presenting the case know better than I where their best shot lies.
I get the sense that really, a majority of voters in California had a big "oh, SH*T! What have I done?!" moment right after the election. It would be interesting to see what would happen should this issue be put before the voters again at a later date.
BTW, did you see where people had requested the court keep secret the names of the financial donors to the Pro-8 campaign, because they were being harassed, and the court said no? Seems the church of LDS spent a $180 grand on that one campaign, and close to another hundred grand in "time compensated for church employees." Of course, that's only the church per se ... who knows how much its members contributed as individuals.

I hope the court overturns prop 8, but would be happily surprised if that happens. I don't think we should hang our hats on a positive outcome and drop all other ways to undo this wrong.

Meanwhile, my state of Arizona passed at the same time a similar propositon, and I really don't know yet how I'm going to address the situation here at home. I'm sure there are local fringe organizations which are poised to deal with our new law, but it's a matter of knowing where one most wants to put their energies and resources, I guess.

Meanwhile... I think it's just terrible that so many register voters are encouraging people to live in sin, without the sacred mantle of marriage affirming the relationship. Shame on them, and their sin-promoting ways.

Psych Lit · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

My company extends health benefits to s.o's, partners, roommates, lovers, anyone that maintains an established living arrangement that is company qualified as a "domestic relationship". That would go as far as to include sisters and brothers. There's a two year requirement to set some sort of proof such as utility bills, leases, mortgages, other established common proof of residence. There is no question of type of relationship. Just that there is one. Now, I would ask Colorado 'phobes if regular old family members, friends, support systems as roommates and unmarried (sinning) live in couples also fall into their realm of evil-doers.

lets hope that there is a general change to benefits overall and everyone given access. personally i like the idea of being able to choose who will get those benefits. marriage equality ends that choice unfortunately. i wish that they would keep both options. imo corporations and states have no business in other peoples relationships.

There's power in numbers. One way to reduce the employer cost of insurance is to broaden the covered persons in the plan.

bingo!

Psych Lit · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Sometimes, I forget about these sorts of people roaming around, shooting off their mouths. Well, that's not such a bad thing, I guess, to forget about it momentarily ... I mean, who would want to be thinking about this kind of stuff ALL the time? But once in a while, I think it's important for us to remember that a lot of the people who have made it their mission in life to control the lives of other people, presumably because it makes them feel more powerful, are in positions where they can actually do more than just irritate us -- they can serve as legal barriers between us and our just equal rights, and pursuit of happiness.
if im not mistaken prop 8 stuff comes before the cali SC next week. It will be interesting to see how that plays out. i wish the arguments were rights based tho. if cali falls i wonder how many others will fall?

Date: Thu Feb 26 9:37 AM, 2009

whoops, that was me.

BD

Date: Thu Feb 26 9:36 AM, 2009

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Sometimes, I forget about these sorts of people roaming around, shooting off their mouths. Well, that's not such a bad thing, I guess, to forget about it momentarily ... I mean, who would want to be thinking about this kind of stuff ALL the time? But once in a while, I think it's important for us to remember that a lot of the people who have made it their mission in life to control the lives of other people, presumably because it makes them feel more powerful, are in positions where they can actually do more than just irritate us -- they can serve as legal barriers between us and our just equal rights, and pursuit of happiness.

This guy from Colorado would fall into that category.
What spurred him to make hate comments regarding gay and lesbian people? Colorado is considering a bill which would extend to same sex partners, the same insurance benefits heterosexual state employees receive.

Any port in a storm ... give the homophobes ANY opportunity to voice hate aimed at GLBT people, and they'll leap at the chance.

He's not alone.
We all know that.

This Renfroe guy, though, is an elected official, who is able to cast a ballot denying GLBT people in his state equality.

Homophobia is like a fire, in some ways, I think. I mean... you THINK you have it put out, and then some smoldering ember over "there" suddenly connects with a blade of dried grass, and boom, there goes the fire again. If we're not vigilant in our providing a dissenting opinion to assertions such as this, if we allow them to slip under our radar, and just go by uncontested, then some will subliminally presume them to be true.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 07:33, 2009-02-26

My company extends health benefits to s.o's, partners, roommates, lovers, anyone that maintains an established living arrangement that is company qualified as a "domestic relationship". That would go as far as to include sisters and brothers. There's a two year requirement to set some sort of proof such as utility bills, leases, mortgages, other established common proof of residence. There is no question of type of relationship. Just that there is one. Now, I would ask Colorado 'phobes if regular old family members, friends, support systems as roommates and unmarried (sinning) live in couples also fall into their realm of evil-doers.

There's power in numbers. One way to reduce the employer cost of insurance is to broaden the covered persons in the plan. Sure the hell would have been more reasonable and consumer driven than borrowing from the Chinese to dump into the greedy hands of state Governors to fund Medicaid.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Sometimes, I forget about these sorts of people roaming around, shooting off their mouths. Well, that's not such a bad thing, I guess, to forget about it momentarily ... I mean, who would want to be thinking about this kind of stuff ALL the time? But once in a while, I think it's important for us to remember that a lot of the people who have made it their mission in life to control the lives of other people, presumably because it makes them feel more powerful, are in positions where they can actually do more than just irritate us -- they can serve as legal barriers between us and our just equal rights, and pursuit of happiness.

This guy from Colorado would fall into that category.
What spurred him to make hate comments regarding gay and lesbian people? Colorado is considering a bill which would extend to same sex partners, the same insurance benefits heterosexual state employees receive.

Any port in a storm ... give the homophobes ANY opportunity to voice hate aimed at GLBT people, and they'll leap at the chance.

He's not alone.
We all know that.

This Renfroe guy, though, is an elected official, who is able to cast a ballot denying GLBT people in his state equality.

Homophobia is like a fire, in some ways, I think. I mean... you THINK you have it put out, and then some smoldering ember over "there" suddenly connects with a blade of dried grass, and boom, there goes the fire again. If we're not vigilant in our providing a dissenting opinion to assertions such as this, if we allow them to slip under our radar, and just go by uncontested, then some will subliminally presume them to be true.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 at 07:33, 2009-02-26

Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Calif. Sup. Ct. arguments on Prop. 8, at a glance