Hang in there Maine!

[John Doe]

That's what it took to establish racial rights.

Unfortunately, there are some things states cannot be allowed to control-- things that impinge on our entire nation's well-being.

Like school standards, marriage unions, militia...

I think government should get out of marriage entirely and leave it to churches and the individuals involved. As far as legal agreements are concerned I would prefer civil unions for all adults.

Yes. Rights are not a referendum. State's Rights are a kind of bullshit argument when it comes to this, it was before and it is now. Without Loving V Texas that asshole in LA is entitled to do what he did, and be in the state funded business of marrying people unless he has a problem with their racial backgrounds if that's the bug up his ass. Without federal intervention half of us still might not be voting.

And I see marriage as basically a question of property assets and rights concerning those. The sentiment of love is not a legislated one.

When it's a question of whether I want to split my assets with Aunt Mildred, my female lover or my dog, it should be a federal issue, and my own damn business.

Marriage is very malleable in definition, but it's ALWAYS an economic issue.

I wasn't arguing states' rights.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think government should get out of marriage entirely and leave it to churches and the individuals involved. As far as legal agreements are concerned I would prefer civil unions for all adults.

Well, there are plenty churches that will perform same sex mariages, right now. But those marriages won't be binding in a legal sense, and the partners won't share the myriad rights and responsibilities that any het couple assumes as their inalienable right. If marriage went by any other name-- say "chicken--" the bigots would be denying same sex couples the right to chicken.

It's exactly the legal union that we are fighting for, and that the church groups are fighting against. NOT the religious one.

Please don't start preaching libertarianism in this thread.

 

[Netzach]

Well, there are plenty churches that will perform same sex mariages, right now. But those marriages won't be binding in a legal sense, and the partners won't share the myriad rights and responsibilities that any het couple assumes as their inalienable right. If marriage went by any other name-- say "chicken--" the bigots would be denying same sex couples the right to chicken.

It's exactly the legal union that we are fighting for, and that the church groups are fighting against. NOT the religious one.

Please don't start preaching libertarianism in this thread.

I've always also wondered how the legal nullifying of those marriages is not a roadblock to the free exercise of the churches and communities that recognize them. Why marriage in Uptight Assemblies of Jehovah Up My Butt is legally binding and gay marriage in Jesus Loves You Happy Fun Time Let's Have Coffee and Fellowship Assemblies can therefore be NOT legally binding.

How is that not unconstitutional preferential treatment of religions?

 

[John Doe]

Well, there are plenty churches that will perform same sex mariages, right now. But those marriages won't be binding in a legal sense, and the partners won't share the myriad rights and responsibilities that any het couple assumes as their inalienable right. If marriage went by any other name-- say "chicken--" the bigots would be denying same sex couples the right to chicken.

It's exactly the legal union that we are fighting for, and that the church groups are fighting against. NOT the religious one.

I'm not using "civil union" as a euphemism for marriage. On the contrary, I imagine it can be quite different from traditional marriage. I see no reason why three (or more) people shouldn't be able to enter into various kinds of unions.

Please don't start preaching libertarianism in this thread.

I didn't intend to seem preachy, but in retrospect I believe I haven't preached any more than anyone else in this thread.

And why not? Equal rights, i.e "equal protection under the law", "liberty and justice for all" is precisely what we want, isn't it?

I've always also wondered how the legal nullifying of those marriages is not a roadblock to the free exercise of the churches and communities that recognize them. Why marriage in Uptight Assemblies of Jehovah Up My Butt is legally binding and gay marriage in Jesus Loves You Happy Fun Time Let's Have Coffee and Fellowship Assemblies can therefore be NOT legally binding.

How is that not unconstitutional preferential treatment of religions?

It is. It's a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the First Amendment.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm not using "civil union" as a euphemism for marriage. On the contrary, I imagine it can be quite different from traditional marriage. I see no reason why three (or more) people shouldn't be able to enter into various kinds of unions.

I agree- but poly marriages will still entail legal responsibilities and rights. Those rights are covered under the umbrella term "marriage." Those are the rights the the bigotocracy is working so hard to deny us. Those legal issues are the only thing we are concerned with. Any two people can live together till death do them part, except that schools, hospitals, morgues, the federal government, and a myriad of other entities as well, won't recognise them as next of kin. Death-- plus illness, childbirth, etc-- can indeed part these two people.

I didn't intend to seem preachy, but in retrospect I believe I haven't preached any more than anyone else in this thread.
And why not? Equal rights, i.e "equal protection under the law", "liberty and justice for all" is precisely what we want, isn't it?

Yeah, but Libertarianism means; "My money stays in MY wallet." It's really the ultimate expression of Protestant Capitalism. You know- the belief that the LOrd shows us who is going to heaven by making them rich.

It has nothing to do with this issue.

It is. It's a violation of the spirit if not the letter of the First Amendment.

This Ican agree with, in double.

 

[John Doe]

I agree- but poly marriages will still entail legal responsibilities and rights. Those rights are covered under the umbrella term "marriage." Those are the rights the the bigotocracy is working so hard to deny us. Those legal issues are the only thing we are concerned with. Any two people can live together till death do them part, except that schools, hospitals, morgues, the federal government, and a myriad of other entities as well, won't recognise them as next of kin. Death-- plus illness, childbirth, etc-- can indeed part these two people.Yeah, but Libertarianism means; "My money stays in MY wallet." It's really the ultimate expression of Protestant Capitalism. You know- the belief that the LOrd shows us who is going to heaven by making them rich.

It has nothing to do with this issue.
This Ican agree with, in double.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Stella_Omega]

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Keep your stones away from my glass house, and I won't aim them at your forehead when I throw them back your way.

 

[none2_none2]

I don't mention the voter because I know that most people are ignorant phobic buttheads, we seem to be caught in a masochistic desire to find that out state by state. That's utterly beside the point as to whether people ought to be able to marry their partner. It shouldn't be voted on in the first place. It's so clearly an example of unequal protection under the law that this whole thing is a charade.

I hope you don't ever know anyone sick enough to require medical weed.

It's not one or the other. That's revolting.

Maine already had legalized marijuana law from TEN years ago. Sorry, but considering NO non-straight person can marry to get the same rights and responsibilities that a straight person can as opposed to someone making a buck getting people stoned under the disguise of helping sick people. That is what is revolting.

 

[John Doe]

Keep your stones away from my glass house, and I won't aim them at your forehead when I throw them back your way.

That doesn't make any sense.

In the same post you refer to "bigotocracy" and make a sweeping generalization of a group you know nothing about.

 

[sugaredwalls]

Pam Spaulding, one of my favorite politcal bloggers, yeah she got it right with this:

It's time to dispense with the niceties of HRC and marches and start playing hardball with the DNC. It's time to organize and start lobbying the shit out of Dem pols, to let them know they won't be getting the LGBTQ vote unless they start producing results for gay rights.

Screw the religious fuckers, gays don't want to marry in their precious churches, they can keep right on with their bible thumping and gay hating. Just let gays have the right to marry and lets make it unconstitutional to keep PUTTING THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO A VOTE!!!!

 

[kbate]

.....

 

[Stella_Omega]

Really, kbate, jumpping to the defense of religion here is like leaping to the defense of hurricanes because some of them haven't blown down houses.

 

[sugaredwalls]

That will do a lot of good. The dems can look at the vote results in every state where Same-Sex marriage has hit the ballot - and tell us to go fuck ourselves - we can't even manage 51% of the vote in liberal strongholds. They'll dump on us to keep the centrists happy while pandering to the Latinos and African Americans, groups which can swing an election. The only time any politician cares about lbgt issues is before election day - and then only when it's safe for them to toss us an apple.

You wish to put an end to ballot issues to bypass legislature? Or do you only wish to put an end to ballot issues that you feel strongly shouldn't have lost? Most ballot issues have been pushed by liberal leaning interests in places where the legislature refused to do their will. Would you shite on democracy for marriage? I myself, would love to see the ballot issue as a means of changing constitutions and laws - be banished for all purposes, not just for gay rights.

Some Gays are members of churches and wish to marry within their church. Making blanket statements simply makes your entire argument appear as little more than a childish rant.

You're delusional. Hell will freeze over before most xtian churches would marry gay people. They have done much more harm than good. They would sooner condemn your ass to hell before letting you marry the same sex. Wake up and smell the bigotry.

Fuck them, they have no right to use their tax free money to legislate who can marry and who can't.

 

[Safe_Bet]

You're delusional. Hell will freeze over before most xtian churches would marry gay people. They have done much more harm than good. They would sooner condemn your ass to hell before letting you marry the same sex. Wake up and smell the bigotry.

Fuck them, they have no right to use their tax free money to legislate who can marry and who can't.

EXACTLY!!!!!

 

[kbate]

.....

 

[sugaredwalls]

Within 10 years, the Roman Catholic church will change too -

I couldn't even read the rest of your post without laughing my ass off over your above statement. Lol, right, the Catholics will be marrying gays in their church within 10 years. I know the Catholic church extensively, as I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic schools for 12 years. Who gives a shit about swimwear? People have been wearing casual wear to mass for years, you're comparison is lame and inconsequential.

It aint gonna happen, no way in hell will Catholics EVER accept gay as not being a sin let alone marry them in their church.

Here's a little wake up call for ya honey:

VATICAN CITY — In an extraordinary bid to lure traditionalist Anglicans en masse, the Vatican said Tuesday that it would make it easier for Anglicans uncomfortable with their church’s acceptance of female priests and openly gay bishops to join the Roman Catholic Church while retaining many of their traditions.

The Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and the Catholic archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, discussed the Vatican's plan on Tuesday. Video: nytimes.com/world.
Why the Vatican Wants Anglicans

Room for DebateWhat does the decision to make it easier for Anglicans to convert to Catholicism say about the church?

Anglicans would be able “to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony,” Cardinal William J. Levada, the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said at a news conference here.

It was unclear why the Vatican made the announcement now. But it seemed a rare opportunity, audaciously executed, to capitalize on deep divisions within the Anglican Church to attract new members at a time when the Catholic Church has been trying to reinvigorate itself in Europe.

The issue has long been close to the heart of Pope Benedict XVI, who for years has worked to build ties to those Anglicans who, like conservative Catholics, spurn the idea of female and gay priests.

Catholic and Anglican leaders sought on Tuesday to present the move as a joint effort to aid those seeking conversion. But it appeared that the Vatican had engineered it on its own, presenting it as a fait accompli to the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury and the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion, only in recent weeks. Some Anglican and Catholic leaders expressed surprise, even shock, at the news.

link

You're a dumber cluck than I thought you were if you think religion had nothing to do with prop 8 in Ca and prop 1 in Maine. The Mormon's didn't raise 20 million dollars to have a tea party, they raised it to defeat gay marriage. Catholics in Maine spearheaded the whole campaign, by driving the point to parish members that they were morally obligated to vote down gay marriage.

As if any church can condemn someone to hell. Laughable, and delusional even to post such.

It was an analogy, sort of like Stella Omega's (which was clever btw ), can you not tell the difference?

 

[kbate]

.....

 

[Stella_Omega]

Sweetie, it's really lovely that YOUR church wants to help. And I know that UU is very accepting as well.

But the only Christian I know of that is angered by this observation or ours-- that religion is the primary instigator for society's homophobia-- is you.

You keep on working from within. I wish you all the success in the world-- and trust me I am not being sarcastic when I say that, I want nothing more than to see churches made less destructive.

But once again, your defense of religion is tiresome and unnecessary. Religion is very fucking good at defending itself-- by offense, more often than not.

very, very offensive.

 

[none2_none2]

I figure I should add my two cents. I think you all need to give kbate more credit than you do. Not all churches are anti-gay. Yes many do have a problem with homosexuality, but you have to ask yourself is it really about a church or just homophobic people looking for a some kind of reason to hold onto biases. I know atheist/agnostics that don't like homosexuality. I knew people that argued "natural" law is about reproduction, and homosexuality goes against that goal.

I also know gay male wiccans that I cannot stand to be around. Years ago I went to a gay men's retreat just to see what it was about. It turned out to be a gay pagan men's gathering. I kept an open mind. However, all it was really about was lots of gay guys wanting access to potential sex partners and to get high. I can live with that, but what really pissed me off is when they got upset about a female caretaker who was on the property. She stayed away from everybody, but that wasn't good enough. Several of these pagan queens start spouting off as to how the "female" spirit essence on the premise was contaminating the male bonding. Good God, the woman stayed to herself the ENTIRE time. What added to the hypocrisy is some of these very same people wanted to do drag. If they would have said a black person on the premise was bothering them, they would have been labeled racists. However, because they were talking women and they were gay men with a religious reason behind the uncomfortably, it was considered ok. While I know other pagans, that were fine. It soured me enough that I wouldn't be caught dead at their annual retreat ever again. So even gay people can have their biases "justified" in their own heads behind the vale of some belief system.

Maine's law was defeated because of the individual bigotry of the 50+ percent who voted down the equal rights. While the religious involvement might have gotten more of such like minded people to the polls, the bottom line is that those feelings were in those people even if the religious leaders had kept their mouth shut. I seriously doubt that if the pope, the Morman president, and other religious leaders came out and said that God revealed to them that "gay is wonderful" that somehow all of a sudden the Maine vote would have turned out differently. People have their prejudices regardless.

 

[sugaredwalls]

Sweetie, it's really lovely that YOUR church wants to help. And I know that UU is very accepting as well.

But the only Christian I know of that is angered by this observation or ours-- that religion is the primary instigator for society's homophobia-- is you.

You keep on working from within. I wish you all the success in the world-- and trust me I am not being sarcastic when I say that, I want nothing more than to see churches made less destructive.

But once again, your defense of religion is tiresome and unnecessary. Religion is very fucking good at defending itself-- by offense, more often than not.

very, very offensive.

Very well put, they are very very offensive. It would be nice if they could denounce the real batshit crazies. Those nutters from Westboro Baptist Church were picketing over in Fort Hood Texas with their signs blaming gays for what happened. WTF? You would think someone from at least one xtian denomination would denounce them but fucking NADA, NOTHING, NOT ONE WORD.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I figure I should add my two cents. I think you all need to give kbate more credit than you do. Not all churches are anti-gay. Yes many do have a problem with homosexuality, but you have to ask yourself is it really about a church or just homophobic people looking for a some kind of reason to hold onto biases. I know atheist/agnostics that don't like homosexuality. I knew people that argued "natural" law is about reproduction, and homosexuality goes against that goal.

I also know gay male wiccans that I cannot stand to be around. Years ago I went to a gay men's retreat just to see what it was about. It turned out to be a gay pagan men's gathering. I kept an open mind. However, all it was really about was lots of gay guys wanting access to potential sex partners and to get high. I can live with that, but what really pissed me off is when they got upset about a female caretaker who was on the property. She stayed away from everybody, but that wasn't good enough. Several of these pagan queens start spouting off as to how the "female" spirit essence on the premise was contaminating the male bonding. Good God, the woman stayed to herself the ENTIRE time. What added to the hypocrisy is some of these very same people wanted to do drag. If they would have said a black person on the premise was bothering them, they would have been labeled racists. However, because they were talking women and they were gay men with a religious reason behind the uncomfortably, it was considered ok. While I know other pagans, that were fine. It soured me enough that I wouldn't be caught dead at their annual retreat ever again. So even gay people can have their biases "justified" in their own heads behind the vale of some belief system.

Maine's law was defeated because of the individual bigotry of the 50+ percent who voted down the equal rights. While the religious involvement might have gotten more of such like minded people to the polls, the bottom line is that those feelings were in those people even if the religious leaders had kept their mouth shut. I seriously doubt that if the pope, the Morman president, and other religious leaders came out and said that God revealed to them that "gay is wonderful" that somehow all of a sudden the Maine vote would have turned out differently. People have their prejudices regardless.

You are right, it would not turn "all of a sudden." It takes a lifetime of indoctrination to reverse a lifetime of indoctrination.

And these people have had a lifetime of indoctrination.

Your pagan guys may be exercising their peevishness, but-- in real life they and their church have very little power. They don't have millions of dollars to spend on propaganda, they haven't Sunday-Schooled generations of kids to be bigoted adults. In fact, all your guys are the result of their Xtian upbringings which occurred before they ever became pagans...

On a similar note, I was part of a gathering that took place the weekend Bush told America he was sending troops into iraq. The Priest was what I would call a fundamentalist Wiccan. Besides myself, there were two pre-op transwomen. The preist arranged the circle, male-female-male-female-- and placed myself in the circle as female, the two women as men. When we told him that we did not have cis spirits (in other words than that) he said that what we felt ourselves to be didn't matter to him...

It was a total bummer of a weekend, needless to say!

 

[none2_none2]

You are right, it would not turn "all of a sudden." It takes a lifetime of indoctrination to reverse a lifetime of indoctrination.

And these people have had a lifetime of indoctrination.

Your pagan guys may be exercising their peevishness, but-- in real life they and their church have very little power. They don't have millions of dollars to spend on propaganda, they haven't Sunday-Schooled generations of kids to be bigoted adults. In fact, all your guys are the result of their Xtian upbringings which occurred before they ever became pagans...

On a similar note, I was part of a gathering that took place the weekend Bush told America he was sending troops into iraq. The Priest was what I would call a fundamentalist Wiccan. Besides myself, there were two pre-op transwomen. The preist arranged the circle, male-female-male-female-- and placed myself in the circle as female, the two women as men. When we told him that we did not have cis spirits (in other words than that) he said that what we felt ourselves to be didn't matter to him...

It was a total bummer of a weekend, needless to say!

I'm sorry about your weekend. That is a perfect example of the kind of attitudes I felt from the gay wiccans I met. It wasn't universal, but a very strong tendency for many.

Back to the power of Christianity, I guess I don't see it as that powerful. It is only as powerful as the people who follow it WISH it to be. For example, Catholic teaching does not believe in divorce and remarriage. However, divorce rates have gone up over the last few decades. Does the church really push this issue? Do they push for laws to stop divorce & remarriage? No. Why? Because too many of their followers want it. Even the only official way out (an annulment) is much more easy to get now-a-days than a few decades ago. Oh sure, everybody will say things like you cannot take communion or this or that, but would anybody listen to a priest who preached that to save the family we must have a constitutional amendment to ban divorce and remarriage?

In my state, they voted on gay marriage (and of course) it lost by an overwhelming 70% of voters. Yes there was a Catholic organization that gave 100K towards that goal. I'm sure other churches gave too. However, I seriously doubt it had any affect on the outcome. My outrage was that if "abortion" is equivalent to murder in THEIR minds, then where are these 70% who morally should be even more upset about abortion? You'll never get these lovely 70% of people voting to outright ban all abortions because they secretly WANT that right. Oh sure, some of them may think their NEIGHBOR should NOT have that right, but they want to hold out that right for themselves. No amount of indoctrination not even a few billion dollars of monies from churches would ever totally take us back to pre Roe vs Wade. Because too many in the pews really don't want an outright ban because it affects THEIR rights. Now if abortion was about something that only lesbians wanted/needed, you can rest assured that it would have been banned just months after the Roe v. Wade decision.

My point isn't to get off on the controversial subject of abortion, but rather to point out that no matter how old an institution is and no matter how grave they consider certain things, PEOPLE in those pews actually call the shots.

For a non-volatile analogy, Jesus could have specifically stated that leaving the toilet lid up is an abomination, but if the majority of guys deliberately or alzheimerisously had a habit of leaving the lid up, the church would over time adapt and turn it into a minor sin -- assuming they left it as a sin at all.

Our problem is that GLBT people are and will always be a minority. As a result in many cultures there will always be some level of antagonism towards us. If homosexuality/bisexuality was closer to 50%, then I'm sure there would be something like a Saint Lucy for lesbianic households and a Saint Bruce for gay men wanting to spruce up their homes. But our numbers will not ever grow to that extent. So if you want rights, work on the people. They are the ones in the pews and the voting booths -- not the doctrine.

 

[kbate]

.....

 

[Stella_Omega]

Kumbaya, sweetheart. I am glad-- honestly and truly-- that you have found a sanctuary in the Episcopal church.

 

[John Doe]

So anyway, they voted up marijuana but voted down gay marriage. WTF?!