It is really sad to see people trying to hurt minorities, and to watch the USA continue head down a very disturbing path.
I agree. This, unfortunately, includes members of my own family :smack: .
Did I mention that I don’t much like Michigan lately?
Denial of equal rights based on bromeliad preference is immoral!
(walks in a small circle in front of the white house in his best suit)
Me.
You know, just a thought before you start talking about deviancy:
There are more women then men.
There are more straight women than gay or bi women.
Ergo, the default, normal, natural position of humanity is to like the cock.
Therefore, straight men are deviants.
Well, most of us knew that already, but still.
Or, you can abandon the rather stupid notion that the sexual preference of the majority should have weight to anyone but people selling us porn.
You know, one of these days we’ll be able to discuss the love, commitment, and civil rights of two adult human beings without bringing child rape or guys screwing sheep into it. Or is there something you’re not telling us?
I foresee a long, fruitful career for you here, and I’m sure you’ll make lots and lots of friends.
My employer (Staples office supply store chain) allows domestic partners to be covered as dependents under all insurance policies. I don’t see any benefit to anyone by denying such coverage rights, honestly.
Damn, what kinda shit did the cat drag in now?
And why not, pray tell? If my employer, a private company, wishes to provide insurance to the ten bums who sleep on the grates outside, they can do so. If my employer, a private company, wishes to provide insurance to the non-legally-married partners of their employees, it is now unconstitutional in the state of Oklahoma. What fucking kind of sense does that make, Clodhopper?
Think so? That right is an automatic benefit of marriage. The amendment in my state “prohibits giving the benefits of marriage to people who are not married”. Last I checked, the Constitution trumps other laws - that makes medical decision proxies unconstitutional. Unless some screaming hump decides the constitution only applies to sinners or sumpin’ - wouldn’t be surprised to see that happen these days.
Hey, Bricker, what is your beef with the Mass Supreme Court? It seems pretty clear - their constitution says that discrimination based on sex isn’t allowed. It is easily shown that the marriage laws were discriminatory. They did their jobs, and that is ALL. Yeah, I know - they shoulda put a multi-year hold on enforcing the law, to give all the bigots a chance to change it first, because enforcing the law should be a popularity contest. Ya know, you keep claiming that you don’t like judicial activism. Well, if postponing the enforcement of the constitution in order to cater to bigots doesn’t qualify as ‘judicial activism’, then what does?
Clothahump is a disgusting piece of filth.
I have no idea whether Clothahump gives two hoots in hell for my opinion.
Neither do I care.
Clothahump is a worthless piece of trash and I hope bad things happen to him/her until such time as s/he stops being a heap of human garbage.
Fuck Cothahump and the evil fuckers who taught him/her to believe the evil things s/he posted here.
And since the majority (women) have the biological capability to carry a baby to term means all men are deviants.
Otto, I know this is a very personal issue with you, so I want to tread lightly asking this. Given that MI and OR both went Kerry, yet heavily favored the bans, how is it reconconciled to blame Conservatives for the bans in those two states? I’ve been wondering this since election day when it was said the ‘fundie’ Bush voters voted hate.
I’m honestly curious about the take in the gay community.
It’s sad to see that the fight against ignorance and bigotry has made so little headway since 1973, even in the face of such brilliant rhetoric as can be found in these forums. Some people, like something-or-other-hump (well, you got the hump part right) will never “get it.” Who is s/he to decide what’s deviant? And acceptance of committed gay relationships is in no way analogous to acceptance of bestiality or pedophilia, you ignorant fuck.
I dunno. I sort of figure that if she was forced to do something there would have been a court ruling against her. She could very well maintain that the negotiated contract is valid and wait for a court ruling to say she’s wrong. We are talking simply about providing health benefits to a designated associate, which is negotiated in the contract, not necessarily claiming that the two people have any sort of defined civil union. At least, one could argue it in court, IF somebody decided to file suit over the benefits.
Instead, she’s tanking the benefits first then waiting for a court to reverse it. Chickenshit, if you ask me.
It has nothing to do with the “radical right”. They might be the most vocal group, but I have yet to see any sort of poll that is more than about 1/3 in favor of SSM. This country is not 65% “radical right”, is it? There’s more to it than just blaming some ultra-conservative religious cranks.
No it’s not. It’s alive and well and running free. Michigan is just the first example. You can count on there being more to come.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but you sound like you are looking forward to more backlash.
A question. How can the governor just strip one part out of a negotiated contract? Can’t the other party to the contract (the union) consider the contract void now?
You’re wrong. I’m saying that it’s inevitable, but I’m not at all happy about it. I think it’s bullshit. I’m not quite sure how you could get any sort of happiness out of what I said, though. 
I usualy read threads like this one without mixing myself in the debates, because
a) I am not a US citizen
b) I am not homosexual
c) Islamic nations - like mine is - aren’t the beacon of civil- or other rights for homosexuals
d) I don’t see the use of bringing up the laws in the homeland of my mother,where same sex marriage (= as understood in civil mariage) is no problem at all anymore. Everyone knows that the so called “Land of the Free and Equal Opportunities” once again can take an example at how European nations deal with an issue.
But the posts of this member really asks for a reply
No. It should be ovbious that in a nation like the USA nobody should need to be afraid for becoming sick because there is no way he/she can pay the bills. A social security system based on solidarity via a variety of tax systems is indeed something US citizens can only dream of.
What is to you a “deviant sexual habit” ?
Talking about “normal” and “abnormal” starting from a narrow minded self centered view like you do gives homosexuals the same right = They can equally make the conclusion that heteros are abnormal deviants.
So what do yo think: are you a deviant for being hetero?
If you think not, then why would someone for whom being homosexual is in line with his own normal self have a reason to think about himself as being “abnormal” and “deviant”?
Do you think there would be objections to this coming from the sheep or what is the reasoning and the fear behind this weird remark?
Well, isn’t democracy all about trying to get your view being recognized and hence gather a majority vote behind an attempt to make it protected/supported/recognized under the Law?
Can you explain how someone who’s sexual orientation is described and recognized as a disease - while the practice of this sexual orientation is a crime under the Nation’s Law- can get this disease become the norm of a whole nation and the crime of practicing that sexual orientation a right protected by Law?
Do you think the Lobby of Pedophiles is already that strong in the USA or do you have other reasons to be so concerned about this.
Salaam. A
Then I stand happily corrected.
However, one of the more unsettling aspects of the Michigan proposal is that it was sold as an anti-same sex marriage amendment that wouldn’t affect domestic partner benefits and so forth (see my post above). However, now that the proposal has passed, it’s being used to deny same sex benefits, which is exactly what this thread is all about. And the public in general has a different view of domestic partnerships than gay marriage. See this poll (pdf) for example. The population opposes SSM by a factor of 60/30, but supports a “legal agreement with many of the same rights as marriage” 50/45. And, in this case (in the OP, I mean), we’re not even talking about a legal agreement with many of the same rights as marriage, we’re talking about health care coverage. Period. I’m willing to bet that public support of domestic partner healthcare (a very limited issue) is pretty high.
And on a different subject: I don’t think you guys are being fair to Bricker. I think his point is this: Winning recognition for same sex marriages is not a series of battles. It’s a war. And in a war, the outcomes of individual battles effect the next battle.
And while it’s great that the Massachusetts SC ruled the way they did, from a pragmatic point of view, that might not have been the right result to ensure the best long-term outcome, if the entirely predictable backlash entrenches anti-gay laws in multiple states. To extend the analogy, a case where winning a smaller tactical advantage would better the long-term strategic goals.
So from a dispassionate, pragmatic viewpoint, wouldn’t it have been better for the Mass SC to rule opposite the way they did? In which case, presumably, the SSM issue would be farther ahead, in total, than it is right now.
While it is true that a majority of the country supports the evil of marriage discrimination, it is equally true that a majority of the country supports some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples. It was not the “no marriage but legal recognition” portion of the populace which agitated for these amendments. It was the backwards, ignorant bible-banging assholes who turned it into an issue, whipping up the fear and forcing the amendments onto the ballots. The people who voted for one of these amendments get a big “fuck you” but the people who fear-mongered to get them on the ballots in the first place and lied about their intent in putting them there get a massively bigger “fuck you.”
What I meant was that Bricker has adequately expressed his loathing for the MA SJC decision and pointed enough gleeful fingers going “see? see? look right there, it’s backlash!” that further expressions are unnecessary. We get it already.
And believe me, I’m well aware that there will be more and more instances of evil as a result of these amendments until such time as (knock on wood) they are stricken from the books as the disgusting denials of equality that they are.