And, NO, I didn’t intend my post to be taken literally. It was meant as a sign of exasperation with the smallminded bigots who run my state legislature.
I keep forgetting that some of the less intelligent posters here need historical footnotes, explanations of rhetorical figures, and links to m-w.com for some of the words longer than one syllable.
And I’m not a left-winger. I’m a libertarian who despises GOP fascists and Democratic appeasers equally.
Duffer, give gobear a break on this one. It was just an expression of frustration.
I’m as right-wing as they come, but this is an overreaction.
And, point of fact, Hitler did make gay prisoners wear pink triangles in the concentration camps. So the statement wasn’t such a strange one to my ears.
gobear you’re losing me here. I generally agree with you on the more rational issues. I disagree on the “gay-rights” issues simply because the gay crowd equates them to racial problems King fought for. Different thing.
I’m a Republican. Your last post inferred I’m a facist. It’s no secret that libs like to use “neo-con” in an attempt to turn it into the same as “neo-NAZI”. What the hell, the attention span of an American is as long as a commercial break during Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
You called me a facist. (By default, since I’m GOP). You’ve done a lot for your cause.
I hope we can reconcile, but you’ll probably never know how offended I am by this statement. I have a few family members that would be turning in thier graves if they heard this. Quit using labels to promote your cause unless they apply.
Your party promotes anti-gay hate at every opportunity, and the leader of your partry has proposed a Constitutional amendment aimed at depriving civil liberties specifically from gay people.
The GOP is not the GOP of your ancestors. That’s a party I would have joined. The party run by Bush, Rove, and Delay in 2004 is fascist, racist, and homophobic. Don’t like it? Quit and join the Libertarians, the only true conservative party, as opposed to the authoritarian GOP, in the US. (no modal logic required).
I was a loyal Republican for most of my adult life in New York State, where it represented a party devoted to sensible but not excessive levels of regulation, smaller government, intelligent investment of government funds to spark economic development, and a thoughtful progressive conservatism with which I could identify.
The Republican Party in North Carolina seems to have a policy of (a) enable big business to make more money – at the expense of anyone else, (b) protect the fiscal stability of their suburban and rural-business support base, © promote conservative evangelical Christianity and to Hell with the First Amendment, and (d) encourage intolerance if not downright hatred of anyone different from the majority. (And it appears to get worse further south.)
Hence I’ve become a strong Democrat – not that I agree with everything the Democratic Party stands or has historically stood for, but at least it makes a passable attempt to stand for American freedoms. (And yeah, we have a Libertarian Party here – and they’ve elected one guy to a Soil Conservation board, and been responsible for the election of a few Republicans by siphoning off votes that would otherwise have gone to Democrats. So I’m not thrilled about them.)
Since I’m in reply mode, I can’t see where you’re from, duffer – but it’s possible you may be supporting decent Republicans – they do exist; I have nothing but praise for Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R.-N.Y.) and one or two other folks. But you should take a good look at what your party stands for in other regions of the country, and be repelled.
No need to apologize, jellyblue. These threads have a way of being wide-ranging.
Regarding the above, my impression was that the law would interfere with corporate provisions for domestic partner insurance, but I could be wrong. Even NPR can’t devote enough time to a single story to do this justice.
OK, first paragraph. Equating gays to blacks is wrong. Yes, it is. Martin King Jr. was trying to get civil rights for blacks to get such basic rights as drinking from the same bubblers as whites. He is credited also with furthering the blacks in America in such arenas as protesting, voting, and not being denied a job because of race. (These are all rights given gays)
2nd paragraph. You again call me a NAZI. You have helped me not to abandon your basic cause. But considering what blacks have done to advance themselves in society, I suspect that conservatives may have a reason to feel proud. After all, it was the Republicans that pushed the ERA through Congress. With heavy opposition from Al Gore, SR. If that matters to you.
In short, gays have civil rights. The same civil rights we all have. Civil rights don’t apply to whom you sleep with. If that were the case, singles wouldn’t have any civil rights.
Unless you want to use civil rights to further your political agenda.
Polycarp, thanks for recognizing I’m a Republican and not insulting my mother, nice change from the norm. I’ll counter your reply with this (without spamming the hampsters with snipping). I’m in North Dakota. If you’re not looking for a farm subsidy or free meds from Medicare, our Senators don’t care. (Dorgan and Conrad). If you’re a 30-something looking for work that can afford to pay the outrageous property taxes, more power to you. But you’ll be paying for it. Bush’ tax cut? Yes, it helped us out tremendously.
FWIW, a Guardsman that is coming home to this area is the son of a friend of mine, and he wants to go back. He knows the good we’re doing, even if noone else does.
No, they are not. Gay people have zero Federal protection against job discrimination because of sexual orientation; black people do. Firing a gay person because he’s gay is perfectly legal in most state and municipal juridictions.
Either you’re a bad liar or illiterate. Nowhere did I say, “Duffer is a Nazi”. I did call the Gop fascist. “Fascist” is not syonymous with Nazi, but given your lack of historical knowledge, I’m not surprised at your error. Fascism (from Mussolini’s Fascisti is a political philosophy that embraces authoritarian rule, rigid economic control, and uses violence and propaganda to silence the opposition. The GOP is a fascist, (OK, proto-fascist) party.
What the Sam Hill are you talking about? The Equal Rights Amendment was strongly opposed by the GOP and dies in 1982 after failure to be ratified by 2/3 of the states.
Or do you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Those were supported by the liberals of both parties and signed into law by a Democrat, LBJ.
[quote]
In short, gays have civil rights. The same civil rights we all have. Civil rights don’t apply to whom you sleep with. If that were the case, singles wouldn’t have any civil rights.
[/quote[
No, we don’t. For one thing, we can’t get legally married, so there’s inferior legal status right there. We have no protection against discrimination on the job, renting apartments or in any other sphere of daily life. We’re barred from serving in the military if we are open about our sexuality. Gay people do not have equality in this country
Civil rights are a political agenda, you putz.
gobear I really want to get behind you on this. (Heh)
First I need you to show me where fascism isn’t automatically equated to NAZI’ism. Espescially on these boards. And also in the mainstream idea of fascism.
Like I said, left-wing partisans throw these terms about to get the public riled up. You equated the GOP as fascist. I’m a member of the GOP. Tell me how I’m fascist.
Fine, when you show me where your rights were violated, I’ll sign up. YOUR rights. Every job I’ve applied to had the disclaimer that they didn’t discriminate against race, creed, sex, color, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
I would never say gays aren’t ridiculed. There are almost 300 millioin people in the US. Not all think the same way. But you are allowed to vote. You are allowed to work. You are allowed to invest. Need I go on?
You have every civil right every other American has. Oh, you don’t have a piece of paper from the state that says you’re married? So what? Seperation of church and state. You can find a myriad of churches that will marry you. What the hell is the problem? Unless you want it recognized by the state so you can cash in on the benefits. Well, shit. In that case move to Minnesota. All MN state employees can have benefits expanded to “partners” Huh? You say one state isn’t enough? And you wonder why conservatives are fighting this?
Look, we’re not going to agree. I won’t convince you, you won’t convince me. At best I see it as a draw. I’ll respond to you, gobear, in this thread for as long as I hit it, but anything else just doesn’t interest me.
I’d say blow me, but I might enjoy it and really join your side 
“Every job I’ve applied to had the disclaimer that they didn’t discriminate against race, creed, sex, color, sexual orientation, religion, etc.”
You should consider yourself fortunate. Here in the Commonwealth, protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation is not part of the equal employment provisions of the Commonwealth’s Personnel Regulations. I doubt that it is in the Federal government (though I don’t know that for a fact), or most other state governments (or private employment situations, either).
So the EEOC is only applied state by state? Damn, we really are more progressive as a “red” state than you Easterners.
Damn, please tell me you aren’t in Canada. :smack:
I didn’t say that he wasn’t President, which you know unless you are as stupid as some of your other posts suggest. I said he wasn’t elected. That’s a technicality which, thankfully, can’t be used to make him eligible for 2008. That’s really a subject for another thread (of which I am sure there are already several since the “selection” of the individual now using the Oval Office).
No, from Virginia (many, many, many, many generations).
And while we have many things to be thankful for and proud of, our General Assembly is not always one of them. The GA passed HB751 (65-Y 35-N), rejecting the governnor’s attempt to strike the provisions not directly related to marriage (ie, the contractual language).
And if Duffer didn’t notice from my first post in this thread, I’m a Virginian, too. The legal discrimination here is far from illusory.
No. Canada, being a sensible country, has had sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination since Egan v. Canada ruled that it falls within the ambit of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Of course, by “reasonable civil union,” you mean one that so denigrates the relationships of gays to they point that they are no more legally meaningful than the relationship between a couple of roommates or two best friends.
That’s not progress, it’s a slap in the face.
And gays want civil rights like the ability to form stable families, the ability to automatically inherit the property of their same-sex spouse, the right to make medical decisions for each other. How are these not right just as fundamental as the real issues King was working for – namely voting rights and equal access to education?
Really? So if my boyfriend and I live our lives as a couple and would be married if it were allowed, and he falls ill in ten years, I automatically get to make his medical decisions? His family won’t be allowed to bar me from the hospital room? Because if we were married, that would be the case. But since we can’t marry, I might be barred from his room. His parents, who despise him and me, could wrest control of his medical care. He hates them. He loves me. We are together. In a tolerant world, we would be married. So how is that right?
How is what we’re fighting for not fundamental?