Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Psych Lit · Guru

RE: Check this out

nesea · Senior Member

Betty puts it all in perspective.

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

But if you want the real deal, without all the putry stuff:

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Tuesday 2nd of June 2009 08:48:15 PM

omg if forgotten how funny they were. and the scary part is that i remember groucho as old. of course now he looks very young. how can that be? lol

Hell, I'll go you one better -- I was thinkin' "Yanno? With a little eyebrow work, and minus that goofy moustache, Groucho was a pretty good lookin' guy!"

:::THUD:::

yanno he was and really, i never noticed that before.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

But if you want the real deal, without all the putry stuff:

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Tuesday 2nd of June 2009 08:48:15 PM

omg if forgotten how funny they were. and the scary part is that i remember groucho as old. of course now he looks very young. how can that be? lol

Hell, I'll go you one better -- I was thinkin' "Yanno? With a little eyebrow work, and minus that goofy moustache, Groucho was a pretty good lookin' guy!"

:::THUD:::

boxdog1031 · Veteran Member

This is a very busy looking thread. That said, Owl, if it wasd you that said what I think you said back there about that then I'm with you 100%. If it was someone else that said it, then I'm with you.

*LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country's response to the HIV pandemic.

*This just reads like it was a struggle for whoever drafted this for him. We are EVERYWHERE. I mean really. You know, like queers are part of some big freaking bang theory and just fell out of the sky one day. "Continue to make great and lasting" shyt. Jerk. You know we've been here since the beginning of time. GD-it we probably invented the wheel and figured out how to start a fire.

Terri

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

But if you want the real deal, without all the putry stuff:

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Tuesday 2nd of June 2009 08:48:15 PM

omg if forgotten how funny they were. and the scary part is that i remember groucho as old. of course now he looks very young. how can that be? lol

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

It was me. Gator

I actually knew that, and meant to say Gator. It surprises me this morning, that I didn't. Sorry. :)

Date: Wed Jun 3 4:21 AM, 2009

(And thanks for posting the proc. from the pres, BD . Owl

It was me. Gator

Date: Wed Jun 3 4:18 AM, 2009

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

-------------------------
1. Civil Unions don't "bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans."
2. Supporting something, and actually doing something to make a change, are two different things.
I'm confused as to exactly what the governmental difference is between Civil Unions and, Marriage. What rights would we not have? I have not heard so much verbal support for us from an administration in my lifetime. And, yes words are cheap. But, I still feel a wee bit hopeful and, really see so many other pressing issues being stalled as well and, can't really hold Obama solely accountable for it. I did like Hillary's words better but, also noted her tooting her horn a bit. She has had longer to establish a record with us but, with all other matters of the Country, he is still the better pick for me. (one of those you were asking where are they now. lol)
I appreciate that we now have a seated president who actually MAKES this proclaimation but talk's cheap. DOMA still stands without dispute from the Administration, as does DADT. This administration has CUT BACK on AIDS funding for Africa.
Isn't there a law suit pending? Or has it already happened? I think I read Obama has to make a decision or something by June 26th. I'm ignorant on it mostly and, not following as closely as I guess I should. Care to break it down simply for me? I hate that funding has been cut but, I am one of those heartless ones that thinks for now we need to real in Government spending on those other than ourselves. Especially when there is abuse of those funds. I know. Same here at home but, ........................Gator

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:
Maybe I'll then write a musical: "Leviticus and Me" and produce it as a church fundraiser. Maybe I'll steal the tune from Groucho's "Lydia" ...
uh huh when her robe is unfurled she will show ya da world!
It ain't Groucho, but it's close... ;)
Look inside Lydia, the Tattooed Lady - Sheet Music Plus

But if you want the real deal, without all the putry stuff:

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Tuesday 2nd of June 2009 08:48:15 PM

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

"My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States."

-------------------------
1. Civil Unions don't "bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans."
2. Supporting something, and actually doing something to make a change, are two different things.

I appreciate that we now have a seated president who actually MAKES this proclaimation but talk's cheap. DOMA still stands without dispute from the Administration, as does DADT. This administration has CUT BACK on AIDS funding for Africa.

I much prefer this statement, from a person who's actually DONE SOMETHING for GLBT people:

Secretary's Remarks: In Recognition of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month 2009
In Recognition of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month 2009
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 1, 2009
Forty years ago this month, the gay rights movement began with the Stonewall riots in New York City, as gays and lesbians demanded an end to the persecution they had long endured. Now, after decades of hard work, the fight has grown into a global movement to achieve a world in which all people live free from violence and fear, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
In honor of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and on behalf of the State Department, I extend our appreciation to the global LGBT community for its courage and determination during the past 40 years, and I offer our support for the significant work that still lies ahead.
At the State Department and throughout the Administration, we are grateful for our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees in Washington and around the world. They and their families make many sacrifices to serve our nation. Their contributions are vital to our efforts to establish stability, prosperity and peace worldwide.
Human rights are at the heart of those efforts. Gays and lesbians in many parts of the world live under constant threat of arrest, violence, even torture. The persecution of gays and lesbians is a violation of human rights and an affront to human decency, and it must end. As Secretary of State, I will advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Though the road to full equality for LGBT Americans is long, the example set by those fighting for equal rights in the United States gives hope to men and women around the world who yearn for a better future for themselves and their loved ones.
This June, let us recommit ourselves to achieving a world in which all people can live in safety and freedom, no matter who they are or whom they love.

---------------------

Amen, sister, amen.

(And thanks for posting the proc. from the pres, BD ... I didn't mean to sound unappreciative of your so doing, I'm just frustrated with this administration's position on the GLBT community, just as I was during the primary. Where ARE all those who swore up and down Obama was going to make a change, because "he said so, and I believe him"? Where ARE they, now, those people who were all over "Hillary can't say 'gay' outloud"? Come out, come out, where ever you are...

Obama's postion during the primary was clear -- he gave one, count them ONE interview to the gay press. He has been in ZERO Gay Pride marches, unlike Hillary Clinton, who marched NOT ONLY as a US Senator, but also was the first "First Lady" to so do.

I've said it before, and I'll continue saying it until it is no longer true: the ONLY thing Barack Obama has done (other than signing this piece of paper) for the GLBT community is to appoint Hillary Clinton Secretary of State. So yeah, nice speech as always, but speeches don't make me any less a second class citizen in the nation of my birth.

"I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists."

Physician, heal thy self.

("Change" my royal ...........)

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Tuesday 2nd of June 2009 08:17:37 PM

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Tuesday 2nd of June 2009 08:25:33 PM

Date: Tue Jun 2 7:45 PM, 2009

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 1, 2009

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country's response to the HIV pandemic.

Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration -- in both the White House and the Federal agencies -- openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.

The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect.

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our entire Nation. As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Don't know. I know in MI, one has to be a minister of the gospel in order to perform the sacrament end of a marriage, and apparently, there's no provision for Jewish ceremonies, which is massively confusing, but there you have it.

I have an inviation to an ordination next month AND a wedding so I may be better edumucatified after that ... I'm thinking of starting my own Pro Same-Sex Marriage church. If any of you want to get hitched, I can give you a real sweet deal, but alas, no tax breaks.

Hmmm.

Reverend Nightowlhoot3

(The three, of course, being for the trinity of the Mother, the Sun, and the Holey Hoot)

they holey hoot? lol why i ask self are visions of flip wilson going thru my mind here?

... hmmmm ...
I think one of the things I'll promote from the pulpit early on, is the protection of both marriage and children, and work on getting all my congregants to sign an intitiative to ban divorce on the ballot. Of course, in "biblical times" (which I've been hearing about a LOT lately from the Pro8ites) women couldn't get divorces anyway -- only men could. (The zealots slip right over that part... I keep having to remind them)Maybe I'll then write a musical: "Leviticus and Me" and produce it as a church fundraiser. Maybe I'll steal the tune from Groucho's "Lydia" ...
uh huh when her robe is unfurled she will show ya da world!

... and the wheels begin to spin ...

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Saturday 30th of May 2009 01:44:01 AM

nesea · Senior Member

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:
Don't know. I know in MI, one has to be a minister of the gospel in order to perform the sacrament end of a marriage, and apparently, there's no provision for Jewish ceremonies, which is massively confusing, but there you have it.

I have an inviation to an ordination next month AND a wedding so I may be better edumucatified after that ... I'm thinking of starting my own Pro Same-Sex Marriage church. If any of you want to get hitched, I can give you a real sweet deal, but alas, no tax breaks.

Hmmm.

Reverend Nightowlhoot3

(The three, of course, being for the trinity of the Mother, the Sun, and the Holey Hoot)

LOL .... truly. But I'm thinking based on the NIGHTOWL title there should be a bit of "Luna" in there somewhere. Now whether it's Lunar or Lunacy ... Well that's completely up to you.

... hmmmm ...
I think one of the things I'll promote from the pulpit early on, is the protection of both marriage and children, and work on getting all my congregants to sign an intitiative to ban divorce on the ballot. Of course, in "biblical times" (which I've been hearing about a LOT lately from the Pro8ites) women couldn't get divorces anyway -- only men could. (The zealots slip right over that part... I keep having to remind them)Maybe I'll then write a musical: "Leviticus and Me" and produce it as a church fundraiser. Maybe I'll steal the tune from Groucho's "Lydia" ...

and we realize banning divorce will increase household incidents of frying pans upside the head exponentially right?? which will increase the need for emergent care and medical supplies, which will employee more health care workers and supply manufacturers which will go a long way towards reducing unemployment.

Hell, I think you well on your way towards solving the country's economic woes.

... and the wheels begin to spin ...

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Saturday 30th of May 2009 01:44:01 AM

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Someone said "if your marriage is challenged by a decision to allow same sex marriage then your marriage was already in jeopardy". <-- bd

Excellent point. I'd go a step further, and note that if you want to take the right to marry away from people already legally granted that right, and/or hope to dissolve already existing same-sex marriages, you can hardly also hoist a "protection of marriage" flag with any credibility.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Wednesday 27th of May 2009 08:04:51 AM

The argument is crumbling, slowly, but it is. The rhetoric of "redefinition of marriage" and the realization that a wedding vow need not be tethered to a religious doctrine is beginning to sink in. Not everywhere and never with everyone. But the argument has to lose ground. I'll be damned if I die watching jihadists enjoy a larger American concern for their civil rights than I see extended to the LGBT community and their families.

BD

Maybe we should fight fire with fire: http://www.themonastery.org/

and its free? how cool. i looked up the law in mass and heres what it says

Chapter 207: Section 38 Situs; persons authorized Section 38. A marriage may be solemnized in any place within the commonwealth by the following persons who are residents of the commonwealth: a duly ordained minister of the gospel in good and regular standing with his church or denomination,
i wonder whats covered under minister of the gospel? its rather iffy.

Don't know. I know in MI, one has to be a minister of the gospel in order to perform the sacrament end of a marriage, and apparently, there's no provision for Jewish ceremonies, which is massively confusing, but there you have it.

I have an inviation to an ordination next month AND a wedding so I may be better edumucatified after that ... I'm thinking of starting my own Pro Same-Sex Marriage church. If any of you want to get hitched, I can give you a real sweet deal, but alas, no tax breaks.

Hmmm.

Reverend Nightowlhoot3

(The three, of course, being for the trinity of the Mother, the Sun, and the Holey Hoot)

... hmmmm ...

I think one of the things I'll promote from the pulpit early on, is the protection of both marriage and children, and work on getting all my congregants to sign an intitiative to ban divorce on the ballot. Of course, in "biblical times" (which I've been hearing about a LOT lately from the Pro8ites) women couldn't get divorces anyway -- only men could. (The zealots slip right over that part... I keep having to remind them)Maybe I'll then write a musical: "Leviticus and Me" and produce it as a church fundraiser. Maybe I'll steal the tune from Groucho's "Lydia" ...

... and the wheels begin to spin ...

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Saturday 30th of May 2009 01:44:01 AM

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Someone said "if your marriage is challenged by a decision to allow same sex marriage then your marriage was already in jeopardy". <-- bd

Excellent point. I'd go a step further, and note that if you want to take the right to marry away from people already legally granted that right, and/or hope to dissolve already existing same-sex marriages, you can hardly also hoist a "protection of marriage" flag with any credibility.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Wednesday 27th of May 2009 08:04:51 AM

The argument is crumbling, slowly, but it is. The rhetoric of "redefinition of marriage" and the realization that a wedding vow need not be tethered to a religious doctrine is beginning to sink in. Not everywhere and never with everyone. But the argument has to lose ground. I'll be damned if I die watching jihadists enjoy a larger American concern for their civil rights than I see extended to the LGBT community and their families.

BD

Maybe we should fight fire with fire: http://www.themonastery.org/

and its free? how cool. i looked up the law in mass and heres what it says

Chapter 207: Section 38 Situs; persons authorized Section 38. A marriage may be solemnized in any place within the commonwealth by the following persons who are residents of the commonwealth: a duly ordained minister of the gospel in good and regular standing with his church or denomination,
i wonder whats covered under minister of the gospel? its rather iffy.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Someone said "if your marriage is challenged by a decision to allow same sex marriage then your marriage was already in jeopardy". <-- bd

Excellent point. I'd go a step further, and note that if you want to take the right to marry away from people already legally granted that right, and/or hope to dissolve already existing same-sex marriages, you can hardly also hoist a "protection of marriage" flag with any credibility.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Wednesday 27th of May 2009 08:04:51 AM

The argument is crumbling, slowly, but it is. The rhetoric of "redefinition of marriage" and the realization that a wedding vow need not be tethered to a religious doctrine is beginning to sink in. Not everywhere and never with everyone. But the argument has to lose ground. I'll be damned if I die watching jihadists enjoy a larger American concern for their civil rights than I see extended to the LGBT community and their families.

BD

Maybe we should fight fire with fire: http://www.themonastery.org/

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Someone said "if your marriage is challenged by a decision to allow same sex marriage then your marriage was already in jeopardy". <-- bd

Excellent point. I'd go a step further, and note that if you want to take the right to marry away from people already legally granted that right, and/or hope to dissolve already existing same-sex marriages, you can hardly also hoist a "protection of marriage" flag with any credibility.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Wednesday 27th of May 2009 08:04:51 AM

The argument is crumbling, slowly, but it is. The rhetoric of "redefinition of marriage" and the realization that a wedding vow need not be tethered to a religious doctrine is beginning to sink in. Not everywhere and never with everyone. But the argument has to lose ground. I'll be damned if I die watching jihadists enjoy a larger American concern for their civil rights than I see extended to the LGBT community and their families.

BD

Yeah, and it's not like we haven't ALREADY "redefined marriage" in recent times -- Loving v. Virginia in '67, which overruled the inter-racial ban CLEARLY did that, and DOMA was the "DEFINITION" we're arguing at this point, really.

Date: Wed May 27 1:21 PM, 2009

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Someone said "if your marriage is challenged by a decision to allow same sex marriage then your marriage was already in jeopardy". <-- bd

Excellent point. I'd go a step further, and note that if you want to take the right to marry away from people already legally granted that right, and/or hope to dissolve already existing same-sex marriages, you can hardly also hoist a "protection of marriage" flag with any credibility.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Wednesday 27th of May 2009 08:04:51 AM

The argument is crumbling, slowly, but it is. The rhetoric of "redefinition of marriage" and the realization that a wedding vow need not be tethered to a religious doctrine is beginning to sink in. Not everywhere and never with everyone. But the argument has to lose ground. I'll be damned if I die watching jihadists enjoy a larger American concern for their civil rights than I see extended to the LGBT community and their families.

BD

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Someone said "if your marriage is challenged by a decision to allow same sex marriage then your marriage was already in jeopardy". <-- bd

Excellent point. I'd go a step further, and note that if you want to take the right to marry away from people already legally granted that right, and/or hope to dissolve already existing same-sex marriages, you can hardly also hoist a "protection of marriage" flag with any credibility.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Wednesday 27th of May 2009 08:04:51 AM

boxdog1031 · Veteran Member

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Yeah, wasn't it cool? :) I had a "flashback" -- felt as if I was in an ACLU board meeting again. :) There's something about being in the presence of (even virtually) thinkers/speakers like that that is rivetingly engaging. I adore people who say what has, essentially been dubbed "radical" things, and make them sound like the most basic common sense. :)
and thats really whats needed here to combat that sort of unconscious homophobia that the other minister is all wrapped up in. i love when he point out how incredulous he is that the other doesnt see it as a civil rights issue and yet im thinking that perhaps there is an anger there about having our issues wrapped up with the issues of the black community and how that same sort of hierarchy of humanity plays into that thinking. weve been demonized and placed on the bottom rung so its "okay" for any perceived above to step on us on the way up.

I especially liked how, when he said he didn't want his kids to find out about that in the second grade, and (although it's sort of hard to hear) Rev. Lynn said: "Tell them in the FIRST grade!" lol
that was a great line.
--is a black reverend. It's a very strong force against us, the black ministries. yeah the LDS and others are able to organize, effectively, large cash and exposure. But not enough can be said for the hundreds of thousands of small churches, Baptists, Zionists that congregate on Wed, Saturdays and Sundays with their mac and cheese luncheons and ten dollar donations. They walk among us in huge numbers, just quietly stabbing us in the backs.

And I'm not sure how we go about changing that/turning it around. I suspect it has to come from the top, and then trickle down to the various ministers, etc. who will then pass it on to their congregations, but how to get that really moving, you know?
I have mixed feelings about the whole "acceptance of GLBT people" thing, when I go to take it's American temperature. On one hand, I see more and more, younger people shrugging, and saying "So what? Big deal. Not an issue" but on the other, I see older people (not elderly, exclusively, but older than the now high school ones) becoming even MORE entrenched. I guess, in a strange way, that's a "good" thing, in that it reveals their ideology is feeling threatened with change, (perhaps, or maybe just threatened) but it does seem to be ... something which recently has generated momentum -- I would guess, in part, because of changes happening in various states. I begin to wonder if SF marriage, back whenever it was, WAS premature, in some ways, but then I hear Lynn's wise voice saying "it's never the wrong time to do the right thing" and I'm newly persuaded otherwise.

Today is the day the CA Supreme Court said they'd rule on prop 8.
im thinking that happens at 1 today. the new sc nominee was announced earlier tho. i dont think she was the lesbian contender tho i may be wrong. im wondering where she stands on this issue tho.

Well, we shouldn't be expecting any help or empathy "from the top", any time soon. But this preacher was a very relaxed, grounded speaker. He doesn't question what's in his religious or personal beliefs. He's NOT angry. I caught the First grade thing, it appeared to unsettle his peer. It's true, bottom line is Heather already has two mommies, now if you are faced with the trauma of explaining that it would make sense to me the discussion of acceptance in dicersity of relationships that are NOT going away is the safest, healthiest, most pure approach to discussing non-traditional families. Family has been changing for well over a century. Especially if that's what that particular minister continues to hide behind. Someone said "if your marriage is challenged by a decision to allow same sex marriage then your marriage was already in jeopardy".

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Yeah, wasn't it cool? :) I had a "flashback" -- felt as if I was in an ACLU board meeting again. :) There's something about being in the presence of (even virtually) thinkers/speakers like that that is rivetingly engaging. I adore people who say what has, essentially been dubbed "radical" things, and make them sound like the most basic common sense. :)
and thats really whats needed here to combat that sort of unconscious homophobia that the other minister is all wrapped up in. i love when he point out how incredulous he is that the other doesnt see it as a civil rights issue and yet im thinking that perhaps there is an anger there about having our issues wrapped up with the issues of the black community and how that same sort of hierarchy of humanity plays into that thinking. weve been demonized and placed on the bottom rung so its "okay" for any perceived above to step on us on the way up.

I especially liked how, when he said he didn't want his kids to find out about that in the second grade, and (although it's sort of hard to hear) Rev. Lynn said: "Tell them in the FIRST grade!" lol
that was a great line.
--is a black reverend. It's a very strong force against us, the black ministries. yeah the LDS and others are able to organize, effectively, large cash and exposure. But not enough can be said for the hundreds of thousands of small churches, Baptists, Zionists that congregate on Wed, Saturdays and Sundays with their mac and cheese luncheons and ten dollar donations. They walk among us in huge numbers, just quietly stabbing us in the backs.

And I'm not sure how we go about changing that/turning it around. I suspect it has to come from the top, and then trickle down to the various ministers, etc. who will then pass it on to their congregations, but how to get that really moving, you know?
I have mixed feelings about the whole "acceptance of GLBT people" thing, when I go to take it's American temperature. On one hand, I see more and more, younger people shrugging, and saying "So what? Big deal. Not an issue" but on the other, I see older people (not elderly, exclusively, but older than the now high school ones) becoming even MORE entrenched. I guess, in a strange way, that's a "good" thing, in that it reveals their ideology is feeling threatened with change, (perhaps, or maybe just threatened) but it does seem to be ... something which recently has generated momentum -- I would guess, in part, because of changes happening in various states. I begin to wonder if SF marriage, back whenever it was, WAS premature, in some ways, but then I hear Lynn's wise voice saying "it's never the wrong time to do the right thing" and I'm newly persuaded otherwise.

Today is the day the CA Supreme Court said they'd rule on prop 8.
im thinking that happens at 1 today. the new sc nominee was announced earlier tho. i dont think she was the lesbian contender tho i may be wrong. im wondering where she stands on this issue tho.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Good (short) "discussion" :) (I REALLY like this guy!)

Excellent. This guy was a refreshingly composed free thinker "he wants to cover it up". <BD

Yeah, wasn't it cool? :) I had a "flashback" -- felt as if I was in an ACLU board meeting again. :) There's something about being in the presence of (even virtually) thinkers/speakers like that that is rivetingly engaging. I adore people who say what has, essentially been dubbed "radical" things, and make them sound like the most basic common sense. :)

This guy is the founder of (and I hope I have this right) Americans United for separation of church and state, and is a United Church of Christ minister.

--------------------------

It's a great clip. Two things that struck me was the mediator avoiding what so many of the big shows do, interrupting. Secondly, the black preacher who outright mocks Heather Has Two Mommies and a second graders likelihood of finding out about reality,---

I especially liked how, when he said he didn't want his kids to find out about that in the second grade, and (although it's sort of hard to hear) Rev. Lynn said: "Tell them in the FIRST grade!" lol

--is a black reverend. It's a very strong force against us, the black ministries. yeah the LDS and others are able to organize, effectively, large cash and exposure. But not enough can be said for the hundreds of thousands of small churches, Baptists, Zionists that congregate on Wed, Saturdays and Sundays with their mac and cheese luncheons and ten dollar donations. They walk among us in huge numbers, just quietly stabbing us in the backs.

And I'm not sure how we go about changing that/turning it around. I suspect it has to come from the top, and then trickle down to the various ministers, etc. who will then pass it on to their congregations, but how to get that really moving, you know?

I have mixed feelings about the whole "acceptance of GLBT people" thing, when I go to take it's American temperature. On one hand, I see more and more, younger people shrugging, and saying "So what? Big deal. Not an issue" but on the other, I see older people (not elderly, exclusively, but older than the now high school ones) becoming even MORE entrenched. I guess, in a strange way, that's a "good" thing, in that it reveals their ideology is feeling threatened with change, (perhaps, or maybe just threatened) but it does seem to be ... something which recently has generated momentum -- I would guess, in part, because of changes happening in various states. I begin to wonder if SF marriage, back whenever it was, WAS premature, in some ways, but then I hear Lynn's wise voice saying "it's never the wrong time to do the right thing" and I'm newly persuaded otherwise.

Today is the day the CA Supreme Court said they'd rule on prop 8.

That may decide a more resolved direction for us in some ways, or at least serve as a minor barometer for the impact of recent state activity. <crossing my fingers>

Date: Tue May 26 5:46 AM, 2009

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Good (short) "discussion" :) (I REALLY like this guy!)

I like him too. We need to lift up more like Rev Harry Lynn. Gator

Date: Tue May 26 4:05 AM, 2009

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Good (short) "discussion" :) (I REALLY like this guy!)

Excellent. This guy was a refreshingly composed free thinker "he wants to cover it up". It's a great clip. Two things that struck me was the mediator avoiding what so many of the big shows do, interrupting. Secondly, the black preacher who outright mocks Heather Has Two Mommies and a second graders likelihood of finding out about reality, is a black reverend. It's a very strong force against us, the black ministries. yeah the LDS and others are able to organize, effectively, large cash and exposure. But not enough can be said for the hundreds of thousands of small churches, Baptists, Zionists that congregate on Wed, Saturdays and Sundays with their mac and cheese luncheons and ten dollar donations. They walk among us in huge numbers, just quietly stabbing us in the backs.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Good (short) "discussion" :) (I REALLY like this guy!)

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

and did you see meghan mccains editorial on marriage equality and the future of the republican party? maybe john mccain will try again in 4 years?
Egad. I don't mean to sound ageist, but isn't a 77 year old newly elected president just asking for trouble? Reagan was "only" 69 when he was elected...

I think he's grooming Mehgan to eventually take over his senate seat.

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

:) "The best defense ... " IMO, he knows he's in deep nonnie nonnie boo-boo, and is trying this revisionist campaign to protect his behind.

i think this is the best bet here
-------------------------

Did you catch Colin Powell's zinger? "Mr. Cheney is ill-informed." LOL.

Seems the battle for the GOP has begun -- the moderates v. the far right. Will be interesting to watch. Unfortunately, the only one in the whole mix who might actually be on the ticket in four years is Newt, who I just wanna b-word slap every time I see his mug. But the extreme right is vamping it up, and gainin' steam. Choice, GLBT equality... pick your sides; pick your GOP. Who knows who will win? They're sure gettin' feisty, though...

and did you see meghan mccains editorial on marriage equality and the future of the republican party? maybe john mccain will try again in 4 years?

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

:) "The best defense ... " IMO, he knows he's in deep nonnie nonnie boo-boo, and is trying this revisionist campaign to protect his behind.

i think this is the best bet here
-------------------------

Did you catch Colin Powell's zinger? "Mr. Cheney is ill-informed." LOL.

Seems the battle for the GOP has begun -- the moderates v. the far right. Will be interesting to watch. Unfortunately, the only one in the whole mix who might actually be on the ticket in four years is Newt, who I just wanna b-word slap every time I see his mug. But the extreme right is vamping it up, and gainin' steam. Choice, GLBT equality... pick your sides; pick your GOP. Who knows who will win? They're sure gettin' feisty, though...

Date: Sun May 24 8:46 PM, 2009

Psych Lit wrote:

-----------------------

Yep. It's scary what the Catholic Church has accomplished with a ton of money and focus. (And I say that not as a slam against the Catholic Church, but just from the perspective of where the major effort is emerging.)
i saw that article and wondered how much immigration and the aging of the population had to do with those figures?
---------------------------

That was my exact thought. Specifically, the international Catholic converts and the Caribbean Catholics that have blended their social behaviors with the Catholic religion to form a very strong anti-gay alliance. A quiet, unwavering one.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

-------------------------

He exists, in more than our nightmares. And really, during a point in time when we are on the verge of seeing another vote em all out midterm election. This time it's going to be the dems.< BD

Eh? I don't know ... I think this recession is going to take a turn for the better, and may be pretty much over around the end of the year, and that's going to turn a lot of people's heads around.

-----------------------

Now this interests me immensely. Economists on all sides seem pretty much in agreement that this will not do that.

Agreed. I misspoke. What I meant, really, was that I think there will be concrete signs of its going the other way. It will be "better" by then. I know it'll take years to actually reverse damage done.

Date: Sun May 24 8:38 PM, 2009

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

boxdog1031 wrote:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the climate remains similar for Cheney to somehow emerge as THE face of the republican party. He is distancing himself from Bush, not the policies per se, but from the administration in a masterful way.< BD

You think? Seems to me, every time he opens his mouth, people hear GW Bush's voice.
------------------

He's making the radio and television rounds like never before. <BD

:) "The best defense ... " IMO, he knows he's in deep nonnie nonnie boo-boo, and is trying this revisionist campaign to protect his behind.

-------------------------

He exists, in more than our nightmares. And really, during a point in time when we are on the verge of seeing another vote em all out midterm election. This time it's going to be the dems.< BD

Eh? I don't know ... I think this recession is going to take a turn for the better, and may be pretty much over around the end of the year, and that's going to turn a lot of people's heads around.

-----------------------

Pelosi is going to have a damning effect on the democratic majority if she does not step down from her Speakers position for her blundering account and misspoken, poorly recalled, probable lying in regards to her knowledge of the "torture" discussions back in 2003. I wouldn't be surprised if, at a time when it appears the general public has shifted it's support AWAY from a pro-choice stance, <BD

Yep. It's scary what the Catholic Church has accomplished with a ton of money and focus. (And I say that not as a slam against the Catholic Church, but just from the perspective of where the major effort is emerging.)

---------------------------

Cheney may well emerge as the next potus. Him, his cat, his closeted wife AND their invisible queer daughter.

Heh. His invisible queer MARRIED daughter with a child. :) And you don't think that ALONE would be enough do him in, when it comes to "real"power within the GOP? Oh, wait ... I forgot about Sarah "I considered abortion, and then made the CHOICE not to have it" Palin, with her "I considered abstaining from pre-marital sex but made the CHOICE not to embrace it" daughter. The GOP does seem to almost flaunt it's penchant for welcoming blind spots, doesn't it. And see? That's the thing that "gets" me most, really. "Right" has come to mean, for the most part: "MY WAY is RIGHT, and the ONLY RIGHT way and should apply to EVERYONE" but then when those who boast about their piety get busted for playing footsie in bathroom stalls, or something, they too become "invisible" as if the indiscretion (and they) never happened. The whole tele-evangalist-as-secret-sinner thing encapsulates it. Democrats ALSO have human frailities, of course, but they (speaking generally, as per party stance) don't make the same kind of judgmental condemnations about it. I'm not explaining myself well ... there are gay and lesbiain people in BOTH parties. Democrats say: "Yup, we've got gay and lesbian people." Republicans seem to say: "Nope. We don't cotton to those folk." Then, when it emerges that one of their most aggressive anti-GLBT legislators is busted for ... well, I'm not going to get into Larry Craig et. al's stuff, but it happens. Happens over, and over and OVER and over again. And then? Nothing. Public mea culpa (not on Craig's part, but others) and then it's over with and forgotten -- return to your regular programming. This would be okay with me, were it not for the fact that the regular programming is preaching about how "those people" are sinners, destined to destroy (or take over, as I read yesterday) the country, and MUST be stopped.

She's NOT married. Neither her home state of VA ( with a constitutional BAN on gay marriage) or her long time second home of Colorado offer, allow or are likely ever to condone gay marriage. Heather Poe will never have a state or federal right to any "say" in how or what the best interest of that young boy is. Not in this lifetime, not with the issue continually being kicked back to the states. And especially not if Mary Cheney continues to live her life as a queer republican in hateful states. I may or not, stand alone in this opinion but I don't believe that flying off to a gay marriage friendly state then flying, or walking, running, whatever back to your own unfriendly, illegal state makes for a valid marriage. I appreciate greatly each individual state that is taking the long overdue steps toward equality and basic civil rights in this area. However, until all states are on the same damn page, none really matter. Not to me.

Date: Sun May 24 8:24 PM, 2009

-------------------------

He exists, in more than our nightmares. And really, during a point in time when we are on the verge of seeing another vote em all out midterm election. This time it's going to be the dems.< BD

Eh? I don't know ... I think this recession is going to take a turn for the better, and may be pretty much over around the end of the year, and that's going to turn a lot of people's heads around.

-----------------------

Now this interests me immensely. Economists on all sides seem pretty much in agreement that this will not do that. I'm pretty sure BO himself just last month or so said a couple of years, maybe. His signing legislation such as mandating interest be applied to credit purchases from the minute a card is swiped is going to crush E-commerce alone, it penalizes consumers that actually use their credit cards for purposes other than to amass debt. The ones that pay the purchase off by the (former) due date. Effectively we will now begin paying interest (for internet sales/purchases) BEFORE we even have them in hand. Once again we cater to the big banks and pad their pockets with more of our money. Compound just these couple of things with 12-1500 auto dealerships closing mid June, the parts delivery companies that wont be needed for those dealers, the gas stations that won't need to fill their tanks and on...the sales, clerical and mechanical employees? This depression isn't going anywhere. Certainly not by the end of the year. What has happened though this first half of the first year is that the national debt has been quadrupled. Where'd the money go? And the summer, not going to be a whole lot of family road trips for the predicted average of 10% unemployed at 4/5 bucks a gallon.

T

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

:) "The best defense ... " IMO, he knows he's in deep nonnie nonnie boo-boo, and is trying this revisionist campaign to protect his behind.

i think this is the best bet here
-------------------------

Eh? I don't know ... I think this recession is going to take a turn for the better, and may be pretty much over around the end of the year, and that's going to turn a lot of people's heads around.
heres the thing that galls me. gitmo. the previous administration didnt have an exit strategy for this one either and so this gets added to the list of impossible problems. i think gitmo should be closed tho i really dont know what is to be done with the people who have been held there. if they werent previously inclined toward terror they prolly are now locked up with those who are and so now what? we charge them and put them in the prisons to maybe make some new recruits out of the muslim brotherhood, inject them into the main organized prison criminal system giving them access to the outside world and if those 4 or 5 real perps had been initially charged and sent to prison for life the problem would be small but how many fired up people are we holding in gitmo? or worse what do we do with those people held when there is insufficient reason to charge them with a crime who've been exposed to the radicalism of those who are the real deal and now prolly are a threat? what a mess.
-----------------------

Yep. It's scary what the Catholic Church has accomplished with a ton of money and focus. (And I say that not as a slam against the Catholic Church, but just from the perspective of where the major effort is emerging.)
i saw that article and wondered how much immigration and the aging of the population had to do with those figures?
---------------------------

Heh. His invisible queer MARRIED daughter with a child. :) And you don't think that ALONE would be enough do him in, when it comes to "real"power within the GOP? Oh, wait ... I forgot about Sarah "I considered abortion, and then made the CHOICE not to have it" Palin, with her "I considered abstaining from pre-marital sex but made the CHOICE not to embrace it" daughter. The GOP does seem to almost flaunt it's penchant for welcoming blind spots, doesn't it. And see? That's the thing that "gets" me most, really. "Right" has come to mean, for the most part: "MY WAY is RIGHT, and the ONLY RIGHT way and should apply to EVERYONE" but then when those who boast about their piety get busted for playing footsie in bathroom stalls, or something, they too become "invisible" as if the indiscretion (and they) never happened. The whole tele-evangalist-as-secret-sinner thing encapsulates it. Democrats ALSO have human frailities, of course, but they (speaking generally, as per party stance) don't make the same kind of judgmental condemnations about it. I'm not explaining myself well ... there are gay and lesbiain people in BOTH parties. Democrats say: "Yup, we've got gay and lesbian people." Republicans seem to say: "Nope. We don't cotton to those folk." Then, when it emerges that one of their most aggressive anti-GLBT legislators is busted for ... well, I'm not going to get into Larry Craig et. al's stuff, but it happens. Happens over, and over and OVER and over again. And then? Nothing. Public mea culpa (not on Craig's part, but others) and then it's over with and forgotten -- return to your regular programming. This would be okay with me, were it not for the fact that the regular programming is preaching about how "those people" are sinners, destined to destroy (or take over, as I read yesterday) the country, and MUST be stopped.
i think the difference is in what happens next. if a dem gets caught they may say yeah so what? whats it to you? where the ted whats his name and the larry craigs of the world will pray on it blame it on demons and ask forgiveness all the while vowing to be more careful the next time.

Psych Lit · Guru

boxdog1031 wrote:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the climate remains similar for Cheney to somehow emerge as THE face of the republican party.
i wondered about this too. tho i think his health issues have prevented him from going for the gold in the past not to mention that hes a bit long in the tooth for office. i really do think tho that hes a bit worried about having to do a lil jail time in danbury.

He is distancing himself from Bush, not the policies per se, but from the administration in a masterful way. He's making the radio and television rounds like never before. He exists, in more than our nightmares. And really, during a point in time when we are on the verge of seeing another vote em all out midterm election. This time it's going to be the dems. Pelosi is going to have a damning effect on the democratic majority if she does not step down from her Speakers position for her blundering account and misspoken, poorly recalled, probable lying in regards to her knowledge of the "torture" discussions back in 2003.
i dunno. i dont like nancy pelosi, never have, shes too much finger in the wind pol and this latest does put her in a bad light. doesnt do much for the repubs who've latched onto it either. makes them appear desparate. while it moves the attention away for a bit it will come back to the real substance of who ordered what when and the more they draw attention to this and articulate it as criminal activity the more they will have to account for later. pelosi will wiggle here i think. if the info she had was classified then she wouldnt have been allowed to challenge it and as of now its a cia said she said thing which looks bad for both. if she werent so smarmy id likely not believe it but im thinking it could go either way here.

I wouldn't be surprised if, at a time when it appears the general public has shifted it's support AWAY from a pro-choice stance, Cheney may well emerge as the next potus. Him, his cat, his closeted wife AND their invisible queer daughter.
shudder

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

boxdog1031 wrote:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the climate remains similar for Cheney to somehow emerge as THE face of the republican party. He is distancing himself from Bush, not the policies per se, but from the administration in a masterful way.< BD

You think? Seems to me, every time he opens his mouth, people hear GW Bush's voice.
------------------

He's making the radio and television rounds like never before. <BD

:) "The best defense ... " IMO, he knows he's in deep nonnie nonnie boo-boo, and is trying this revisionist campaign to protect his behind.

-------------------------

He exists, in more than our nightmares. And really, during a point in time when we are on the verge of seeing another vote em all out midterm election. This time it's going to be the dems.< BD

Eh? I don't know ... I think this recession is going to take a turn for the better, and may be pretty much over around the end of the year, and that's going to turn a lot of people's heads around.

-----------------------

Pelosi is going to have a damning effect on the democratic majority if she does not step down from her Speakers position for her blundering account and misspoken, poorly recalled, probable lying in regards to her knowledge of the "torture" discussions back in 2003. I wouldn't be surprised if, at a time when it appears the general public has shifted it's support AWAY from a pro-choice stance, <BD

Yep. It's scary what the Catholic Church has accomplished with a ton of money and focus. (And I say that not as a slam against the Catholic Church, but just from the perspective of where the major effort is emerging.)

---------------------------

Cheney may well emerge as the next potus. Him, his cat, his closeted wife AND their invisible queer daughter.

Heh. His invisible queer MARRIED daughter with a child. :) And you don't think that ALONE would be enough do him in, when it comes to "real"power within the GOP? Oh, wait ... I forgot about Sarah "I considered abortion, and then made the CHOICE not to have it" Palin, with her "I considered abstaining from pre-marital sex but made the CHOICE not to embrace it" daughter. The GOP does seem to almost flaunt it's penchant for welcoming blind spots, doesn't it. And see? That's the thing that "gets" me most, really. "Right" has come to mean, for the most part: "MY WAY is RIGHT, and the ONLY RIGHT way and should apply to EVERYONE" but then when those who boast about their piety get busted for playing footsie in bathroom stalls, or something, they too become "invisible" as if the indiscretion (and they) never happened. The whole tele-evangalist-as-secret-sinner thing encapsulates it. Democrats ALSO have human frailities, of course, but they (speaking generally, as per party stance) don't make the same kind of judgmental condemnations about it. I'm not explaining myself well ... there are gay and lesbiain people in BOTH parties. Democrats say: "Yup, we've got gay and lesbian people." Republicans seem to say: "Nope. We don't cotton to those folk." Then, when it emerges that one of their most aggressive anti-GLBT legislators is busted for ... well, I'm not going to get into Larry Craig et. al's stuff, but it happens. Happens over, and over and OVER and over again. And then? Nothing. Public mea culpa (not on Craig's part, but others) and then it's over with and forgotten -- return to your regular programming. This would be okay with me, were it not for the fact that the regular programming is preaching about how "those people" are sinners, destined to destroy (or take over, as I read yesterday) the country, and MUST be stopped.

boxdog1031 · Veteran Member

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the climate remains similar for Cheney to somehow emerge as THE face of the republican party. He is distancing himself from Bush, not the policies per se, but from the administration in a masterful way. He's making the radio and television rounds like never before. He exists, in more than our nightmares. And really, during a point in time when we are on the verge of seeing another vote em all out midterm election. This time it's going to be the dems. Pelosi is going to have a damning effect on the democratic majority if she does not step down from her Speakers position for her blundering account and misspoken, poorly recalled, probable lying in regards to her knowledge of the "torture" discussions back in 2003. I wouldn't be surprised if, at a time when it appears the general public has shifted it's support AWAY from a pro-choice stance, Cheney may well emerge as the next potus. Him, his cat, his closeted wife AND their invisible queer daughter.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

If it's real ... (which I'm not sure I can bring myself to believe) this is some sick stuff

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Wednesday 20th of May 2009 03:17:53 PM

wait...these photos from abu ghraib are on the cover of these things? do we know what the dates on them are? is this before or after they were made public? how does this fit in with denials and the sacrificing of janis karpinski?

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

and btw did anyone see the cover letters for the war updates given to bush. apparently they were set in biblical themes and used by rummy to convince bush that he was gods warrior in this.
it gets curiouser and curiouser

If it's real ... (which I'm not sure I can bring myself to believe) this is some sick stuff

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Wednesday 20th of May 2009 03:17:53 PM

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

(Well, a girl can dream, can't she?)

dicks looking rather fit these days. heh. ive been listening to his daughters on the media trail this week and the one thing that keeps coming thru is the apparent big fear that dad is gonna do some time for his behavior. i think this is also the reason cheneys been so vocal. all of which leads me to wonder what else went on that we dont yet know for them to have that level of concern. and btw did anyone see the cover letters for the war updates given to bush. apparently they were set in biblical themes and used by rummy to convince bush that he was gods warrior in this.
it gets curiouser and curiouser

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

(Well, a girl can dream, can't she?) wink

Psych Lit · Guru

pretty amazing and most have come to pass. i wonder what we'd see if they were to do an updated version of this now?

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

From 1993