People who claim "civil unions are the answer" need to GET REAL

[Brian_Expat]

A few points to consider:

1) Do you think the right wing whackos who are opposed to gay marriage would be any LESS opposed to civil unions? If you do, you need your head examined. Or you need to go back and read a history of the 2000 Vermont civil unions governor's election. Do a Google search on "Take Back Vermont." Oh, and read their constitutional amendment proposals (or the one they passed in Ohio) which also bans civil unions.

2) Do you understand that in order to get "civil unions," you have to push for marriage? Civil unions become a compromise to avoid "marriage." Push for civil unions and you get. . . nothing.

3) Do you understand that your moral authority as someone who believes in civil rights is completely eroded if you claim to be for "separate and unequal?"

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

1. But I consider hetero marriages outside church a civil union....

If married by a judge, not a church official, we should all be LEGALLY civil unions. Marriage should be a church title that has no legal implications. The Government extends legal rights to civil unions but does not recognize the church/synagogue/etc. designation of 'marriage' in the legal sense.

I'm just trying to look at it as strictly a legal argument and a game of semantics. I mean no offense to you or others reading this post.

[FaerieWizard]

2. Unfortunately the gov will NEVER do that!

First of all, marriage dates to before the church. The church took over marriage around the emperor Constantine.

If the government decided to do something like that, say Marriage is the definition the church gives, we give civil union (IE Civil Marriages) then fine, I'd actually accept that.

However, you're still going to run into two big problems. Some churches will choose to perform same-sex marriages, which will cause an uproar among those churches who don't. The title of marriage will still be granted to same-sex couples, and the government can't do a thing about it (separation of church and state).

The government obviously has no problem denying rights to homosexuals, but to put this legislation into affect would cause an uproar among heterosexuals. Those who weren't married in a church, or aren't married in a church, will cry foul because they are no longer regarded as being married. When this was proposed on another board a woman flipped and said her kids would be able to go around saying her parents weren't married.

~The FaerieWizard
http://faeriewizard.faerietales.net

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

5. Why the uproar? I fall into the 'not married in a church' hetero grp..

My husband and I are happily married and a judge performed our ceremony at our resort site where we held our reception...We'd be fine with the civil union label and our kids would still be loved just as much. Those married hetero couples who scream and fuss could always have their civil unions 'blessed by a marriage ceremony' in a church. For legal purposes, civil union should be the designation recognized by the Government. What's the big deal...I find it a good way to clean up the blurred lines of church & state. IMHO.

[TaleWgnDg]

19. This is America. Our highest law is our constitution . . .

and in our constitution, there is a separation of Church and State.

That Separation of Church and States applies to any legal research as to marriage (as well as case law regarding marriage and history regarding marriage within our own States, State-to-State). Marriage is a construct of law, civil law State-to-State, territory-to-territory across America.

Marriage is not a construct of religion, instead it is a civil contract granted in civil law by each State which is recognized in civil law (and in criminal law) State-to-State, including our federal government.

In light of that, one starts an analysis. Marriage in America has always been secular. Lemme repeat that: Marriage in America has always been granted in civil law and recognized in civil law as well as criminal law. Religion has never conferred marriage upon anyone without the authority of civil law in America.

Again, state law authorizes certain individuals the power to perform a marriage ceremony, whether a civil marriage ceremony or a religious marriage ceremony. All marriage ceremonies are instruments of civil law in America. A marriage license is granted under civil law. A marriage certificate is granted under civil law across America. Marriage information is part of our civil government u/ civil laws, as are deaths, and other information.

Finally, due to our first amendment -- Religious Freedom -- no religion will be forced to marry same-sex couples if that religion's tenets forbids such marriages. No State or federal government may force a religion to marry homosexuals if that religion forbids it. To put it another way -- yes, religions may discriminate against homosexuals as to marriage for it is their protected first amendment right to do so.

There you go, pertinent parts of Family Law. There's more here at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=2401&mesg_id=2604

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[TaleWgnDg]

16. There's one major impediment to your premise . . .

marriage grants legal rights, privileges, benefits, obligations and duties to both married-partners. There's approximately 1,100 federal laws that kick in if one is married. There's approximately 300 or so State laws (depending upon which State) that kick in to marrieds-only.

Now, that is what it's all about. Only marriage grants these rights, not so-called "civil unions." That's the impediment to your theory.

If there were so-called "civil unions" state-to-state, there is no guarantee that State A would grant the same or similar legal rights than would State B, etc. In other words, there'd be no uniformity in "civil unions" as there is in law to marriage; and there would be no way to format a uniformity in law as to all the States.

As for federal law, so-called "civil unions" is a zero. A huge zero. Can you imagine the federal congress re-writing over 1,100 laws to apply equally to "civil unions" as those laws apply to marriage? Of course not.

In application it would be like this:

1.) I get married. My marriage is legally enforceable and recognizable in law in all the States including the territories and the federal government and across the entire planet. My family (in marriage) including my children may rely upon and obtain privileges, duties, obligations, and burdens of marriage across my State, and all States and territories in America, plus foreign nation recognition. (However, it's still questionable as to what weight a same-sex marriage may have in some foreign nations.)

2.) However, if I have a "civil union," I don't know what my State grants me and it varies State-to-State and it's completely unenforceable State-to-State, and it's a zero both federally and internationally. My children will suffer from not having the protections of state, federal, and foreign laws of married parents. My grandchildren would also suffer as do my children.

If you are so inclined to read further on this issue, try this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=2401&mesg_id=2604




. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Old Mouse]

52. Laws today

are written to apply language and article changes to laws that proceed. It would have been possible to retroactively alter the language of existing law to interchange marriage with civil unions.

Given the publicity of this issue, and how it has galvanized those who oppose it, that opportunity is effectively lost.

[havocmom]

3. Civil marriage appeals to me, only when that is the ONLY union the STATE

recognizes FOR ALL PEOPLE. If you wanna religious ceremony also for your union, fine and dandy, go for it. Individual churches can decide the issue of who gets their blessings and individuals can decide which churches to support and belong to. But the state should not be sanctioning religion via recognizing certain religious ceremonies as legal, civil instruments of partnership. Since not all religious joining ceremonies are sanctioned by all states as legitimate marriages, no religious ceremony should be. To allow only some is for the state to advocate for particular religions.

Want to make it legal, Mr. & Mrs. Fundie-Bigot? Go to the JP and We the People will recognize your marriage, but only if you recognize the marriages of Mr. & Mr. Different-Lifestyle and Ms. & Ms. We-Can-Love-Too. Want a religious affair? Go for it, but that is not a legal instrument for anyone in terms of granting marriage benefits as defined by laws. That is how to make partnership choices fair in a society which is legally defined by the Constitution as secular.

[RhodaGrits]

4. Yes. Government gets out of religion. Religious organizations

have no say in the civil rights granted to all equally by our government. One license/registration for all (under God optional).

And thank you AP for making me see the light on this :-)

[livinginphotographs]

6. Well said.

That's EXACTLY what I've been saying, and have been flamed repeatedly for it.

[havocmom]

7. aw, I don't mind getting flamed this time of year...

I live far enough north that the extra heat can be a blessing! ;)

I believe Mexico requires a civil ceremony for the marriage to be recognized by the state. Most people have a church wedding too. Seems to be working for millions of people. Don't know if they allow for gay civil services.

Just seems silly to have a patchwork system where some churches have the right to grant civil rights. Seems, well, UN-American to me and always has.

[Liberal Veteran]

8. I tend to agree....people are kidding themselves if they believe...

...that this about anything other than driving us back into the closet where they can pretend we don't exist (and if they can find a way to legally make us not exist, expect that too).

[queerart]

9. about anything other than driving us back into the closet

You Better Believe It!

You are so correct!

[Guy Fawkes]

10. Do you understand that they're the EXACT SAME F*CKING THING?

...

[LDS Jock]

11. not really.. by giving it a different name

it is being relegated to second class status. What if a white guy and black woman wanted to get married but those who disapprove of mixed marriages wanted this labeled something other than marriage, say a mixed partnership? How do you think that would go over? It would not and it shouldn't. It is giving it second class status. There is no separate but equal here anymore than in the public schools.

[Guy Fawkes]

12. Legaly, they are the same.

The only reason one might call it a "civil union" is a trick all the idiot freepers. Its a dirty trick, but its fine with me.

[benevolent dictator]

13. they would only be the same

if the federal government recognized them.

right now, a gay or lesbian couple can get "civil unionized" in vermont, but they only receive the state benefits and not the federal benefits.

plus, it's not fooling anyone, the right wing xtian nuts don't want any of us "sexual deviants." period. end of story. they don't want us to have any legal recognition for our partnerships, no matter what form it takes. you can't give it a different name and have everything all be ok. if people can be convinced that allowing same-sex marriages will somehow threaten their precious "values," what makes you think they can't be convinced that civil unions do the same thing? after all, it is still legally recognizing an "immoral, deviant and dangerous life-style."

[TaleWgnDg]

20. You are incorrect in law. And you are incorrect in history . . .

Try this at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=2401&mesg_id=2604



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

[Brian_Expat]

24. If legally they're the same. . .

. . . how do I go about getting a marriage-based green card for my foreign partner after getting a Vermont Civil Union?

[TaleWgnDg]

44. You don't. Sorry. Why?

Because Vermont so-called "civil unions" are recognized in Vermont. Any dealings with immigration (Homeland Security) is federal law. Our federal government does not recognize, in law, Vermont's "civil unions."

However, before you go any farther (or I do, here), it's vital that you confer w/ your own attorney. Particularly where you may be applying for and filling out federal documentation wherein you both have undergone a "civil union" partnership. It's vital that all documentation be filled out accurately. DU is no place to obtain legal advice.

And, btw, so-called "civil unions" and marriage are far from the same as you state . . . very very very far from the same . . . (read some of my posts in this thread for a further explanation).



.

[Brian_Expat]

55. Oh, I know all of what you've said

I'm just demonstrating how civil unions are NOT "like marriages in everything but name."

[Brian_Expat]

14. No they're not

And the right wing idiots are going to oppose it regardless of WHAT you call it. Which is why this whole soft-liberal posturing around "marriage is one thing and civil unions another" is such bullshit. NOBODY who votes based on gay marriage alone or heavily influencd is going to vote for a civil unions candidate because he "believes in civil unions, not gay marriage."

It's BULLSHIT.

[Brian_Expat]

15. And the poll posted in another thread PROVES my point

The bigots don't care whether it's marriages or civil unions or health care certificates for that matter -- they don't WANT you and me to have ANY rights under the law, period.

Which means we need to fight for those rights, NOT alter our language in a vain attempt to cater to the prejudices of people who hate us.

[TaleWgnDg]

21. hear, hear, hear !!!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


.

[Old Mouse]

17. I'm going to get flaming flamed

You brought this upon yourselves. Social change take time and patience. Learn from history; Nat Turner made things worse, Martin Luther King made things better.

That said, as late as 2002 the overwhelming majority of Americans favored same sex civil unions. Well meaning but impatient activists tried to expedite the range of gay rights by demanding nothing less than full blown marriage.

Immediately the right began taking advantage of the publicity to attack and defame Judges that did not fall under Republican control - and it was never about morality or religion with them, only control.

Then one of the smallest religious Christian sects in the United States started claiming, correct or not, that the word 'marriage' was a specific term of Christian sanctification, and should not be used to legitimize something that in orthodox Christianity is technically a sin.

But it was the gay community that allowed no compromise. "Change your religion to accept our lifestyle" was the message they portrayed. There's the arrogance, the mistake, the intolerance that caused this backlash. Activists treated their religion as though it was a lifestyle. A religion can not be modernized on request. It came across as the gay community calling the religion stupid, and acting as though they didn't think the practitioners even believed what they professed.

This perceived attack on religion caused an explosion of support from people who had supported gay rights just the year before, and again people from the right, very good at propaganda, stepped in to stir up the issue for their own ends.

Now there is a hate and anger in the air because the gay community just wouldn't leave that damn word alone. Just had to have the word no matter how much it meant to the religious conservatives of this country. And don't give me that " 'separate but equal' is never equal" crap. Many lawmakers were willing to to work quietly, out of the eye of publicity, on striking the word "marriage" from the books and replacing it with "civil unions", and making marriage one form of many possible civil unions.

You turned down any compromise about civil unions, and now you've got less marriage, less civil unions, and more hate than you did before.

[Brian_Expat]

22. Yeah, I mean Martin Luther King should have pushed for civil unions. . .

. . . instead of "black marriage" or "interracial marriage."

And blacks shouldn't have gone for the vote or sat at the front of the bus, because that inflamed hatreds. No, blacks should have sat in the middle of the bus, or maybe a few seats up from the rear of the bus.

The reason why the right wing launched this wave of hatred is simple. Our supposed "allies," rather than sticking up for us, fucked us over and ran screaming, leaving us to fight the battle alone.

Thanks, guys.

[Old Mouse]

31. You pushed your own agenda

and handed the right wingers the tools to undo all civil rights.

[SnowBack]

27. Yeah, you deserve to be flamed, you bigot

How DARE we "uppity" Gays demand to be treated the same as every slimeball who gets married while drunk in Vegas? Everyone KNOWS those marriages are blessed and special... Get real, bigot.


"There is hate and anger in the air because "the Gay community just wouldn't leave that damn word alone"?

Screw you bigot. The hate is in the air because of people like you.

[queerart]

28. Thank You, THANK YOU For Saying That!

I am trying HARD to "redeem" myself........

... and trying hard to walk away from posts like that "load of shit"......

Is life that slow that they ALWAYS want to needle the Fags?

If you had not said it... I was ready too!!!

[Old Mouse]

32. Pa-leeze

I've been blessed by the sisters. Are you for real or just an echo chamber?

[Misunderestimator]

29. And I call Bullshit.

Wake up and smell your bigotry.

[Old Mouse]

33. Bigotry of what?

they do come in threes...

Don't post hate as a reply. Make some sense. Where do I say there is a problem with homosexuality? I think the activist community has gotten out of hand. ActUP was cute when they were harassing Jesse, but this got out of hand, and cost everybody.

You wouldn't be blindly yelling at calmly stated dissenting opinions to further fracture the community would you? I don't seem to locate the counterpoint in your lengthly reply... or do you think the community does not believe in discussion any more?

[Misunderestimator]

34. And you're accusing the "gay community" of doing something

that they did not do. You're blaming an entire community for the timing of a trial and for the actions of a few judges. The "gay community" did NOT take on gay marriage as an issue. It was thrown in our laps. And throwing it out of our laps is not an option.

ActUp cute? Blindly yelling? Why are you in this forum? If you can't see the bigotry (or at least the condescension) in your language then I cannot explain it. It's quite apparent.

[Old Mouse]

35. if you are not clued in

on the controversy about acceptable levels of civil disobedience that divided the community in the mid 90's... well then you are automatically assuming a LOT about my politics that I did not write, and need to study up on your pink history.

But again, I'm talking specifically about the ACTIVIST community, which did do a hell of a lot.

The "thrown in the lap" is a valid point. No, it's an excellent point. I stand corrected. They did not start the fight, in fact most couples I know that got married in San Francisco only did because Newsom suddenly afforded them the opportunity.

But it was not the judges fault. That is how the system works - checks and balances. Anyone who blames the judges for ruling on cases brought before them needs a lesson in civics!

I am confused by your repeated use of "bigotry" in this instance, please explain.

[Misunderestimator]

36. Excuse me? I did not blame judges for anything...

It's hardly worth arguing with you since it's clear you're the kind to twist words, but I simply used judges as an example of some of the people responsible for making this an issue. I wasn't blaming them. In fact I applaud them.

If you're still confused about your own bigotry (in the guise of condescension and blame) then I suppose you will stay that way.

[Old Mouse]

37. Spin it fast

where's the other? Should appear soon.

How am I bigoted? Please explain.

[Misunderestimator]

38. Huh?

[Old Mouse]

39. Please explain your post

[Misunderestimator]

40. I will not explain my post anymore than I care to explain...

YOU BLAME GAYS... what more needs to be explained?

[Old Mouse]

41. I must be posting in this forum for a reason

Your angry inch is showing.

What can I blame gays for that would make me a bigot? Please explain.

[Misunderestimator]

46. Please tell me your reason. Because you think that telling gay people

that we must give up our fight for equality because it is this country's bigotry (and your own apparently) of homosexuality that lost us the election? That's how I interpret your friendly note.

Let's break it down:

You brought this upon yourselves. Social change take time and patience. Learn from history; Nat Turner made things worse, Martin Luther King made things better.

You silly little children, can't you learn anything? Why do you think that just a few thousand years is enough time for you to have equality? ... tsk, tsk.

That said, as late as 2002 the overwhelming majority of Americans favored same sex civil unions. Well meaning but impatient activists tried to expedite the range of gay rights by demanding nothing less than full blown marriage.

Nothing less than FULL BLOWN MARRIAGE. For shame... how DARE you want EQUAL rights???

Immediately the right began taking advantage of the publicity to attack and defame Judges that did not fall under Republican control - and it was never about morality or religion with them, only control.

Then one of the smallest religious Christian sects in the United States started claiming, correct or not, that the word 'marriage' was a specific term of Christian sanctification, and should not be used to legitimize something that in orthodox Christianity is technically a sin.

But it was the gay community that allowed no compromise. "Change your religion to accept our lifestyle" was the message they portrayed. There's the arrogance, the mistake, the intolerance that caused this backlash. Activists treated their religion as though it was a lifestyle. A religion can not be modernized on request. It came across as the gay community calling the religion stupid, and acting as though they didn't think the practitioners even believed what they professed.

WOW.. "Change your religion to accept our lifestyle." Those are some tough old lesbians and gay men. I've never met one gay person demanding that anyone change their religion. In fact, I've not met one gay person who gives a crap about getting married in a church, or even cares about the term marriage, as long as equality is reached. But you've somehow decided what we all think, and what we all represent.

This perceived attack on religion caused an explosion of support from people who had supported gay rights just the year before, and again people from the right, very good at propaganda, stepped in to stir up the issue for their own ends.

Now there is a hate and anger in the air because the gay community just wouldn't leave that damn word alone. Just had to have the word no matter how much it meant to the religious conservatives of this country. And don't give me that " 'separate but equal' is never equal" crap. Many lawmakers were willing to to work quietly, out of the eye of publicity, on striking the word "marriage" from the books and replacing it with "civil unions", and making marriage one form of many possible civil unions.

Please explain your comment about separate but equal... and please explain to me how not allowing gays to marry makes them separate but equal. Please also cite which lawmakers were working quietly at striking the word marriage from the books. That's a charming little fantasy.

You turned down any compromise about civil unions, and now you've got less marriage, less civil unions, and more hate than you did before.

Your post REEKS of insult and bigotry.

[Old Mouse]

48. went and got some help, did we?

This is no Stonewall, which you should read up on if you want to try divisive tactics in this forum.

Some of us were hoping to attend ceremonies downtown, and instead have to fly across the continent, but I suspect that you don't care about that, or any of the serious issues here. The only consistent aspect of your posts is your obvious desire to repeat the word bigot as often as possible. If you were really in the community you would be aware that the lobbying for civil unions, equal same sex benefits, and domestic partner rights was a careful and methodical movement that has been advancing gay rights - QUIETLY - for years.

How does my statement, any of my statements, about the public relations misjudgment "REEK" of bigotry? Cutting and pasting comments is a cute 1990's AOL forum thang, but we're adults now, and I stand by my comments in context.

Putting "bigot" in capital letters makes it easier to read on the page, but does not clarify its justification.

How am I a bigot? Please explain.

[Misunderestimator]

49. I have no clue what you mean about help....

And I have no idea why you are being so condescending to me directly now. I cut and pasted your comments to respond to each of them and point out your nastiness.

I have no idea why you are here accusing the GAY COMMUNITY of shooting themselves in the foot for supporting and promoting something that they did not support or promote. It simply sounds like you are accusing us of something. And your condescension and blanket accusation of an entire group of people is bigotry. I don't know how else you'd like me to point it out to you.

[Old Mouse]

50. have said many times

I am complaining of the work of activists.

Cutting and pasting in an online forum is deplorable and childish; Your attempts to label me as a "bigot" ignore any content of the issues or the courtesy of listening to my statements before issuing a knee-jerk reaction with a hateful epitaph.

Why should I not be condescending? All you have done is insult without offering any sort of intelligent rebuttal, just some sort of mimetic response accusing me of hate without explaining how pointing out a tactical mistake equates to hatred. I have given you enough clues as to why that is preposterous.

My only conclusion can be that you wish to, without reviewing the facts, equate me personally with hate. I see no evidence you are involved with activism, or the community. I only see you repeat the word "bigot"

[Misunderestimator]

51. Not once in the first post did you mention "activists"... only a few

times since then when trying to back up your lame excuses. "You brought this upon yourselves." was the first sentence in your post. Nowhere could it be construed to be directed to "activists" but to all gay people.

Deplorable to quote someone when responding directly to said quote? LMAO. Give me a break on your back-pedalling. It's transparent. And stop insulting me in juvenile attempts to draw me down to your level. Childish? Hmmm...

[Old Mouse]

53. explain

how I am a bigot.

[Misunderestimator]

54. No... You've explained it better than I ever could.

And I won't be baited further.

[Old Mouse]

56. you have no answer

or you don't understand the meaning of the word "bigot"

You jump back and forth trying different meanings of words like a poor prosecutor trying to force a point. It is clear you do not care to debate my premise, you are just pathological hunting for any argument that allows you to keep posting your message of hate and division.

The community, its activist representatives, its supporters underestimated the impact of what was happening and why. To generalize (giving you the opportunity to once again avoid the topic and concentrate on your attempts to equate activists and all gays) the apparent goal of same-sex marriage seemed so within reach that no caution, restraint or tactical thought was effectively used. The result is a climate of intolerance greater that before.

Overreached. Miscalculated. And yes, intolerant of other views. Yes, I do charge these to the actions, but not the intent, of all who championed same-sex marriage in 2004.

My opinion here has been attacked without prejudice. Perhaps those who do should look up the meaning of the word "bigot"

[Misunderestimator]

57. LOL... MY attempts at equating all activists and all gays...

that's hilarious, Old Mouse! That's what you did. It's become nearly impossible to even follow your logic in responding to my posts. You keep harping on the fact that I called your post bigoted... others did as well. And it was bigoted because it was filled with blame and contempt for gays (not for a small group of activists). Too bad you can't go back and edit that post so that you wouldn't have to contradict yourself as you have since you wrote that.

Your feeble attempts at patronizing me have no effect, buddy.

Not one of my posts has been "filled with hate and division." Why do you keep pretending that any of them do? would you like to borrow a mirror?

[Old Mouse]

59. "buddy?"

Are you serious? "Buddy"? "Buddy"? I can't help but question your veracity. Why are you in this forum?

No self contradiction. I stand by all I said. You have still not explained how it equates with bigotry. Please explain how I am a "bigot" You must by now realize how stupid that charge is. Really you must. Do you need to recheck the definition? re-read the posts?

Or is there a problem with your motivation?

I wonder if you actually know anyone who has suffered because of the past and currently rising oppression. The recent overreaching has made things worse, not better, and a lion's share of the blame lies within. But you don't speak on this subject at all. Not in the least. You are incapable or unwilling to discuss the point of my post. You merely play semantics to defend an untenable idea: That I am bigoted against the gay community. You should think about why your argument could be untenable.

I think you are at best addicted to conflict, and at worst promoting diversion. Either way, you are showing no thought to your comments, only standard contradictory statements.

[Misunderestimator]

60. I have explained your bigotry... you refuse to comprehend it.

Why on earth are you asking ME why I'm in this forum? It is a GAY/LESBIAN/BISEXUAL/TRANSGENDER forum. And do I actually know anyone who has suffered because of all this oppression...? Why yes! Me and many people I know.

If anyone is playing semantics or addicted to conflict... I would suggest a mirror again.

[Old Mouse]

62. frankly, I doubt your honesty

Suggesting a mirror is not explaining the very real charge of bigotry.

Again I suggest you have no argument here, and I find you suspect.

How was anything I have said or posted or alluded prejudicial against anyone? Impossible.

How am I a bigot? Please explain.

[Misunderestimator]

63. My honesty? How so?

I have already explained the charge of bigotry, so why would I repeat myself by explaining in some other manner? I have already pointed out to you exactly how your post was prejudicial (well, actually prejudiced, but prejudicial could work too).

The mirror was turning the insults you made towards me back at you. Strange that you didn't understand that, I don't think that my language was too complicated.

And please stop responding to my posts with the same question. Apparently I am incapable of answering it to your satisfaction, so it's time to move on.

[Old Mouse]

69. no you haven't

Your replies lead me to conclude you are unwilling to spend the time to think about the subject, or you do not really care about it. Given the uneven style of response, I am leaning towards the latter.

You have accused me of being intolerant for pointing out the extreme underestimation of the meaning of a single word to a specific cultural group. It was a colossal, stupendous, irreconcilable mistake. It should not have been made.

How does this make me intolerant? Because I do not join in an automatic commendation of an entire population group just because they are mired in ignorance? Because they hate? I do not begrudge someone because I have had opportunities that equate to a more universal view. Hate is sown from ignorance.

You have not explained how this equates to intolerance. It seems more like tolerance to me. Your rabid attempts to brand me with an epitaph, however, do seem like intolerance of another person's viewpoint. That is why I keep recommending you look up the word.

How does anything I have written make me a bigot? Please explain.

[Misunderestimator]

77. Right.... Gay Marriage is a "colossal, stupendous, irreconcilable mistake"

Just as asking for interracial marriage was. Oh wait... that wasn't a mistake... it became law.

Are you saying AN ENTIRE POPULATION GROUP (us) is mired in ignorance? It's fascinating how you can exhibit such incredible superiority towards those of whom you "do not join in an automatic commendation."

No one is asking for your commmendation, but certainly not for your condemnation.

I never used the word tolerant. I despise the word tolerant. I do not WANT you or anyone else to be tolerant of me. A person who tolerates homosexuality can still be (and usually is) bigoted towards it. I know plenty of people who accept it without reserve, who live and let live, and who care for their fellow human beings unconditionally. They are not bigoted, and not once would they think to blame us for the ills caused by others and all of us. That's what you have done.

[Old Mouse]

80. THIS fight

and the way it was handled was a colossal, stupendous, irreconcilable mistake. You can't deny it, Gay right are further BACK from where they were before. And intolerance is only going to get worse in the immediate future, as this fight helped promote those who manipulate intolerance into a position of absolute power.

I think you are not reading, just picking words out of context. Your mosaic of interpretation serves only your desire to frame bigotry.

This entire post of yours misinterprets everything I have written.

If you do not use the word "tolerant" you cannot use the word "bigotry" - it is a preposterous supposition.

[Misunderestimator]

81. Not true at all... tolerance and bigotry are not antonyms nor synonyms

As for my mosaic, I'd say that you really are the master at picking words out of context.

And the fight was not a mistake. The RW took the issue and made it into a mammoth that did not at all represent the true entity. They would have done this no matter what words were used. How could the gay community have possibly stopped the couples in Massachusetts from going forward with a case they put forth years ago? What purpose would that have served?

As for a straight Mayor in San Francisco interpreting the law as he saw it, how does that tarnish the gay community? Should the gay community have lobbied those 3,000+ couples who went to San Francisco to be married to NOT do it? What purpose would have have served?

Other than these isolated incidents, I don't see what organized "fight" you are referring to, other than the fight from the other side.

And why do you keep personalizing the insults in your posts to me? I am not doing that to you.

[Old Mouse]

83. Your first actual comment on the issue

Yes, I do think that "mammoth" could have been handled better. The damage done is more horrible and long term then those couples on the city steps imagined. Why? Because they were to impatient to envision the consequences.

Why do I have an obvious disrespect for you personally? I claim the community suffers from a lack of political savvy in its leadership, and impatience in fulfilling short-term goals. It has also become overconfident of its social status, and dismissive of what turned out to be formidable opposition.

Now I am going to cut-and-paste. Here is your first post:

"And I call Bullshit.
Wake up and smell your bigotry. "

I have given you time and time again the chance to explain how my being tolerant of another persons beliefs could ever be considered bigotry. And yes, bigotry and tolerance are antonyms. Webster:

bigotry - extreme INTOLERANCE of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from one's own

sounds more like you than like me.

[Misunderestimator]

84. I'll grant you the definitions of bigotry and tolerance...

and then repeat that your original post exhibited bigotry... intolerance of the stance that you perceived the gay community to have taken regarding gay marriage. And your generalization (again in your original post in which you did not call out activists specifically) tha the gay community had done a disservice to itself in "pushing" for gay marriage. The bigotry comes in your assumption first that the entire gay community is at fault, and second that there is one reason for our recent failure, and that is the gay community's (or activists') agenda of gay marriage.

It's a pity that you have a personal disrespect for me. And that it is founded on something of which I have entirely no control: "Why do I have an obvious disrespect for you personally? I claim the community suffers from a lack of political savvy in its leadership, and impatience in fulfilling short-term goals. It has also become overconfident of its social status, and dismissive of what turned out to be formidable opposition." THAT sounds intolerant... bigoted... judging me because of your perception of everyone "like" me, eh?

[Old Mouse]

85. Two on-topic posts in a row

I could yet change my opinion of you if you could avoid the endless attempt to take posts out of context.

My original post contained criticism, perhaps extreme criticism, of TACTICS and intolerance. No hate of the gay community. If that were even possible it would take someone with more psychoanalytic abilities than you posses to identify it. I say the community fucked up big time. I never, in any way shape or form inferred I hated the community.

You are the only one with control over my respect of you or lack thereof. You are the one insisting that I am a bigot because I refuse to hate fundamentalist Christians the exact same way you do.

And don't flatter yourself. I in no way shape or form think of you as a representative of the gay community, its leaders or its activists.

[Misunderestimator]

86. LOL... Flatter myself...

And thanks also for the assessment of my psychoanalytic abilities. How is it that you think you know so much about me or my background, education or history?

As for the community fucking up big-time... once again, you are blaming the entire gay community for fucking up. I just can't get past your blanket criticisms.

And where exactly did some perceived hatred of mine towards fundamentalist Christians come into this argument? I have no hatred towards them. I'm hurt by them, I'm annoyed with them, I don't understand their hatred of me... but I don't feel hatred towards them.

[Old Mouse]

88. Right back to where we were before

You need to work on your reading comprehension. Try reading out loud.

You have expressed your feelings toward those whom are tolerant of fundamentalists quite clearly. You have made your opinion of fundamentalists quite clear.

You called me a bigot.

I said you don't know what the word means.

Now you agree.

So, what is your point?

[Misunderestimator]

89. It's been a lot of fun reading all of your condescending posts...

Now I am quite done. Try reading out loud yourself... calling a post bigoted is not the same as calling someone a bigot. And no, I have made no mention at all of fundamentalists prior to your mention of them. Where do you get this stuff? Please reference ONE post of mine here where I expressed any opinion about fundamentalists.

[Old Mouse]

91. review your first post

Others can claim to have called my POST bigoted. Not you.

[Misunderestimator]

95. "I call Bullshit... Wake up and smell your bigotry" - no "bigot" there

That was referring to the bigotry of your post... I did not call you a bigot. But you go ahead and believe whatever you want. You are the one that wrote the bigoted post.

And... again, where is any mention I made about fundamentalists?

[Old Mouse]

96. I began with criticism of the handling of the gay marriage issue

And it was immediately assumed anyone who would criticize anything about gays, gay society, or gay activism not only couldn't be a member of the community, but must be an enemy. That is prejudice in the extreme.

I gave you the opportunity to clarify or define your bigotry remarks post after post after post. All you did was reaffirm it was in fact directed at me. Some of the most intolerant posts I have ever seen. And your attempts to rationalize your automatic name calling of any opinion that doesn't toe the line infuriates me.

The community feels religious fundamentalism to be antiquated superstition. The religious argument was never, in my opinion, given a moment's consideration. It was treated with contempt and sarcasm. That attitude had a nation wide effect, and allowed others to attract more radical opinions into the mix. Who is to blame? The ones with the greater capability for critical thought of course! The others had no choice because they had no capacity.

You did not call my post a bigot, you called me one because you don't think before you react. This gets no more kicks from me.

[Misunderestimator]

97. No, it wasn't "anything" critical of gays... it was blaming the entire

community that inspired the reaction it received. I can't believe how you continue to post accusations of me being hateful and never answering your question and being intolerant of you. Go back and read them again. I have already explained how I took your post to be bigoted. I have not said one word critical of fundamentalists nor expressed any intolerance for them or for you. How do you justify calling MY posts "the most intolerant posts I (you) have ever seen?" A bit exaggerative, no?

I know plenty of gay Christians. You are wrong again to say that "the community feels religious fundamentalism to be antiquated superstition." There are people who believe that, but they cut across all lines gay/straight, caucasion/afro-american, rich/poor. If there were indeed a larger ratio of gays who are atheist than in the larger population, then it would be because of the attitude of most religions towards them.

One last time, I did not call you a bigot... I did not call your post a bigot (that would be just plain silly, now wouldn't it?)... I called your post bigoted. I told you metaphorically to smell your own bigotry because of the post you made.

I will agree with you on one thing though... no more kicks from me either.

[SnowBack]

43. Get lost bigot...

We aren't the ones posting hate... And you make no sense at all... Why did you even come in here if just to blame us... "Calmly stating dissenting opinions" my ass...

You're probably the kind of person who would go to a Jewish group and tell them that if they didn't "push so much" there wouldn't be any anti-semitism... Or go to an African-American group and tell them that if they hadn't "gotten out of hand" then there wouldn't be a KKK...

And when they get upset at your bigotry, tell them that you are "calmly stating dissenting opinions"...

Guess you prefer your Gay community neutered like on Will and Grace...

Go away BIGOT.

:mad:

[benevolent dictator]

42. i think even if we HAD tried pushing for civil unions instead

that it wouldn't have mattered. the republicans would have turned their hate machine on that instead.

and why shouldn't we want full blown marriage? people will say "it's just a word, it doesn't matter what you call it" but i disagree. all marriage stands for in my eyes are the rights an benefits, people will try to tell you that marriage stands for love and trust and commitment and all that bullshit, but it doesn't. think of all the broken marriages you know of. committed long term relationships stand for that, and you don't need a license to have that.

having marriage for straight couples and civil unions for gay couples just invites legislation that would add benefits to marriage or take them away from civil unions. if we all have the same thing, they won't be able to make that distinction.

until non-christians can't partake in this "sacred chrisian rite," i'm going to fight for my right to get married.

[Old Mouse]

45. The religious connotation

meant more to these people than anyone expected, and the resulting conflict was handled poorly. There was no compromise offered or attempt to remotely understand the religious point of view. Their argument was dismissed outright.

It does not matter how valid anyone's point is, there must be open dialog to resolve conflict. Reviewing the events, the community had the better opportunity to open a relationship.

Civil unions and marriage are not equal, but there was movement to legally replace the word marriage with civil union, a back door way to make them match. I don't think it got out of the discussion phase.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. Many GLBTS have been kicked out or excommunicated ( or would be)

from their religions. They are the wrong people to tell that they've *gasp* alienated someone. And it IS like telling black people that white people would quit lynching them if they'd only hang in there.

That's my point. Aren't you glad SOMEONE didn't want to wait?




In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King Jr.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
- Martin Luther King
On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.
- Martin Luther King

[Old Mouse]

71. Frankly, you don't know what your talking about

Read "We Have Taken a City" before lecturing me about the path of African American civil rights. It's about my family, and speaks directly to your issue of misquoting and misunderstanding the great PATIENCE taken to bring Black America up to the level of imparity we enjoy today.

If we had demanded the right to marry white women when Dr. King marched to demand they fulfill the promise already made there would have been genocide. The only reason blacks survived the horror of Jim Crow is by learning the thoughts and motivations of those who oppress you, and maintaining tolerance for the hatred that others feel towards you.

If you want to quote King, try this:

"Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. "

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. Your point is well taken and use of tolerance in that context noted

I guess the thing is that I have interpreted your comments on this thread to suggest we should wait...or slow down (remember most of the people in that Mass. case had been together for decades)...and I appreciate the experience you bring.

On the other hand I would never dream of suggesting that black people should have waited a minute more for justice..and in my perception ESPECIALLY with several of your posts upthread, you not only do that but you place blame i.e. to the point of scapegoating the gay community with your comments.

[Old Mouse]

74. Thank you

for such a surprisingly tolerant post. Really, I am shocked.

I do think the community is not empathic with those they oppose.

Shocked into silence...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

75. And I think we have been for far too long..that's WHERE we disagree

[Old Mouse]

76. Wonderful!

A valid belief.

As long as no ones calling me a bigot...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

82. OK..but look..I request you examine THIS

While over the course of time you and I have seemed to come to an understanding, I request you take THIS MUCH into account.

IF during the civil rights era, I BLAMED black people for Nixon's success, or wrote a treatise on why black people should WAIT for their rights, or why they overreached, people would INTERPRET my actions as being bigoted. WHY? Because I am white..I have NO BUSINESS telling others to wait for political expediency to be able to enjoy the same rights as others.

That is very much like YOU coming into this forum and (with especially your first post) telling gay people they have a lot of nerve (which essentially you did) to have reached for the EXACT SAME CIVIL rights as other Americans.

Now that you have SHARED your perspective over time on this thread..you've certainly clarified things..but go back and read your first post and several subsequent ones...it took you a very long time to go from lecturing people in this forum, to explaining TOLERANCE in the manner that you just did for me.

Therefore, I am asking you to look at HOW you became to be perceived as having espoused bigoted thoughts...(for the record, I never called YOU a bigot, I said your post was bigoted)

[Old Mouse]

87. Interesting

but you should have figured out by now that I am... shall we say, not quite straight? That it requires membership to be allowed an opinion is a sorry state indeed.

My first post is in anger because of how very much has been lost. I think the massive pounding it received was because people aren't yet thinking straight. I expected your current level of response at the first, not the massive knee-jerk name calling.

If your post was intended to speak directly to only my words, I really do apologize. That shows MY lack of patience. My only defense on that can be that it came in with a large wave of abuse.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

90. I've read most not all of your posts on this thread. I did not glean that

you were "not quite straight." I don't feel membership is required to comment as I am quite comfortable posting opinions on racism...mostly because I deplore it. I just think your first post practically criminalized a whole lot of people who didn't deserve it.

I think you and I came to terms by taking each other head on..I don't shirk from a confrontation, but after reading several of your responses to me, I backed off as I could hear the support in your words of anger.

I guess I also disagree that anything is lost..again, using the civil rights era as a corrollary, we certainly can't deny that things appeared to temporarily get worse before they began getting better (although I am still not satisfied with the progress America has made on race).

To be honest, I never had any real intention as a gay woman to get married so I've not really been on the marriage bandwagon and felt civil unions would have sufficed..but the MORE THEY want to take away any possibility, the more I wish to pursue them.

I don't want to live in a homophobic world any more than I want to live in a racist world..and I refuse to let racist and homophobes dictate the terms of the debate.

[Old Mouse]

92. straight or not

should not have been a qualifier.

Your other points are very well taken. But I believe it is the desire for conflict that is being manipulated.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

93. It wasn't a qualifier but for the heat of the rhetoric of your first post

Again...I would have a lot of friggin gaul IF I said that to any African American. The civil rights of any human being in America should not be up for debate in the first place.

Frankly, if the desire for conflict is being manipulated, I think it squarely rests with our opponents. If you are advising diffusing, or if you are advising tactical retreat then fine...anything else is simply advising people to tolerate discrimination..again...I would NEVER ask that of any other minority.

Anyway...peace...

[Old Mouse]

94. cool

good words. Well put.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

58. Just read through all your posts. I'll explain why you're wrong and why

your remarks are bigoted.

First why you are wrong.

If you are that OLD of a mouse then you seem to have a shoddy remembrance of MLK, the Civil Rights movement and the VIOLENCE inherent in that movement despite Dr. King's preaching of peaceful revolution. Yo seem to have forgotten the bombing of the church in Alabama...or Sheriff Jim hosing the marchers in the Birmingham march with fire hoses. Why do I bring this up? Because you seem to be communicating that social change occurred in the area of black civil rights after black folks simply waited patiently for their rights.

That is not the case...there were riots, there was violence and only after America repeatedly had it's bigotry crammed down it's throat..only after the pictures repeatedly showed up in Life Magazine and on their evening news repeatedly did things change...BTW..more changed after MLK's violent death than before...so enough of your romanticizing that good things come to those that wait.

In fact, if you want us to pull a page from the civil rights movement then perhaps you are suggesting that only after we riot and enough deaths are in people's faces will things change. If that's the case, I agree with you...Matthew Sheppard did far more for the gay rights movement than damn near anyone these past couple decades...were he not left to hang like Jesus on that fence, people would not have been confronted with the ill effects of their homophobia.

Frankly, I think violence is about the only way most brainwashed Christian fundamentalists will snap out of their somnambulence.

Now as to why your posts are bigoted using this definition and word origin as a framework

big·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


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

Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”


In the strictest sense of the word your entire post places the BLAME on the gay community for the bigotry expressed toward them. You speak with great understanding for the oppressors as though their position is logical and reasonable and speak to the gay community as though we have GREAT NERVE to demand that the over 1000 civil rights that a married couple have be afforded to us...in essence you "blame the victim" as though if we hadn't been on that corner at that time of night we would NOT have been mugged. In order to even approach us with this attitude you HAVE to express a sense of superiority toward those that ARE doing the oppressing...you speak with GREAT understanding of THEIR point of view and with great disdain for OURS...nothing subtle about it.


AND FINALLY YOUR ORIGINAL POST IS VOID OF FACTS BUT YOU PRETEND IT ISN'T

YOu claim an overwhelming majority of Americans favored civil unions...what are you basing that on...a couple polls? Anything? Yes a majority of Americans MAY have supported civil unions but as of 2004 very few states even HAD civil union laws passed. The seven couples in Massachusetts had waited for DECADES....

You claim the gay community asked people to modify their religions. The only case made by the gay community was to marriage as defined by the state nor by the church...frankly, you spent your entire post JUSITFYING using religion as a conduit for bigotry..like it or not, that's what you did.

Now there is a hate and anger in the air because the gay community just wouldn't leave that damn word alone. Just had to have the word no matter how much it meant to the religious conservatives of this country. And don't give me that " 'separate but equal' is never equal" crap.

No the hate and anger is FROM religious bigots with whom you sympathize..enough posting under the register...your comments are TOLERANT and SYMPATHETIC to the bigots...that MAKES your comments BIGOTED.


Next time you post on the subject, please review THIS..it will have you be MORE informed on the nature of the case, the issues, and the notion that SEPARATE can be equal.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/maglmarriage20304.html

[Old Mouse]

61. Thank you for the thought-out post

I want to thank you for such a well thought out and researched reply. I realize the time and effort that must have taken you.

I have never claimed I am "SYMPATHETIC" to the religious side. But I am admittedly and unashamedly tolerant of all views.

You cannot call someone a bigot for showing tolerance. Even to views you do not respect. Can't you see this? How ridiculous that is? Calling me a bigot because I do not agree with you? (which in fact, is not even true...)Tolerance is the antonym of bigotry.

My reference to the work of Dr. King was to compare the tactics and levels of acceptable results of two civil rights pioneers. One moved slow, promoting understanding on both sides. The other has a noticeable lack of long term strategy. While I appreciate all of the discussion of Dr. King, I think it is off-point, and I apologize if I did not make my original statement more precise.

I do agree "separate but equal" never is equal. But once the religious right equated "marriage" with "sanctification" this battle was not one that could be won, and the end result is greater oppression than before. (Nat Turner)Soon the hard won domestic partnership status will be in jeopardy.

The community (and I use the word community to represent the activists and commentators who represented the opinions of the entire community to the wold at large through the eyes and ears of the media) was dismissive of the right's opinion, and that gave a conflict big enough to sell papers. If the community had given the appearance of considering the religious argument, such as opening a dialog with their more sympathetic leaders, even just PRETENDING to take it into account, the catastrophic polarization might have been averted. Jimmy Carter speaks eloquently about how to negotiate with tyrants by maintaining an appearance of respect and an open ear.

I am old enough to remember when Rock Hudson was a Man's Man in another sense of the word, and as a black man I had to show legal ID just to walk the streets. I don't think many who were pressing too hard and too fast for social change realize how much accomplishment is now at risk.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

64. No you go well beyond tolerance to actually attempt to justify their views

Sympathetic would be like saying "The KKK were raised to be bigots by their parents." Justifying would be saying "The KKK interprets the bible to mean that white people are the superior race. By advocating for equal rights for black people you are spitting in the face of their bible." and that, my friend, is EXACTLY what you did with the intolerant religious right and their fabricated issues with gay marriage. It wasn't enough to be tolerant for you...you not only JUSTIFIED their position you then SLAMMED gay people as though us demanding equal rights were anathema to democracy....it isn't..it's the other way around.

BTW..I didn't call YOU a bigot, I said your posts were bigoted, I gave my reasons and even after your explanation...in fact, ESPECIALLY after your explanation, I stand by my post.


YOur references to Dr. King even after explanation, are just plain old wrong. Everyone was telling HIM to back off and the south was claiming the world wasn't ready for little nigger kids to sit in school with white kids...King only advocated non-violence..he didn't advocate waiting until any time was right..in fact, he made the time NOW.

As far as your explanations for what the religious right did..yes..that's what they did and that is why we need to push back harder..in fact..if I have my way..within a year we will be doing sit ins in their bigoted churches and exposing them for their hateful so called religion...we need to be MORE in their face not less...politics be damned...this isn't some tactic..this is our lives and our rights at stake...easy for you to write them off.

[Old Mouse]

67. I suppose your nickname is misleading

something does seem to shock you

Is it a coincidence you use the term "nigger" after I reveal myself to be black?

Perhaps you thought you were making a point.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. I should have put it in quotes so you would get my meaning

It wasn't intended to shock..we are also called every name in the book by an irrational hatred. Allowing THEIR terms only reinforces it as it did with you.

Perhaps I also should have stated I resent using the word tolerance. I don't TOLERATE you because you are black. You are you and you have every right to exist. That's all I want too.

[Old Mouse]

73. you should not have used it

I will avoid that point further.

To restate: A religious minority believe that the word "marriage" has a specific Biblical meaning. They are in fact, incorrect. That is not important however because we have crossed into the realm of fanatical religious belief. It is not possible to convince these people the error of their interpretation. Faith trumps logic, an inoculation against any possible argument. These people only wanted the WORD. They didn't care about benefits, or civil unions, or the disparity of such... just that word itself, not its legal meaning.

Other people, for their own ends, started pushing these congregations to the fore of the news. Pundits started making noise that it was a major problem. The public swirling with images of steamy man-on-man sex combined with pinpoint focus of the "cultural divide" made this story carry more political impact than its separate factors. Religious fervor is higher now than at any other time in American history. People with political goals manipulated the religious angle in the public perception with tremendous skill.

This is when the community should have stood down. They should have looked beyond the immediate goal and seen some of the long term consequences of what was happening. In fact the issue stood a chance of petering out until Mayor Newsom overstepped his authority. He's my mayor. I voted for him. I am proud of him for the stand he took, but I wish he had used more of Willie Brown's political savvy.

George bush proved he didn't care about the issue and spoke against his own party's platform by endorsing civil unions just before the election. That should indicate the level of political manipulation this issue has wrought.

This issue allowed the Republican propaganda machine to craft the term "activist Judges" specifically to begin the removal of judicial check of the executive branch. That's a whole lot bigger than Gay rights.

Should have let the fundies have the eight letters. It was a battle that could be fought in other ways on other days. And I believe the left as a whole does not take the time to empathize with those they oppose.

[Misunderestimator]

78. It's like saying "Too bad Kerry went to Vietnam, now the SwiftVets can...

use that against him." Too bad that some gay American citizens wanted "marrage" rights.

You know, had one gay person or 10 million pushed this agenda, the RW machine would have spinned it the exact same way. If NOT ONE SINGLE gay person used the word marriage, and civil union was the term used by the "movement" they still would have spinned it the same way. They would have equated civil union with marriage and done the exact same fear-mongering among the religious right. Yes, they have tremendous skill.

And by the way... you're wrong... it is not just the word they want. Ask a few of them... some of them would like us to just disappear, and some of them would like us dead. Most of them don't see us as the same kind of human beings they are, and view us "abominations" and "sinners." No it's not just the word they want. They want to make sure that nothing is done to elevate gay american citizens to the same status, rights-wise, as straight americans.

[Old Mouse]

79. Swift boats are a perfect example...

Kerry realized his fight was against the propaganda machine, and not those falling under its sway.

At the beginning it was only about the word. Many of the small pulpit religious leaders were clearly saying they did not object to civil unions. That's where the lack of understanding I'm talking about comes from. No one on the right listened to them then, when dialog was possible. Their message was misunderstood due to impatience and a lack of empathy.

The groups that began the protest against gay marriage were NOT the "fags go to hell" crowd. But all of that got swept away in the hysteria that followed: Once the problem went national others were involved in sculpting the issue, and pulling in elements that guaranteed intolerance.

The resulting conflict caused a tribalistic transformation that furthered the polarization of all social issues. Moderation gave way to fanaticism on both sides. The "climate of fear" kept those on the left from recognizing allies on the right; now those allies are lost due to neglect and outside manipulation.

Do I blame the right? I think they posses more free will, have greater capability for understanding. If the effort had been made to empathize with religious fundamentalism, it would have been understood that was not possible for them to give up on that word due to the way the argument had been framed.

The propaganda machine needs conflict to work. Can't have a fight with only one player.

[benevolent dictator]

65. i think the objection wasn't that

you were tolerant towards the religious view point as that you seemed sympathetic and tolerant towards their view while NOT towards the lgbt side.

and what? "I do agree "separate but equal" never is equal" but earlier in post 17 you said "And don't give me that " 'separate but equal' is never equal" crap." care to explain that?

quit jumping around and and contradicting yourself to prove your not a bigot.

[Old Mouse]

66. 3 again... worrisome

The separate but equal "crap" means "don't bring up the argument because it isn't a factor"

I have not contradicted myself. But I do hope each post helps clarify. I will say I think you are all are guilty of the greatest of assumptions. And you do it to justify your own anger at a religious minority whose social influence was severely misjudged.

I am grateful you used the word "seemed" it helps point the way to realization of assumption.

[Zep]

18. Civil unions are not "the answer", but ...

... pushing to universalize civil unions may be a good tactical move.

If civil unions are everywhere, it will be easier to push for marriage.

[Brian_Expat]

23. Except that the Dem party wasn't willing to do that, either

And certainly won't be willing to after this past election. . .

[Zep]

25. The Dem party wasn't willing to do that ...

... so what are we supposed to do now?

I say the best bet is to push for civil unions everywhere, to get people used to the idea.

Only then push for marriage.

It will not happen until a majority will go along with it. So approach it from that direction.

[Brian_Expat]

26. Whip the Dem party into shape. . .

. . . or failing that, drag them down into the pit with us for letting it get this bad.

[Zep]

47. Right on!

eom

[rhino47]

30. This isnt just an issue for gays

This is an issue that concerns every moral person.How can I as a married mother of two stand by and let my children inherit a country that has spit in the face of some of its citizens.I cringe to think my daughters will live in a country where it tries to teach them to hate rather then tolerate.I will not sit back and let part of my fellow humans be scorned .To do nothing is to agree with that hatefull behavior.When * was re selected I cried for my gay brothers and sisters.The gay`s battle is mine.Hopefully there will be no need for them to take over the battle when I am gone.
That seems unlikely in the age of the hatriot.I can not see how two people that love each other threatens my marriage to a loving spouse.