Booker? Jeez. Boomer. Sorry.
Yes. Here is their reply:
Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. You can find a description of
the Chicago 1972 convention in Laud Humprhey’s book, Out of the Closets
(prentice-hall, 1972. pp162-168).
I have a hard copy of “The Overhauling Of Straight America” from Guide
Magazine.
wishing you well…
Ke Akua me ke Aloha! (God bless you.)
Mike Gabbard
SPHI
P.O. Box 27843
Honolulu, HI 96827
808-523-7739
FAX 808-523-2859
It just so happens I have that book. Let me take a look.
Huh. I’ll be switched. There it is. The website edited it somewhat, to maximize what they think is a negative impression, but it’s there. Still, IMHO none of these constitute “special rights” as none of them would entail legislation or executive orders giving gay people rights or protections that str8 people wouldn’t also receive or already have. The website neglects to mention that the points dealing with number of partners in marital units and age of consent repeal were amended (although the book doesn’t state what the amendments were).
While there was a document created by this organization, it seems intellectually dishonest of these people to be flogging it 28 years later as if it were something that the gay communities consider significant today. I think the fact that of the more than a dozen books I have on the history of the modern gay movement, only one mentions this apparently ad hoc group and its “agenda” indicates that the group and the “agenda” had no national or even regional significance.
Oh, I never doubted the list existed, I just doubted its legitimacy - as Otto and I have already pointed out, the list is not only 28 years out of date, but it was hardly reputable to begin with.
So, got anything else for us, Boomer, or has your attitude changed a bit about this topic as well? {fingers crossed}
Esprix
Actually, historically marriage was a means to gain property. You marry a woman to take on her dowry, the bigger the dowry the better chance a woman had of being married. There need not be love involved.
It was because the worldly taint to marriages that the Roman Catholic Chruch did not sanctify them until the 1200s. In fact, the ideal situation for any church member was to remain chaste throughout their lifetime. Those who married we viewed as still be faithful, but not as faithful as monks, nuns, and priests who were truly showing a devotion to God.
Also, marriage has not historically been a protection for women. Ever hear of the Rule of Thumb? That was the law that stated that a husband could not beat his wife with anything that was wider than his thumb. Ironically, this was consider a protective law for women because it curtailed what a husband could do. A marriage may have provided a woman with security, but it did not guarantee that she would be protected. Ask Anne Bolyen if marriage served as protection from being beheaded.
Likewise, if you want to get into other traditional cultures (eg. Chinese or Roman) a father had certain legal rights and among those was the right to kill his children if they disobeyed, etc.
Also, gays in this country currently can have a religious marriage ceremony. Reform Rabbis, Unitarians, Metropolitans, and some Baptists, etc. all offer religious marriage ceremonies. Nor will Prop 22 or DOMA provide any protection for churches that they don’t already have in the Bill of Rights. No government or individual can force any church to perform any marriage they don’t want to perform.
What this is all about is civil marriage which currently in this country are seen as providing protection for husbands, wives, and children. They are also intended to encourage monogamy which tends to provide a more stable society. By getting married an alien spouse can recive naturalized citizenship or a green card.
When the government does not extend this protection to gay couples it violates certain “equal application of the laws and privileges”. This principle can be found in most state constitutions (which is why the Vermont Supreme Court found that current marriage benefits were unconstitutional and stated that to be compliant with teh state constitution equal benfits needed to be extended to same sex partners. This principle can also be found in the 14th Amendment, which on the surface speaks only to blacks, but in practice has been extended to all Americans.
Contrary to popular belief gay couples do have children, yet the government offers no protections and aid to them. Nor does the government currently encourage monogamy between same sex partners. Though despite the official stamp of approval gays do have long term relationships. Recently a serach was done by a group sponsoring the March on Washington. They wanted to find gay couples that had been together the longest. The gay and lesbian couples that won each had 40+ years of commitment. I also know two couples who have been together 15 years and 10 years together, respectively.
I am not asking for special rights. I am only asking that government look at its current stance on same sex marriages and provide a compelling interest why I should not be allowed to marry the person I love.
I understand that the government does not give rights. They are inherent. I believe that also. However, I also believe that the government is currently trying to curtail my inherent rights and exalt others’ inherent rights into a higher position. Legislation would bring everyone’s rights into equal consderation.
Sorry to be jumping in at such a late point…
A side note in the orientation vs. preference element.
Just because something is not genetically determined does not mean that it is not biologically determined. If I administer a course of testosterone into a genetically female fetus (XX), she will develop a penis. It is different than her genetic sex, but it is still a biological determination.
If I administer Thalidomide during prenatal development, the child may not develop arms and/or legs. The genetic code requested arms and legs, but the drug interfered with that request.
Now, I favor the research that supports the contention that prenatal hormone levels are responsible for determing the sex of the brain. This research would suggest that the homosexual (male) brain is sex-typed as male, except for the portion that determines sexual orientation [default condition of all brains - desire males, add testosterone - desire female]. Female homosexuals would have a female brain except for the sexual orientation portion which would have received an hormonal instruction to switch to desire females.
Regardless of my research, just because there is not a genetic component does not mean that there is not a biological component.