Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

Q: How Many Lawyers Does It Take To Overturn Prop. 8?

votenoonprophate8

A: More than what’s listed here. On Thursday, the Supreme Court will convene to hear arguments on both why Prop. 8 should be overturned and why it should stand. Here, we’ve assembled your California Supreme Court dance card, to let you know who’s speaking and what their argument is.

 
The Lawyer They Represent They’re Going to Argue…
11119
Shannon Minter
National Center for Lesbian Rights Proposition 8 is so expansive in scope that it constitutes a revision, not an amendment to the Constitution and as such, it did not follow the prescribed process for a revision– which requires a 2/3 majority vote from the legislature before it goes to the voters.
picture-1
Raymond Marshall
Friend-of-the-court briefs from civil rights organizations Groups as diverse as the AFL-CIO, ACLU and American Federation of Teachers all wrote the court in opposition to Prop. 8. Their particular concern is that Prop. 8 makes it very easy for basic rights to be stripped away by simple majority votes. While they support gay rights, their primary concern is that the process and logic of Prop. 8 could be applied to their own interests down the line.
1667812_1
Michael Maroko
Robin Tyler and Dianne Olson Robin and Dianne have married more times than Elizabeth Taylor, but only to each other each time. Their commitment to challenge the courts and legal system set off the 2004 lawsuit which led to (through many various legal hairpin curves) the California Supreme Court marriage decision last May. They are the “human face” of gay marriage and, as such, expect Maroko’s argument to be about fariness and equality.
theresestewart
Therese Stewart
City & County of San Francisco San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom permitted the city to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians five years ago, serving as the other main catalyst for the California gay marriage decision. Stewart will be arguing that it’s in the best interest of the city for its residents to be allowed to marry, regardless of gender, and that Prop. 8 fundamentally denies basic civil rights, which can not and should not be left in the hands of the majority.
president
Chris Krueger
Attorney General Jerry Brown The most expansive and broad argument against Prop. 8 will come from the AG’s office, who did a surprising about face in December, saying that it would not support Prop. 8 and felt that the initiative violated the California Constitution. Brown’s argument is unique in that it argues not on process grounds, but on moral grounds. Essentially, the AG’s office will argue that denying gay people marriage is fundamentally wrong and undemocratic.
ken_starr
Kenneth Starr
The sponsors of Proposition 8 “Is this court really prepared to overturn the will of the voters of California?” This is the theme, Ken Starr will return to again and again. He will point out that the Court has no preexisting case law that permits it to act in such a unilateral action (true) and that voters were not denying a right, but rather, reaffirming traditional marriage (sophistic lie). Starr, as the defendant, has the easiest job: Convince the court to do nothing at all.
The Lawyer They Represent They’re Going to Argue…
By:           Japhy Grant
On:           Mar 2, 2009
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

  • 193 Comments
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      Ken Starr? Great, well the national news will be bringing up Vince Foster, Whitewater and Monica. Yawn. Didn’t (doesn’t?) he also represent Blackwater?

      Isn’t one of the most important legal questions to be answered by the court is whether or not Prop. 8 violates the Separation of Powers clause? That there is a protection of minorities (see Liberal Democracy) through the Constitution. And the legislature has no authority to overturn those protections, whether through its own actions or that of a ballot initiative?

      I understand that this list is not meant to be exhaustive, and I am not in California (or the West Coast), but, I believe the City of Los Angeles has joined the city and county of San Fransisco with other cities and town in presenting an Amicus Brief?

      Mar 2, 2009 at 8:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Sebbe:

      Good morning, Sebbe.

      Boy, this is gonna be one suspenseful week. All eyes in the nation will be turned on California this Wednesday.

      Fingers crossed XX ;-)

      Mar 2, 2009 at 8:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      So it looks like with that picture QUEERTY has made an ANALOGY between racism and homophobia I agree it is the same thing. Any bigotry is the same as racism as far as I’m concerned. It is good to know I’m not alone in my feelings.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 8:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kurt
      Kurt

      we are gonna lose on this one

      Mar 2, 2009 at 8:38 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Kurt:

      And what makes you so certain of that?

      Mar 2, 2009 at 8:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Kurt: We are right that is why one way or another ultimately we will win. I hope America wins it is not just a gay issue it is about the integrity of our “free” country. An unjust law is no law at all. Don’t you think the court will overturn Prop8 as it is intrinsically unconstitutional and since our country was founded based on the principles of the constitution intrinsically Un-America.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 8:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tim in SF
      Tim in SF

      @Sebbe: What separation of powers clause are you referring to?

      @Kurt: We may, we may not. It’s too complicated to foresee. That’s what the court is for – to listen to all the arguments and weigh all the facts presented and make a decision.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 9:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Disgusted American
      Disgusted American

      One of the saddest things about all this besides the blatant discrimination in CA:

      ..around $$70Million dollars was spent on this to prevent LGBT Americans from having the RIGHT to marry…$$70 million? Money that could have went to the GROWING Homelessness in CA….the 1000’s on LA’s SKID row…to food banks, to subvert poverty..? But, NO….somehow Religious Organizations thought it was more important to keep consenting adults from committed relationships???…hmmm…? Im not religious..but I gotta’ wonder…what would Jesus spend that money on…? I think we ALL know that answer!!!!

      Mar 2, 2009 at 9:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @getreal:

      I agree, the analogy is perfect as far as I am concerned.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • boarderthom
      boarderthom

      @getreal:
      Compare and contrast, my high school english teachers drilled that into my head.
      Compare and contrast; gay rights and slave rights: The contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slaves could not get make and execute contracts and what is civil marriage legally mostly but a huge contract.
      There is an invisible sign pertaining to marriage contracts down at my local county clerks office and it reads “heterosexuals only”.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Disgusted American:

      You’re not alone in your thinking. Many of us have had precisely the same thoughts on that issue.

      And that these bigots cannot see the potential for our GNP if same-sex marriage were allowed to be performed in the US. Aside from the obvious boost of income from weddings and related businesses, think of the number of new homes, condos and apartments, the purchase of furniture, fixtures, decorating and landscaping of those new households, the his and his cars in the driveway, computers, bikes and toys for the adopted kids as well as additional real estate and school taxes produced by these new households and the college tuitions as the kids grow up.

      These people are such a joke. They are not pro-family.

      They are against families. And their own track record with regard to families is pretty dismal, with a nearly 50% divorce rate.

      So, they are not exactly the Gold-Standard by which to judge us, are they?

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @boarderthom:

      Cut it with the slave contrasts. Marriage is the ONLY contract that gay people cannot legally execute. Slaves could not execute ANY contract, not one. Fool.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @boarderthom:

      Excellent, borderthom.

      I will remember that the next time a black person says “But, it’s not the same thing and I resent your comparing gay civil-rights with black civil-rights. They are not the same thing.”

      I will never understand that position in a thousand years. Rights are just rights. They have no color. They have no sex. And they have no political affiliations.

      Denial of civil-rights, to any minority group, for whatever reason, is wrong, wrong, wrong, no matter who argues against it.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @boarderthom:

      By the way, I have no problem with citing appropriate legal precedents from the black civil rights movement and the Jim Crow era and if some black folks don’t like the use of those legal precedent, it’s too damn bad.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      uh, I don’t have a problem with what you are saying, Charles, but it’s the slave analogies that are inappropriate. As a gay man, you have legal status as a citizen (albeit with limited rights). “Slaves had no rights that a white man was bound to respect.” You do get paid for your labor, for example.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Chitown Kev:

      What’s your point? That argument is as moot as claiming that gays have not suffered as much as blacks and there fore are not entitled to civil-rights.

      It’s a pissing contest.

      And marriage is not the only right we are being denied of. There is a whole rafter of of contracts and paperwork, such as inheritance rights, the right to make medical care decisions for our partners, the 1150 Federal benefits due us and paid for out of our taxes, social security benefits, medical insurance benefits, and the right for bi-national couples, like myself, to be able to bring our life-partners to America and petition our government for citizenship.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Chitown Kev:

      No one is arguing that point.

      But why are you appear to be so adamantly against civil-rights for gays, based solely on your argument?

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      Dude, I understand that and I stated…use the appropriate precedents.

      Gay people are NOT slaves (well, not in America, in Nazi Germany, yes this was true).

      For example, You are paid for your labor (whether or not you can be not hired or be fired because you are gay, that’s a different matter).

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      Here we go into this fool ass pissing contest again

      You are equating being gay to being a slave. Does that even make sense?

      I am for full and equal civil rights for all people, including marriage. If you were a slave, for example, it would be illegal for you to be reading or to type on this post.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      By the way, I don’t even have to use the case of African-American slavery to show what an idiotic distinction this really is. I could go and cite the body of ancient Roman law on slavery to prove this point (simply to take race out of it).

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Chitown Kev:

      I never equated being gay to being a slave. You are putting words in my mouth and by doing that, you are obviously looking to create an argument here, where none should exist.

      Your emotionally charged response indicate several things to me.

      1) That you are black. I have NO problem with that.

      2) That you have some unresolved racist issues with white people. That, I DO have a problem with.

      Care to enlighten us?

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      no you didn’t, as I said you made the appropriate comparison of gay civil rights to black civil rights. But you did agree with boarderthom who did make the direct comparison of gay issues to slavery. Personally, I think anything after the ratification of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th amendment is fair game, really

      2) See, if you knew how much white dick I have actually sucked or read my posts you wouldn’t even throw out that ridiculous insult, dude.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      uh, I don’t have a problem with what you are saying, Charles, but it’s the slave analogies that are inappropriate.

      That is what I said, Charles.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Chitown Kev:

      You know what? I don’t like your insolent, snarky and disrespectful attitude that seems to be baiting me and spoiling for a fight.

      I don’t have time for this kind of shit and I really don’t feel inclined to entertain you so you can show me how much smarts you got…Dude!

      A good day to you. Go bark up someone else’s tree.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      My apologies to the board. I won’t flag comment #22 but if anyone is insulted by it, feel free to do so. I have a bad temper.

      I can’t believe that is the first time that anyone has ever accused me of being racist in this way. Usually, I have been accused of cutting white folks (and other races) far too much slack (i.e. inviting white schoolmates into my house, at a very young age)and not being down from the black man (whatever the flying fuck that is). For Charles J. Mueller to hurl that shit at me with absolutely no basis in fact, with no reference to previous posts is insulting to everything that I stand for. I think he is the one attempting to project his racism onto me.

      Can we get back to the topic please?

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      So I’m an uppity bitch. I’ve been called worse by better. Good day, sir.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Japhy Grant
      Japhy Grant

      Blanket warning: Personal attacks on each other as well as annoying racist stuff will get you banned. The same people keep turning every post into a race war. Being an asshole will get you banned.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      I apologize Japhy, won’t happen again.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Well, to get back on topic – in case anyone forgot, Prop 8 put California in the interesting position of “divorcing” the couples that got LEGAL marriage licenses via Gavin Newsom in San Francisco. I believe that is the first time the state “divorced” citizens without their consent.

      It will be interesting to see if this issue is covered and how, in the court’s final decision.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 12:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kevin (not that one)
      kevin (not that one)

      I’m just happy to see that Charles and Kev got their daily morning coffee fix on.

      Lord knows I’m pretty bitchy and cranky in the morning (even with my coffee) too.

      Charles, take my hand. Chitown Kev, take my other one. Now let’s hug.

      Now that we’re bridging the divide and beginning the healing process, let’s talk about how our common foes are going to spin this court hearing this week.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 12:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • J
      J

      That graphic is beyond inappropriate and disrespectful. I have to pull this site from my reader.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 12:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      OK, and for those of you content to sit in the balcony with your feet on the back of the chair and munching on your popcorn…I don’t blame you, I’d have done the same thing.

      On to Ken Starr’s argument, didn’t the court overturn Prop 22 or was that not an amendment or was it a different amendment to the Constitution?

      Mar 2, 2009 at 12:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • atdleft
      atdleft

      @Sebbe: Here’s the full list of municipalities challenging Prop H8-

      Counties:
      San Francisco (also city)
      Alameda
      Los Angeles
      Marin
      San Mateo
      Santa Cruz

      Cities:
      Los Angeles
      Oakland
      Sebastopol
      Laguna Beach (Yay, an OC town!)
      Fremont
      Santa Cruz
      Santa Monica
      San Diego

      Mar 2, 2009 at 12:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • atdleft
      atdleft

      Btw, here’s the link:

      http://cbs5.com/politics/proposition.8.challenge.2.884825.html

      Mar 2, 2009 at 12:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • atdleft
      atdleft

      @Chitown Kev: Prop 22 was simply a statute, while Prop H8 was a “constitutional amendment”… Though the argument being made by the NCLR lawyers is that it really wasn’t a simple amendment that’s generally in line with the current state constitution, but rather an attempt to fundamentally revise the constitution and its guarantee of equal rights for all.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 12:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cruiser
      cruiser

      The pro Prop 8 folks just had to drag ken Starr into the mix huh?! What are they afraid that their arguements won’t hold water so they had to bring in some high powered, high priced hired gun to prop(no pun intended)them up so they can look as though they actually know what they are talking about?! Fat chance, these people are narrow minded, anachronistic, Middle Ages thinking homophobes who are afraid of their own shadows! I hope for everyones sake not just Gays & Lesbians as well as the rest of those initials, that this somehow works itself out in the way it is supposed to, so these so called religious right folks can get on with their holier-than-thou lives and we can get on with our lives…in the real world.
      All eyes are on California, let’s hope they get it right this time.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 1:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jerekeys
      jerekeys

      Since finishing his investigation into Bill Clinton, Ken Starr has been the dean of Pepperdine Law School, a conservative-tilting Orange County campus. His selection as the voice of the pro-Prop 8 side reflects the desperation of the anti-equality side to find a thinking attorney with some clout to put forth their arguments (especially after Jerry Brown declined to defend the voter-approved amendment).

      The LA Times published an interesting primer on the arguments being made this weekend: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg1-2009mar01,0,2867679.story

      My favorite point made: “The easy way to think about these cases — and the way most non-lawyers are likely to do it — is to decide which side of the issue you’re on and root for that side to win. … That’s fine. It’s outcome-based. But frankly, it has very little to do with what the Supreme Court is going to consider in the oral arguments.”

      Mar 2, 2009 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @jerekeys:

      Right, the arguments before the court are not about gay marriage, per se, it’s really about everything that a constitutional republic stands for, it’s about civil rights, and it’s about whether it is just for the will of a simple majority vote to overturn the rights of a protected minority.

      It’s about our concepts of “fairness” and “justice.” “Gay marriage” may or may not be the beneficiary of this process in about 3 months or so but it’s really a bit of a “sideshow” when one considers the constitutional issues involved.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 2:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      @Chitown Kev:

      I am a blond haired, blued eyed, white guy, and I just to stand up for Chitown Kev a bit here. Our community is under assault, and it is really incumbant upon us all to come together responsibly. This is our greatest challenge, for our minority status is unique in that we are such a diverse community.

      I bet that most of us here have experienced discrimination for being gay, without ever uttering a word about our sexuality. Many at work feel forced to hide their relationships, are unable to place a simple photo of their “loves” on their desks or in their cubicles. We just read of the case of two brothers who were walking together down a street, who were mistaken for gay partners, and one was beaten to death. Other minorities make the mistake that we all can hide, that we blend, so we don’t face the same level of discrimination. The truth is that we face some bigotry that is the same, while others are entirely unique to our collective traits as a minority group.

      The one thing about being gay that is so unique is that nearly all of us are minorities within our own families. This should really sensitize us more than it seems to. What we experience is so individual that, of all minorities, we should better understand the challenge there is in completely identifying with the experience of another mintority group. Sure, folks might eye my husband (we were married July 3rd here in CA) as we walk through a store, roll their eyes, whisper to one another “look at those fags,” but security is rarely going to follow us about as we shop, as I know for a fact that have often done to people of color.

      Of course, the point that Kev makes is that his people were enslaved, denied all freedoms, and that has had a reverberating affect for generations–an affect the continues today, despite the fact that we finally have a man of color as President of the United States. We would all like to believe that this part of our sordid past is well behind us, but it is still an issue that will take generations to work through. This is an intimate experience of his people and it informs his culture.

      Mexican Americans, whose families have crossed the border to work here for pennies on the dollar are yet another minority class, who feel in their own way enslaved. Their experience too is singular to them. I am a first generation American, whose mother was removed from her family’s home in Northern Ireland, and forced into an industrial school as a little girl; abused, removed from school to spend her childhood scrubbing laundry, she past along a culture of abuse to her children. This is an experience that is unique to me, and to the children of the children who were so personally affect by the religious tyranny of the Catholic Church.

      If now is not the time to accept one another’s differences and come together as a people who share a common bond of oppression, then we might as well just toss in the towel now. It is impossible for us to completely know and understand the culture of each human being that makes up the colorul swatch of the gay community, but it is entirely possible for us to show compassion to one another despite our differences (black, white, old, young, fit and fat) and embrace one another for what does bind us to eachother.

      Kevin, Charles and everyone here, I don’t know you, and I can’t relate to everything you are and all that you have experienced, but damnit, I love you. You are my brothers, and there is not one of you from tweaked out circuit boy to log cabin republican whom I will not defend against anyone who would assault you.

      Let us inspire one another to come together in a line of defense against those who attack us. This is our time!

      Mar 2, 2009 at 2:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Mike:

      Thank you for saying that better than I was able to at the time.

      I will say this, the black experience informs a part of who I am, being gay informs it far, far more.

      After Proposition 8 passed, I would have been all for marching on the bigoted, homophobic African-American churches in California. (And as for what I REALLY think about the 58-70% of AA that voted for this bigoted amendment–well, Japhy put me on warning once so…) I gotten into fights with my own family members about Prop 8 (and we’re not on great terms to begin with because I’m gay.) I turned down an invitation to a relative’s beautiful new home for Xmas because of his bigoted, homophobic views.

      So…I don’t know, in a way, I am glad the exchange earlier today happened. We do have a long way to go as a community, or rather, as a set of communities. This is some of the tough work that it’s going to take to get there.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Thanks Mike. How am I supposed to follow up with the topic after you write such an eloquent appeal for tolerance & forgiveness?

      Well, here goes anyway – I think the Pro-prop 8 folks are being disingenous to the max when they say society is going to disintegrate if same sex marriage is allowed etc.

      However, they INFLUENCE the public with their rhetoric, obviously and we need to be understanding of that. Not concede the fight for equality. What I’m speaking of here is both sides actually. I have Gay friends who cannot understand why “traditional” people won’t give in on the word “marriage” (even if some of them might allow civil marriage) and vice versa.

      I just went to an event at our local library, while not vaguely related to Gay rights or marriage perhaps can shed some light on the thinking process. There was a wonderful, local man, from Nigeria speaking on and showing photos of, Nigerian Art. Aside from being incredibly unique, he mentioned that there had never been art for art’s sake until relatively recently (late 1800’s, early 1900’s? I don’t recall exactly.) Yes, there were artistic objects but they wre all religious or utilitarian.

      I can’t imagine not having art just because, but in the Nigerian culture they didn’t. Likewise, men in our country were never allowed to marry each other and it is outside the “tradtional” public’s frame of reference.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 3:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      Just read Ken Starr’s tag line:
      “Is this court really prepared to overturn the will of the voters of Californai?”

      And if the people of California voted in a referendum to turn all pasty white straight guys into slaves would that make it legal?

      I bet the Pillsbury doughboy would be howling for protection under the constitution then. I know a lot of lawyers think the rest of us are stupid, but I can’t imagine he has never heard of “dictatorship of the majority” before. Just because most people want something does not make it legal or right.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Chitown Kev: FYI there weren’t talking about you.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 4:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Chitown Kev: I don’t think they weren’t talking about you.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 4:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @getreal:
      Huh?

      Mar 2, 2009 at 4:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @strumpetwindsock: Wouldn’t it be funny if someone introduced some silly Proposition just to underline the inherent ridiculousness of Prop 8.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 4:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      @Charles J. Mueller – Good afternoon. Busy day here. Hope all is well.

      @atdleft – Thanks for the list.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 4:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @getreal: I think you made some excellent points today and I’m learning and Japhy actual warned that when things get too hairy with other posters it is best to jump ship.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      Does anyone know where to get that Prop 8 poster? I wouldn’t mind putting it in my front yard.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 4:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      @Tim in SF

      In political science the “Separation of Power” are known as the “tria politica”.

      While the phrase “Separation of Powers” is never used, it is implied throughout. The Separation of Powers is designed to do one thing, to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. It was wished to shield away from giving any branch of government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as “Checks and Balances” (also never mentioned).

      Three branches are created, the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial. Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited, or checked, by another branch.

      In this case, the question is whether the legislative branch (through a ballot initiative) had the power to restrict a right secured by the constitution.

      I personally do not believe it did. And I remind everyone that the United State is a Liberal Democracy, in which the rights of the minority are protected by the constitution (in theory).

      Mar 2, 2009 at 4:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      @Japhy Grant – “Being an asshole will get you banned.” – best comment in this thread. THANK YOU

      Mar 2, 2009 at 4:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Sebbe: That’s how it worked up here. Discrimination against same sex couples in our marriage laws was found to be against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that was the end of the story.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 4:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      @strumpetwindsock – Yes CT and MASS basically too. That is our best argument I believe. I’m hoping Japh does an in depth look at the make up of the court in California.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 4:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RichardR
      RichardR

      @J: what’s wrong with the graphic? it’s about “seperate but equal,” which is one of the sub-texts or points about the argument for gay marriage.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Renee
      Renee

      @ Japhy Grant

      You have the nerve to talk about a race war when you posted an appropriating image with this post? Seriously is there no end to the hypocrisy? Nonsense like this is why people like myself have continually been forced to defend why we are allies to the community despite the obvious racism that your leadership engages in.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Japhy Grant
      Japhy Grant

      @Renee: Well, I read your article and have to say that I’m sorry you’re offended that the image makes a historical comparison between black discrimination and gay discrimination. Are they the exact same forms of discrimination? Hardly, but they are part of the same struggle for civil rights. I’m sorry you don’t see that.

      There’s nothing racist about standing together for equality and civil rights. No matter what race, creed or color is being infringed on, discrimination is the same hateful attack on democracy and freedom for all.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 6:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Renee:

      there is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that the fundamentalists who are masterminding these campaigns would take us back this far and worse if they could. Of course, it would probably serve to push people back into the closet.

      Personally (and this is the opinion of one gay black man) this image doesn’t not go far enough…and if some black folks are too thin skinned and scarred about racism (as if homophobia doen’t scar and hurt) then you know what…too damn bad.

      Prejudice is prejudice, equal rights for all is equal rights for all, period. End of story.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 6:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Chitown Kev: AMEN!

      Mar 2, 2009 at 6:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Japhy Grant:

      Yep. I am 100% with you, Japhy.

      Guess my black card just got revoked…wouldn’t be the first time, probably won’t be the last.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 6:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      The white boi agrees with ChiTown Kev and Japhy, if his opinion matters.

      @whomeverelse – Let’s try and stay focused on this issue boys (and ladies) and not tear each other apart for once.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 6:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mb00
      mb00

      We are we fighting amongst ourselves here? This is stupid guys. It’s not wonder the GLBT community is such a fucking joke to all these right-winger conservatives. We can’t even get along amongst ourselves.

      Enough with the slavery analogies and racism. It is the same but it isn’t. We’re in a league all of our own.

      We are the last frontier in the movement of civil right equality. At this point, we all need to work together and not against each other. We can win this if we leave all the high school bickering behind and become one united front.

      Now let’s put our personal differences aside and let’s go kick some conservative ass.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 6:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Japhy Grant: I appreciate you addressing the personal attacks on this site.

      @mb00: I think it is a wonderful sentiment that we have to put our differences aside and concentrate on defeating conservatives not each other.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 7:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Scithion/Sceth
      Scithion/Sceth

      @mb00: I quote:
      “We are the last frontier in the movement of civil right equality.”

      Perhaps “We are the last leg of the mid-1900’s civil rights movement to manifest with a federal victory” would be more accurate, but I have my doubts with your statement as it is. The constitution doesn’t explicitly spell out sex as legally interchangeable. The women’s rights movement could have brought a swift end to sex and gneder issues by exactly that sweeping clause, but it didn’t, and we’re left with what we have today. If they had done that, a man and a man would equal a man and a woman.

      This is done with edgework, and when sex is done and settled with, it will still be an aeon before we get a sweeping statute like “the State cannot bar any activity without compelling evidence”, “the State cannot consider any factor of a person without compelling evidence”, or an explicit meting out of individualism, all of which are downright absurd by modern standards.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 7:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kevin (not that one)
      kevin (not that one)

      Brothers and sisters…

      This is the comments forum for a blog that we come to in order to dish, engage, and sometimes read each other head to toe. I think it’s absolutely great that we can get into heated discussions about race, gender, politics, etc. and even leave in a huff about it sometimes. Personal attacks are just stupid, but disagreeing with someone’s point of view and stating your opinion should be respected and encouraged by the editor (which I think he does a good job at). I don’t think there should be harmony in a comments section. I think there should be vigorous debate and a few people who are willing to go off the deep end, even when it (sometimes annoyingly) gets off topic…like I’m doing now.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 7:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ampersand
      Ampersand

      @Japhy Grant:

      Regardless of how well you intended the image, isn’t it a problem that Renee — who is completely in favor of equal marraige rights — felt alienated when she saw that image?

      Kev is right, of course, to say that not all Black people are alienated and hurt by that image. But there are a lot of Black people who don’t feel it’s right to use images of Jim Crow to illustrate prop 8.

      Wouldn’t it be more practical to avoid images that alienate some black people who are otherwise on board?

      Mar 2, 2009 at 8:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      This is not in regards to the picture or the underlying issue.

      I would just like to say good luck in doing ANYTHING in which some group of people are not offended or disagree with. The purpose of a blog is for a blogger or editors to express their opinions (whether right or wrong), that’s why we come here. Reasonable people have to take what they agree with and what they don’t in stride and disagree respectfully. Again this is just a general statement regarding everything and not my opinion on the above mentioned debate.

      Besides a little controversy is not necessarily a bad thing when trying to rack up page views. This is not the community lgbt center and the experiences of the editors are going to come through. Nowhere here do they state they are journalist and do not intent to express their opinions.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 8:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Sebbe:

      @whomeverelse

      Who might that be, Sebbe?

      Mar 2, 2009 at 8:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      @charles – Just everyone in general, calm down. LOL

      BTW Charles – Thanks for that other link the other day. It is a nice group of people at citizen not sure if you saw my comments or not.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 8:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      There’s no way to tell if we’ll win.

      The decision to overturn the initiative passed in 2000 was by a court dominated, as in Massachusetts, by Republicans. The most certainly did not do it because they’re GLBT friendly. They were responding to the pressure of massive sentiment to confirm our civil right to marry.

      Courts are far less about legalisms than party politics and attempting to put our social firestorms. The fear of being seen as reactionary by these reactionary Republicans could work in our favor, as it did in Massachusetts and when the federal Supremes stuck down sodomy laws. Those are all Republican courts.

      The mass sentiment is still there and now it’s repeated by unions and groups like the NAACP and MALDEF, which represent sentiment in their communities that cuts across the influence of the bigot christer cults. What’s not in our favor is that those cults included Warren’s southern baptists and the catholic and mormon hierarchies who remain very powerful. And the judges will now doubt take into account the blatant bigotry of Obama’s opposition to same sex marriage.

      We just have to wait and see.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 8:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Sebbe:

      Hi Sebbe. No upset. Just curious, especially since it came on the heels of the the blanket warning from Japhy above.

      I am glad that you enjoyed the group over at Citizen Crain. I kind of thought you would.

      Because it concerns itself with the plight of other bi-national couples like my Philippine partner and me, I have been a fan, reader and poster on that site for a couple of years now.

      Both Chris and Andoni are also involved in bi-national relationships so they have a vested interest and a good understanding of the problems faced by bi-national couples. They are both working very hard and campaigning for equal rights for all American Citizens, not just a chosen few as it exists now.

      I recently met a very nice couple there (Inxile) with whom I have established very nice dialogue and friendship. Forced to leave the US after 14 years in order to remain together, they have shared with me, many of the hardships, disappointments and heartbreaks they have experienced in their struggle for civil-rights.

      Theirs and my total attention, like that of the world, will be focused on the State of California on Wednesday.

      May we see justice finally be done.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 8:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      Charles, you’re just chomping at the bit, aren’t you.

      In case anyone hasn’t read it, I’ll direct you to this recent thread as an example of how spirited debate can go off the rails:
      http://www.queerty.com/good-riddance-to-james-dobson-20090227/

      I won’t even tell you where the fun starts, lest I be accused of censorship.

      Enjoy.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 8:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Sebbe:

      Yeah, we ran that non-provacative $43 million dollar campaign in California and see where it got us. I am all for provocative.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 9:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Japhy Grant: @Japhy Grant: In terms of the point raised by Japhy I think we have to distinguish between personal and political criticism. And recognize that when people are on the wrong side, the losing side, they often resort to personal attacks as a diversion and to get even.

      I also think that most people can see these attacks for what they are, an attempt to divert the discussion after they’ve lost the debate. When that happens the best thing to do is to drag it back to the politics of the matter.

      In terms of questions of racism, homophobia expressed under cover of religion, misogyny, islamophobia and immigrant bashing they’re just tools used to divide and conquer. The appalling thing is that so many people in the GLBT communities fall for it as we saw in the Eurocentrism of No on 8 and the racist backlash after the election.

      If Japhy’s intent is tone down the personal attacks I couldn’t agree more. But if it’s to end the discussion about racism in the GLBT communities it’ll be hard to stop the racists and islamophobes and even anti-GLBT bigots simply because there are so many of them. In my opinion nothing should be done to stop criticism of their views.

      I agree with Japhy that the two struggles, like those of women, trade unionsits, immigrants, etc., have much in common. And further, that we need to build alliances. with. I think we’ll find that the left wings in each community agree on the need to act together and the right wing tends not to.

      An example can be found in the politics expressed at http://www.blackagendareport.com/ where you find plenty of healthy Black Nationalist sentiment but precious little carping at other groups in struggle.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 9:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      @Chitown Kev – I meant more in regards to here, not in regards to marketing to the public, but your right, whether it is a social cause or otherwise, sometimes you have to be a little provocative to grab attention.

      @Charles J. Mueller – cheers

      @Bill Perdue – I’m not sure if that is an accurate description of the court in Massachusetts and what transpired there. New England republicans are of a different mold especially concerning all social issues not just lgbt issues, they also tend to be MUCH less religious and religion influenced. Probably, one of the reasons there are no longer any US Representatives from all of New England anymore!

      The example of what happened in Connecticut, first with the legislature enacting civil unions without judicial intervention (first in the nation) and then the Court ruling that civil unions where not equal to marriage and against the equal protection clause also provides examples and lessons that can be learned from.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 9:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Bill Perdue:

      Bill, thanks for that link. I have to check that out.

      For many personal as well as political reasons, I check out very little black media on the Net. Other than gay issues, I am pretty disconnected form “the black community.” I could write a book (and probably will, at some point) why.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 9:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anderson cooper is my future husband
      anderson cooper is my future husband

      If anyone is in doubt about the need for JAPY’S comment read Charles Mueller and Bill perdue attack a female ally for hours because she isn’t gay or an atheist.

      They then attacked anyone who stands up for her I’m glad JAPY put these two bullies in their place. Read and be amazed at how ugly it got.

      It was the right thing to do to put a stop to this kind of harassment. Their comments will shock I have no doubt and they got worse and worse

      http://www.queerty.com/good-riddance-to-james-dobson-20090227/#comments

      Mar 2, 2009 at 9:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Sebbe: The court is different in California too. The Chief Justice who helped overturn the bigots was first appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan.

      In both those cases, as well as the federal Supremes repudiation of sodomy laws, they’re unlikely decisions from a Republican court. (Just as they would be from a Democrat controlled court for that matter). But all three decisions have a common genesis – mass pressure and the desire not to be seen as backward.

      Go to Wikipedia or some source and read the comments of the federal Supremes in Lawrence v. Texas. They were afraid that the US would be thought of as a nation of bumpkins if they didn’t act on sodomy laws. They were afraid that the EU was laughing at us. The same thinking occurred in 1954 in Brown vs. Board of Education. The GLBT communities have been getting more and more adamant about equality and our movement is growing in power and militancy.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WillK
      WillK

      Mike – Thank you for the post. Your argument for uniting the gay community was beautifully expressed.

      As a gay man, college student and resident of California, and self-proclaimed political activist, prop 8 struck a chord for me. This week is going to be tough, but I am hoping that the courts will do the right thing.

      Just some clarification, the CA Supreme Court will have 90 days to render a decision. By June, we should know what the next step will be in California. If the decision stands, we are back to where we started – lobbying for another amendment to rewrite the California Constitution. If it is reversed, then we will be back to where we started last May, when the courts invalidated prop 22 (effectively making same-sex marriages legal).

      Looking at the CA Supreme Court Justices might give you a clue as to where the votes are. The decision on May 15, 2008 was a 4-3 vote to invalidate prop 22. If the Justices stay along these lines, then we will win. There is, undoubtedly, lobbying going on from both sides to sway the opinions of the Justices. This is illegal, but I speculate that it still occurs.

      The ideologies of the Justices will play a major role in their decisions. When it comes to public policy, the courts generally like to stay out of this arena. They feel that it is not usually their area. They are more for procedural issues, rather than social ones. Though, this is an arguable issue, as many courts in the past have affected public policy (ex: Abortion with Roe v. Wade, Segregation with Brown v. Board of Education are two that come to mind). Typically, the courts will not hear a case unless it cannot be resolved without the courts – afterall, the courts are the last branch of our government that get a say in the law. The the other branches (executive and legislative) cannot hash things out, then it is up to the courts to make a final decision.

      Without boring you with more legal jargin, and doing more research on my own, I will stop at this. Article 1, Section 7 of the CA Constitution will be a majoring talking point amongst the lawyers on Thursday. Check it out if you are interested.

      I am hopeful that we will have a victory on Thursday. I am going to a rally in Orange County on Thursday. Anyone in the area should come and show their support.

      Here is the link:
      http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/a-clockwork-orange/gay-marriage-rally-in-front-of/

      This was a nice break from paper writing, be back later..

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @anderson cooper is my future husband:

      Then why are you feeding the flames? This has been posted once.

      @Bill Perdue:

      Yeah, i was just reading that Sandra Day O’Conner voted with the majority in both the Bowers v. Hardwick and the Lawrence cases (I’m am still browsing through the legal history of all this stuff…)

      That whole “afraid of the EU thing” …I have a sense that we may already have that 5th vote in SCOTUS in Anthony Kennedy (who cited International Law in one of the Gitmo cases). But I understand why we really don’t want to take to SCOTUS just yet.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anderson cooper is my future husband
      anderson cooper is my future husband

      @Chitown Kev: Well a guy asked if it was a good idea to stop people from disagreeing but it was on a whole nother level. Not fanning any flames as everyone seems to have calmed down. Another posts lead to me to that link and I was frankly mad about it. It seems that the site won’t allow it anymore but I thought people should see what japy was talking about.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Renee
      Renee

      @Japhy Grant..
      On top of using an offensive image you also have now twice put words into my mouth. I did not say that I didn’t see the link between oppressions. If I did not see gay rights as a civil rights issue I would not openly advocate on behalf of it. I am saying that the use of our history is appropriation and it is racist. This btw is a point that many blacks have continued to say and yet it is ignored. What does that say about the level of importance we have in the community if you are more than willing to ignore our objections to make a supposedly ironic point? I will tell you unequivocally that when I advocate on behalf of gay rights in fundamentalist black circles images like this make it 10x harder for me to drum up any kind of support.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Renee:

      I don’t think that Gandhi would have minded if MLK had done the same, though he would have according to your logic.

      And it is not “our history” honey, it’s their history too. While noone knows what MLK would have felt ot this issue specifically, the idea that any civil right movement are not related or belongs to “us” never to be shared (unless we give permission) would be anathema to MLK.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Renee: I am a black american who looked at that prop 8 photo and agreed.We all have our points of view on this. I don’t think japhy was trying to be disrespectful and he even took time to address your concerns. As far as I’m concerned the struggles of LGBT people are not much different than the struggles of blacks during the civil rights movement. A group of tax paying american citizen being denied their basic civil rights. It’s not a contest of who has suffered more.

      @anderson cooper is my future husband: Thanks but I agree with Chitown Kev if people have calmed don’t let’s not fan the flames and get them mad again as you saw it is scary.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Chitown Kev: There is some truth to the idea that the courts can step back and take a deeper look into these questions but still they seem to vote for us when they’re pressured and against us when we’re quiet. That’s true for Democrats and Republicans.

      ——-

      As for anderson cooper is my future husband this is nothing new. He or she did this before to Charles. Below is an example of a real personal attack

      @Charles J. Mueller: As someone who does a lot of traveling to south east asia I know exactly the kind of traveler you are. For those of you who have never been to the Philippines it is infested with pervy old western men who go there because there are a lot of people who live in poverty who will form relationships with these old men out of sheer desperation. I have seen these men they go to these countries pay young men and women to have sex with them (often underage people) and delude themselves that “asians are not hung up on age” or “their sense of morality is different than ours” not taking into account crushing poverty and hunger for some people becomes so unbearable that sharing a bed with someone, anyone western is a ticket out of a very hard life. These relationships are always based on money.We met men like this there with their “boyfriends” they are essentially johns but pathetically don’t know it they genuinely think these people they pay for sex and eventually to live with them actually love them. No wonder you are not disgusted by this kid who blackmailed kids into sex acts you probably haven’t had uncoerced (free) sex in years.
      Posted: Feb 6, 2009 at 8:58 pm

      This came out of nowhere like the attacks on gay men in the other thread. It’s pretty sick stuff and it’s shameful that someone who says he or she is gay perpetrates the myth that we prey on children. Priests and pastors have a monopoly on that.

      I don’t advocate banning commentators like that but I will try to explain the politics behind it.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Renee:

      and as far as how I really feel about fundamentalist circles…well I have been warned… they cast gay black men out to die in the 80’s from the AIDS and continue to do so today. The Xtian love that they brag so much on…it’s a crock…Jesus would turn away no one. Not impressive at all, Renee.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Japhy

      I hasten to assure you that I am not a racist and I am not attempting to start a race war. But since there seem to be a number of posters on these blogs who promote and support censorship, I feel the need to speak my piece without having to explain or defend myself with each word I utter, over and over, as I have felt obliged to do so many times on this site.

      Your Post No. 56 in reply to Renee, paraphrased the comments in my Post No. 13.

      Ironically, Renee’s indignant and outraged comments about the comparison of gay civil-rights to black civil-rights were exactly what I had alluded to in that commentary. I do not believe that I said anything in that post or any of my subsequent posts that could be construed as being racist, unless using the term “black” has become another politically incorrect phrase that will not be tolerated on this site.

      Your blanket warning, Post No. 27, states, “The same people (plural) keep turning every post into a race war. Being an asshole will get you banned”

      Not wishing to be baited into a racial mud-slinging contest, I had already terminated my discussion with Chitown Kev before you posted your warning and since he and I were the only posters exchanging commentaries at that particular moment, I am assuming that the warning was intended for the both of us. And if that is the case, I am wondering why I should be admonished for protecting myself from an attack that I felt was launched on me?

      I assure you that I am not looking to fan the flames here. The issue is already forgotten and I am over it. I only mention it to point out to you that Chitown Kev and I did not see eye to eye on the issue of gay-civil rights vs. black civil rights and we both exercised our right to freedom of speech to speak our mind. We ended the discussion and that was that. That’s the nature of the right to disagree and debate. The sky did not fall as a result of our little teté-a-teté.

      Comes along outraged Renee, with his indignant rant directed at you in Post No. 55, wherein he alludes to “the obvious racism that your leadership engages in”, which was precisely the type of commentary I was alluding to in my original post. He gets an apology which I get a speeding ticket. WTF?

      But wait, it gets even better. Over the past few months, I have been attacked, bullied and personally threatened by other posters on these threads. I registered my complaints with you via several emails. I never received a response from you. Fortunately, the attacks stopped so there was no further need to pursue the matter. That may have been the result of some action on your behalf that I am unaware of and, if so, I thank you.

      Recently, however, these personal attacks have started-up again, this time by several new posters; namely, GetReal and Strumptwindsock who sides with and backs-up Getreal’s religious rants and who regularly and freely insults and verbally abuses other posters like Bill Perdue and me while using freedom of speech as their justification, but calling for censorship whenever anyone dares to disagree with them.

      Here are a few of the epithets and insults she has hurled at us in recent posts.

      Homophobes, KKK Klansmen, Bigots, Haters, Bullies, Racists, Klan Homophobes, Racists and Pedophiles.

      Under the thread “Good Riddance to Dobson”, however, is where she really cranks the abuse into high gear and starts slinging the racial slurs over the fence at Bill Perdue and me.

      Starting with Her Post No. 29, she uses the “nigger” word twice.

      In her Post No. 33, she employs it 6 times.

      In Post No. 36, she uses it yet once more, for good emphasis.

      Claiming to be straight, but homo-loving, she is constantly drawing attention to herself as a black victim of racial prejudice and hatred, despite the fact that no one has ever called her the “N” word or made one, single, solitary comment about her race. Getparanoid loves to portray herself as the ultimate victim/martyr who everyone on these threads is out to get.

      And, after listening to her twisted rhetoric, manipulation of facts and disingenuous lies, that I could take no more of, I finally decided to let her have it with both barrels in my Post No. 88 in which I invited her tattle-tale sidekick Strumpetwindsock to flag my comments because I was desirous of having you seem them for yourself.

      Today, and as a result of your blanket warning, Pricilla Goodbody of Queety.com crows and pats herself on the back with this smug and smarmy comment.

      No. 104 – GETREAL

      For those on this thread who took issue with the personal attacks yesterday on this thread I emailed the link of the whole dialogue to Queerty and Japhy laid down the law on another thread that from now on Queerty will not tolerate personal attacks and ban people who make them. So YAY! Queerty for insuring this is a safe space for everyone to express themselves.

      That horrible sound you hear in the background is I barfing my guts out.

      Little Miss Goody-Two-Shoes, who is straight and black, not that there is anything wrong with either, gets a free pass to do her dirty work, hurl her insults and sling the “N” word about like jelly beans at a children’s birthday part on these threads and no one is the least bit upset or utters a bloody word to her, not even her black brothers and sisters.

      What’s wrong with that picture? Apparently, it is ok for Getreal to attack people, be verbally abusive, use these threads for promoting her religious beliefs, stir-shit up and call anyone she pleases a racist, but we white, non-religious boys had better watch it or else!

      Geatreal also believes that she has the right to proselytize her Christian beliefs on these threads and preach at us from her lofty, self-righteous pulpit. She feels that she has the god-given right to “defeat” the bigots (those who disagree with her), calls upon other posters on how to go about doing that, while insisting that Bill Perdue and I, who are non-religious, do not have the right to speak out against organized religion which we both strongly feel is the basis and foundation for all the conflict that is going on around the world.

      Another double standard on which she gets a free pass? Christianity can be freely preached on these threads, but Agnostic, non-religious and Atheistic views are prohibited and banned?

      To quote Post No. 21 – Stef, if I may take the liberty…

      :::Rolls eyes and slams head on her computer desk out of frustration that Christians think they are the saviors of EVERYTHING:::

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      I mean, what do you want? A concentration camp photo of gay perople that were used as Nazi Slave Labor? Or, heaven forbid, a picture of a gay man walking into a Nazi gas chamber?

      How about juxtaposing a picture of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard, would that offend you? (this split screen plays in my head a lot?)

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @getreal: Here we go again. Let’s all stick to the issue of gay rights lets drop the attacks. If we don’t like certain posters than just don’t address them. Perhaps the issues of comparing racism to homophobia to other forms of bigotry is just too much for this forum as it caused huge problems. I believe fag and nigger are the same thing equally bad as any other racial or religious slur. Just my opinion. Let’s keep it positive no one wants to get banned.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 10:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      Anyone who wants to can read what happened and see I was completely calm and extremely respectful after hours and hours of insults so here is the thread. I really hesitate even addressing the subject but the last poster lied and anyone can see it in black and white. Read it if you want then can we all just drop it?

      http://www.queerty.com/good-riddance-to-james-dobson-20090227/#comments

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      He actually complained at one point that no matter how much he insulted me I wouldn’t get mad or fight back. Look for yourself. Read all of it

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      FOLKS CHILL OUT, PLEASE!!!!

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Renee: What do you think would be an effective way to reach black fundamentalists if this is a wrong way? I always thought as someone here already said comparison and contrast give people more proximity to the issue.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Chitown Kev: I’m done I will only debate the issues. Cause really stick and stones…

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Chitown Kev:

      I want you to know that I harbor no anger or resentment toward you over our disagreement this morning. As I just got finished saying in my lat post, we were simply exercising our right to freedom of speech. You’re entitled to your view and I am entitled to mine and god-forbid that anyone should ever deny us that right….even Queerty.com.

      I think that Queerty.com needs to also realize, that in putting out the three deadly sins, Sex, Religion and Politics that should never be discussed in polite society, up to public debate an discussion on a gay blog site such as this, there are going to be some emotional reactions, repercussions and yes…even flaming.

      While, ideally, it would be very nice to calmly, cooly and politely discuss Betsy Ross and the stitching of the American Flag, these are all very inflamatory issues and trying to remain calm, cool and polite is sometimes very difficult.

      Trying to remain cool, calm and collected about just having my civil-rights ripped away from me bya group of people who despise me to damn me to hellfire and brimstone for all eternity, is a little much to swallow at times.

      Anyway, Pax…and feel free to hit me up on these threads anytime. ;-0

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Renee
      Renee

      @Chitown Kev:
      Please do me the favor of not referring to me as honey. I don’t need to be further minimized. My name is Renee, either address me as such or not at all

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anderson cooper is my future husband
      anderson cooper is my future husband

      I am a gay man and old queens supporting exploitation bothers me. And hiding behind your computer and picking on posters because they are straight allies not gay doesn’t help our cause. I think Japy had big balls calling bullies on the carpet. Hit the treadmill guys you are going to have to find a new way to get that aggression out.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      Pax, Charles :)

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Renee
      Renee

      @getreal: I personally believe that there are other ways to show them about co-relation that do not involve appropriation. Much of the history of Blacks in the GLBT community has either been white washed or completely ignored. They need to know that GLBT history is also black history. Learning about people like Baynard Rustin, or Baldwin can open great doors. When I tell people that the march on Washington was Rustins idea and that he was an out and proud gay man it opens the door to discussion as to why this is a civil rights issue and the ways in which we are once again throwing people under the bus. We can talk to them about great sheroes like Audre Lorde and the work that she has done. These isms intersect and so we can continually play on the social justice angle and show them directly how it can affect someones life while give them examples of people that they can look up to and who have greatly contributed to the both communities.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anderson cooper is my future husband
      anderson cooper is my future husband

      @Renee: Perhaps you are right it is important to find different ways to present the important issues of the gay rights movement in a way that will be palatable to everyone in the black community and not hurtful or offensive to some.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sebbe
      Sebbe

      @-Chitown Kev – I think what you were saying and if it is I agree. This going to SCOTUS at present is a VERY bad idea. First off, I doubt that certiorari would be granted. If it was, who knows what would happen. It is to much of a gamble at this state. If we were to loose at SCOTUS we would be without further action for possibly decades in my opinion.

      At this point I think we are better to go state by state, hopefully things go our way in California, but if they don’t, we need to keep fighting in those states that are likely and a possibility to go that way. New England, the Northeast and the East Coast (twice as many people there as in California) is surely next. I feel the next logical step, depending on the political climate would be to pursue civil unions at the national level (this was said by someone else not on this post). And eventually marriage equality, I fear that is a long way off at the federal level and pursuing federal civil unions will give us all the same rights. Those of us that live in states that allow same sex marriage would of course keep that since it is a state sanctioned higher protection.

      What do you think?

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Renee:

      I honestly still don’t understand what is wrong with the comparison but If people feel you are dimishing their struggle than yes they won’t feel complelled to help. It seems you have some good ideas on this issue. So you are saying educated others about the gay heroes in black history is more convincing than drawing the analogy of they did it to us then now they are doing it to them. Interesting.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      No one knows how it will turn out but Robin Tyler has some advice: “If the court does rule for us, tens of thousands of us will be on the streets that night celebrating a great victory, not just for us but for everyone.

      But if we lose and Prop. 8 stands, even if the court rules to uphold existing same-sex marriages, hundreds of thousands of us will be on the streets, angrier than we have ever been.”

      Email her at mailto:RobinTyler@DayOfDecision.com or link to http://www.dayofdecision.com/ to discuss a victory celebration or a protest in your town.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Japhy

      Anderson Cooper Is My Future Husband just illustated Bill Purdue’s and my comments perfectly.

      “No. 96 · anderson cooper is my future husband

      I am a gay man and old queens supporting exploitation bothers me.”

      First these character assasins slander you and then, having convinced themselves and anybody else they get to support them, that you are a racist, sexual deviate, drug user, whatever, they now feel justified in doing everything in their power to shut the person down that they have just slandered and try to get them banned from the blog site.

      I will reiterate, for the the record, as I did with Anderson Cooper Is My Future Husband, when he originally levelled the charge of child-exploitation at me, that my Philippine parter is 38 years old and I have the documentation to prove it.

      But that matters not to disingenuous liars and cretins like him and Getreal. No amount of explanation or proof will stop the liks of these people. They are not interested in hearing the truth.

      This cretin is guilty of Defamation of Character. There are laws to protect people from those kind of unfounded and despicable lies.

      If times were not as dire as they presently are and I were not in difficult financial straights, I would drag this liar to court and sue the balls off of him, just to make an example of him.

      And this sort of behavior, is exactly what we are up against with the people who voted YES on Prop. 8. They operate in the same, slimy, devious manner.

      They should crawl back into the sewer from when they came.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Sebbe:

      Yes, I agree, though Ken Starr may find a way to get to SCOTUS if Prop 8 is overturned. We need to be prepared for that too.

      @Renee:

      Well, they either wrote their own stories or it took the GLBT community to write those stories properly. Don’t forget the Harlem Renaissance either.

      My apologies, Renee.

      But with all due respect, what 58-70% of black Californians, 71% of black Floridians, and MY former Senator (courting black homophobic bigots) who is now our President did minimizes me far, far more. Go to those fundamentalist churches and tell them how angry and embarrassed and hurt I am about that. Tell them why I would feel closer and more sympathetic to Japhy Grant and a few random racist WeHo queens. Tell them.

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anderson cooper is my future husband
      anderson cooper is my future husband

      @Renee: It is interesting that you use the word the appropriation as a negative. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said he appropriated the non-violent principles of Ghandi’s indian civil rights movement. If it was bad would MLK have done it?

      Mar 2, 2009 at 11:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @anderson cooper is my future husband: I the important thing is to be inclusive and draw allies and help from where it is offered if people find an approach offensive than find another way to reach them. Can black fundamentalists be reached? I guess that is more the issue

      Mar 3, 2009 at 12:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Renee
      Renee

      @getreal: What I think is brilliant about this is that young black youth in particular are hungry to seem themselves reflected in conversations and to learn about black history. Instead of going down the usual laundry list of names I make sure that all of my examples include blackness in all of its beauty. We can say look at this person and everything that they accomplished in spite of the racism/homophobia/sexism/classicism that they faced. Positive representation will go much further. I also think that young members of the GLBT community of colour could also use some heroes to look up to. Coming out can be extremely difficult (so I’m told) and if they can once again see someone that looks like them it would create a more supportive environment. What we need to do is make people see gays and lesbians as a normalized identity. They have always been there and will always been there and they have more than contributed to making this world a better place.

      I let go of any homophobia I had years ago when I learned about same gender loving black women and the wonderful work that they had done. My back ground is Caribbean and I am sure all are aware that this is not a culture that is not very tolerant of same gender love. I was so inspired and so moved by the work of these women that it opened up the world to me in ways that I cannot even begin to tell you. Without those women I would not be as committed to equality as I am today.

      While I am certain that this will not convince everyone, I cannot help but believe that it is better than alienating those that which to offer their services as allies. I may not be a part of the community, but I know a social injustice when I see one.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 12:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Renee: I could not agree more. Very well put. I think the gay rights movement at this time in history has an embarrassment of riches when it come to different points of view and now have supporters and activists from every segment of society. I do feel that as people who support equality not because we are personally targeted by anti-gay legislation but because we are repelled by the social injustice have an important role to play. You have introduced some new points and strategies tonight that I had not even thought about. I feel obligated to do outreach in the communities of which I belong straight, black, christian and draw parallels and build bridges. Maybe your role is to empower youth to action and tolerance through historical perspective. It is exciting that there are so many different people with so much to contribute working for the rights of a relatively small segment of the population. The tyranny of the majority is expiring I hope.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 12:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @getreal:

      I am thinking about this. I have floated the Bayard Rustin balloon, along with the prejudice he experienced at the hands of others within the civil rights movement itself (in my example it was Adam Clayton Powell). I observed that that aspect of the story turned people off. See, I think it’s important to tell both sides of that story and not simply see the heroic parts. Maybe I am wrong, I don’t know.

      And yes, I will be out on the streets either celebrating or protesting. Although wher I live, these protests have been known to get a little ugly at times

      Mar 3, 2009 at 12:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      Maybe it is time to try different approaches in our community. I am embarrassed to say that I did not even know that there was a gay civil rights leader. Maybe concentrating on what he accomplished and less on how he was treated would be more effective.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 12:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      1)First of all, I don’t like the way this thread was hijacked nor am I pleased at the part I had to play in it.

      2)My community is the gay community, period. Or rather, communities. For all it’s faults, it’s the place I belong, it’s the place that best suits my view of the world. As I have stated, being black informs a part of my world view, but it’s actually a pretty small part. For a lot of personal reasons which I will not into here. And I say that with some sadness, but with no regrets.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 1:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Chitown Kev: I don’t think you played any part other than peacemaker/contributor of thoughtful commentary.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 1:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      I will also be out in the streets celebrating or protesting. But I think we will all be celebrating.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 1:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Chitown Kev: I will also be out in the streets celebrating or protesting. But I think we will all be celebrating. Do you feel that straight people who support equality are hijacking the issue?

      Mar 3, 2009 at 1:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • HYHYBT
      HYHYBT

      “I am saying that the use of our history is appropriation and it is racist. This btw is a point that many blacks have continued to say and yet it is ignored. ” Perhaps it would help if you gave some *reason* for saying the image is racist?

      Mar 3, 2009 at 2:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @HYHYBT: I don’t personally think this image is. It resonated with me but other people do feel differently.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 2:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • petted
      petted

      I’m hoping there’s some severe grilling on some of the yes campaign circular arguments.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 3:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • petted
      petted

      @Japhy Grant: -high five-

      Mar 3, 2009 at 3:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @HYHYBT:
      I can understand why some people might find it inappropriate; I don’t think “racist” is the right term.

      Drawing an analogy between between Jim Crow and Prop 8 invites comparison, and some people might think there is a difference in the degree of oppression and suffering in the two situations, or that it is not appropriate to use images from “their struggle” out of context.

      I am not saying I agree with that position, but I do think you have to be careful when drawing parallels, particularly in matters of race or culture. Someone is bound to see things a bit differently, and it can get in the way of what you actually want to do, which is get the news out and gain support.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 9:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Bill Perdue:

      Thank you, Bill, for going to bat for me with respect to Anderson Cooper Is My Husband’s particularly unctious, defaming and unsupported lies and assertions. It’s particularly welcome at a time when I am beginning to feel like I am under constant siege on these boards, which is a feeling that I am certain you also share with me.

      Since we now have self-appointed room monitors who feel that it is their sacred duty to report those with whom they do not agree with or disapprove of to the Principal at every given opportunity, it is only fair that both sides of the story be presented and the politics behind the attacks we are receiving be stated.

      I have been the recipient of numerous such attacks out of nowhere, been stalked by religious bigots and haters on this site and even threatened with a gun on Gay.com a couple of years back. All of these people were supposedly gay or so they claimed.

      I am positive that these attacks are occurring because of our outspokeness about religion being the cause of so much strife on our planet, including right here in our own little microcosm of life on Queerty. Despite what just recently happened in California, these dedicated souls, nevertheless, vigorously and stubbornheadly defend religion and act as if Christianity is the panacea for the world. And they do this to the point of ad nauseum and mental/physical, as we have both observed.

      What is of particular interest to note, is the manner in which freedom of speech and thought is being attacked, not just in California, Arizona, Arkansas and Florida and other hotbeds of religious intolerance, bigotry, hatred and homophobia, but right here in River city, Queerty.com, USA. These religious people, not all of whom are gay it should be noted, seem to feel that they have every right, under the guise of freedom of speech to express their religious views, wherever and whenever they like, over and over, ad nauseum, while at the same time, seeking to suppress the freedom of speech rights of non-believers like you and me.

      As a dear straight classmate and life-long friend of mine, who is an atheist, by the way, opined to me recently,that next to the LGBT community, atheists are the most hated and despised people on the planet. And of course, here again, we all know who is doing that hating as well, don’t we?

      I have noticed a huge increase in the number of religious people coming onto what was supposed to have been a gay chat room, many of whom are straight homophobes, as well as homophobic homos who are here seemingly for one reason and one reason only, who have nothing of value to add to any of the discussions going on and whose only seeming interest is to nit pick, interject their religious crap, hurl insults, disrupt the room, turn everyone in it against each other, climb onto the backs of people that were already here a long time and make life as miserable as they can for them. No names need be mentioned, because they already know who they are. And, these people, by the way, are the ones who clamor the loudest for censorship and the “elimination of hate speech”, as witnessed by the gloating comment of about making these threads a “safe-haven” for posters.

      Yeah, right. A safe-haven for the bigots, homophobes and haters and mine-field for those who would even think of disturbing even one hair on their empty craniums.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 10:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @getreal:

      Tough question.

      I would answer, to an extent. It seems that mostly straight people are urging us too not be angry but to be nice. I have every right to be pissed at the denial and the taking away of rights. And while straight people may feel that it’s their issue as well, they just don’t take it as personally…

      Mar 3, 2009 at 10:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Chitown Kev:

      I agree with you, 100%, Chitown Kev. My feelings exactly.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 12:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Ejercito
      Michael Ejercito

      Having read up on this issue extensively, as well as the relevant case law, I would have to conclude that Proposition 8 is indeed a legitimate amendment.

      Initiative constitutional amendments have been used to legalize Indian gaming, impose legislative term limits, forbid the state from engaging in racial or gender discrimination in employment, and even reinstate the death penalty.

      The last two are especially relevant. An initiative amendment added Section 31 to the Declaration of Rights, forbidding the state from discriminating against “any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” In effect, it was an expansion of the scope of the equal protection clause. If revisions were necessary to affect the equal protection clause, then this section would be invalid and there would be no explicit basis in the state constitution for equal protection in public employment, public education, or public housing.

      An initiative amendment added Section 27 to the Declaration of Rights, which constitutionalized the death penalty. It was added after the Supreme Court had ruled “that capital punishment is both cruel and unusual as those terms are defined under article I, section 6, of the California Constitution, and that therefore death may not be exacted as punishment for crime in this state.” In that same decision, it reiterated that “The cruel or unusual punishment clause of the California Constitution, like other provisions of the Declaration of Rights, operates to restrain legislative and executive action and to protect fundamental individual and minority rights against encroachment by the majority.” It is noted that the cruel and unusual punishment clause applies to all persons subject to California law; the only dispute in questions over cruel and unusual punishment is whether the punishment is cruel or unusual. Section 27 was challenged as an illegitimate revision in People v. Frierson , the Court rejected that challenge. Thus, a fundamental right found in the state constitution’s Declaration of Rights was affected by an initiative amendment.

      The decision Raven v. Deukmejian did invalidate a portion of an initiative amendment- but the amendment placed drastic limits on state courts’ ability to interpret the rights of criminal defendants, limiting state interpretation of state constitutional protections to the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of analogous U.S. constitutional protections. By contrast, Prop. 8 is extremely limited in scope- it only defines one word. State courts continue to have the power to apply equal protection on the basis of sexual preference and orientation, including whether same-sex couples, including those who got “married” before Prop. 8’s passing, are constitutionally entitled to tax, inheritance, power-of-attorney, hospital visitation, and other benefits married couples enjoy. They could even rule on whether or not divorce laws apply to same-sex couples- Prop. 8 did not define divorce. And last but certainly not least, state courts can rule on whether or not Prop. 8 is in compliance with the United States Constitution.

      To rule Prop. 8 as a revision would effectively state that a revision is required to define marriage, but an amendment is sufficient to define the applicability of cruel and unusual punishment over the death penalty- a life or death issue.

      And this does not even address the political considerations .

      Mar 3, 2009 at 12:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Chitown Kev: Well the issue belongs to you first and foremost so of course your feelings on the matter are paramount. That being said I work on the repeal Prop 8 campaign doing outreach to church’s and I have seen first hand people lament their choices post Nove. 4th. I have heard many times seen and heard people talk about how their minds were changed and how moved they were by the candlelight vigils and rallies I have also heard homophobes point to the few instances of anger and completely blow them out of proportion. Why did people respond to MLK and not Malcolm X? That being said I have worked with Cleve jones and many other leading lights of the gay rights movement and the tone has always been be angry but let it be productive anger. I live and work in the gay community and consider it my community as much as the black community. If people want to be angry so be it I’m angry but I’m also a person who prefers to spend more time on the solution than the problem. I take injustice very personally I’m just not someone who will ever stoop to the level of those I oppose. You do it your way I’ll do it mine.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 12:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Michael Ejercito – I assume you are a lawyer? I am not, but a number of other things were decided in this country without a vote of the people, most significantly: the abolition of slavery, suffrage for women and civil rights legislation.

      Obviously slavery was explicitly allowed in the Federal Constitution, so how did this happen?

      Is it possible the understanding of terms changes over time? Equality I’m sure was defined two centuries ago that all white men (not women!)were equal, and I think you had to have property to vote on top of that.

      Also, two of your first examples; discrimination law and the death penalty apply to ALL people, not just straight or Gay people. There must be some significance to this.

      As to your second to last paragraph “to rule Prop 8…a revision..requires the state to (re)define marriage..” Well I think it probably does need to redefine it.

      Our culture has assumed marriage was always between a man and woman prior to this, but last July the CA Supremes decided, in conjunction with the idea that marriage is a fundamental right and restrictions of any kind must show compelling state interest (paraphrasing), that prohibiting SSM’s were well, unequal. I think this has to figure in the reasoning somehow. Otherwise, one could always say any particular thing has ALWAYS been thus and so and is therefore (against tradition, unnatural, unconstitutional etc. etc. etc.)

      Otherwise, thanks for a very thought provoking piece.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 1:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Michael Ejercito:

      Your compassionate, articulate and caring commentary has been duly noted.

      Coming from a straight man who says “Who I’d like to meet:
      President George W. Bush , Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger , and Senator Tom McClintock.”, your comments so much easier to understand, albeit no lss unpalatable and unacceptable.

      “I would like to meet people who want to sell or buy a house, and I would love to meet a woman close to my age , who has never been married, never had kids, has a sweet personality, and is pretty enough to have sex with. :-)”

      Since no mention was made of marriage, I guess you also feel that this right that you were lucky enough to born with, is of no significance for you either.

      I hope the roof of the house falls on your head and I hope the ideal female fuck-toy you searching for give you crabs a dose of the clap.

      Thank you for sharing and have a rotten life like the one you just wished on the LGBT community.

      Oh, btw….cruse gay chat rooms a lot, do you?

      You’ll never find a blowjob with those kind of comments.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 1:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      Let’s attack the religious right fundamentalists homophobes not other members of the same movement. Let’s attack them by phone banking,canvassing, rallying etc.(all of which I did last weekend and I’ll be doing next weekend) as many of us know so often anger is born out of feeling impotent in the face of injustice and working against it alleviates and focuses the destructive anger and constructive anger comes into play.
      Seething in anger and bitterness doesn’t do much for me and it is a lot harder to do if you are a genuinely happy person. I would rather give myself a few moments to be angry than go and do something constructive on whatever the topic at hand I’m angry about is.

      Also there are some hysterical people on this thread who are actually tantruming and crying in their beer because they can no longer attack certain people for their beliefs and backgrounds. I say everyone deserves their say and we all have a place at any table this is amercia. I personally would never hate anyone or try to attack anyone based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation I think doing so is gross that being said everyone has a right to their own opinion. So if people want to hate based on those criteria it is their privilege but I like that Queerty has spoken and basically said we can post constructively but not attack each other. I say if someone hates me or doesn’t want me on “their” thread because of my background then just don’t address me or obsessively posts about me I will concentrate on my opinions you concentrate on yours. If you don’t actually have any opinions continue to obsesses about the small number of people who clutch the pearls dare to have a slightly different opinion. If your day is spoiled because you are told you can no longer attack someone what does that say about you? I’m going to try to concentrate on being part of the solution and level the drama and the negativity to others. (Now feel free to either spend forty minutes writing some whining response or why not go do something positive. I’m glad there is no more bullying allowed it says a lot about some people’s lives that they are so heartbroken about it) God bless

      Mar 3, 2009 at 1:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Michael Ejercito: That is your legal opinion. What is opinion as a human being? How can reconcile American citizens being denied their basic civil rights based on how they were born? How can you support 2nd class citizenship and special rights for some “chose” citizens. Please explain.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 1:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Jaroslaw: Well put we should be so dignified in how we address people such as this man.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 1:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @getreal:

      Duly noted, and I appreciate all that you have done and continue to do.

      As I’ve said, my patience with the overwhelming majority of church folks is extremely limited, so that is not the thing for me (unless I went into a church as a wholly secular history lecturer or something, perhaps, that’s my thing!). There are many different components to the “solution,” I am beginning to find mine.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 1:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Michael Ejercito:
      Actually Michael I would like to know if that is a legal opinion. Are you a lawyer, or did you get this from one? I am not, BTW.

      Just because capital punishment has graver consequences than Prop 8 has nothing to do with what the legal requirements are for making changes to respective legislation.

      It may seem that way, but you can’t just toss the two on a scale and see which one is “heavier”.

      I’m not familiar with U.S. law but I can only assume the rules are a lot more complex than that. In the first place, one is a civil matter, and the other is criminal.

      I noticed as well that you said you feel the legislation would stand – not whether you support it or not (not that you are absolutely required to do so).

      Mar 3, 2009 at 2:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Chitown Kev:

      Kev, I have been thinking about your comment and Getreal’s response to it.

      I am not looking to fan any embers with Getreal or get involved in yet another tit-for-tat exchange, but I do have some very valid questions to put to her. And i would appreciate it if she would keep the answers simple, to the point and void of religious references, which as she must know by now, have no valid reason to be propagated on these threads.

      We’ve all heard the old expression “Until you walk a mile in another man’s moccasins…”

      Not to dimish Getreal’s seemingly sincere desire to help the LGBT community obtain their civil-rights in any way, manner or form, it occurs to me that the reason she is able to remain so cool, calm and collected and preach the “turn the other cheek rhetoric” to us, is because this is not an issue that directly affects her.

      For Getreal, who informs us that she is straight and lives and works in a gay community, this is an abstract issue. A matter of principle, if you will. And, as such, I believe that it is difficult, if not impossible for her, or any other gay-friendly straight person for that matter, to understand that for those of us who must live with the consequences of straight, religious peoples persecution and actions that have placed us in this hell hole in which we are forced to survive in the first place, that this is a highly charged emotional issue.

      Putting it even more succinctly, we are not having a discussion on what to have for dinner tonight or what movie we would like to go see.

      Looking at this issue through the constraints and the rose-colored glasses of Getreal’s religious background and upbringing, no matter how enlightened and open-minded she may believe herself to be, our deep frustration, anger and bitterness is simply unfathomable to her. Getreal really believes that if we pray hard enough, kiss-up to the religious homophobes passionately enough and do a good job of licking the boots of our enemies (also a gay LCR belief, by the way), God will take mercy on us and bring about an epiphany that will change the hearts of our oppressors.

      Of course, you and I both know that ain’t gonna happen. At least not in our lifetimes. What people like Getreal do not grasp, is that we are tired of waiting.

      We are tired of the broken promises.

      We are tired of the rhetoric.

      We are tired of carrying the weight of top-down organizations who claim to represent us but are, in reality, feeding off of our misery.

      We are tired of being repeatedly thrown overboard or under the bus.

      We are tired of being fucked over.

      we are tired of being fucked out of our money.

      We are tired of being fucked out of our rights and…

      we are tired of being fucked out of our right to have the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is guaranteed to all heterosexual people under the American Constitution, which is not special rights, but equal rights.

      For a man like myself, who has been out, visible and vocal since the age of 16, and who himself, has been politically active since the days of Stonewall, it is difficult for me to understand why a young straight woman, from a religious background, no less, is living and working in a gay community and as seemingly wrapped-up with the struggle for gay civil-rights as she claims to be, let along spending untold hours on these boards 24/7/365?

      I would have to ask myself what is lacking in her own personal life, that has caused her to sacrifice her own quest for happiness and a supportive and nurturing relationship with a member of the opposite sex and instead of literally making herself into a martyr for the “gay cause”?

      What part of the puzzle is missing here?

      But, more importantly, what’s in it for her?

      Perhaps Getreal would like to take this opportunity (and challenge) to enlighten us a bit so that we all might have a better idea of where she is coming from and what her motivations are?

      Mar 3, 2009 at 2:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      NOTE TO ALL – Michael Ejercito has a webpage which is where CM plucked his comments about who he’d like to meet.

      (I personally never notice who puts their webpages in their names due to glare on my computer screen. The color differential just isn’t strong enough.)

      Anyway, Thomas Sowell is one of his heroes as well and he lists himself as a college graduate and a real estate salesperson.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      My parents fought injustice and marched for their civil rights in the 1960’s with the help of whites who had no reason to help but did because it was the right thing to do. I was gifted with a wonderful quality of life and opportunity because of it. So I owe a debt to this country and whatever other oppressed citizens this country tries to disenfranchise. They did it for us in the 1960’s now it is our time to do it for them(them being the gay community or any other oppressed population) and I have no doubt 20-30 years down the road people from this movements will pick up the mantle and help another movement. Why is that so hard to understand?

      Mar 3, 2009 at 2:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      I see it as my responsibility as a christian to fight injustice. I know you see that as silly Charles but that is my belief and my prerogative. And since you find my presence here so disturbing why not just ignore it.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 2:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      I would have to ask myself what is lacking in her own personal life, that has caused her to sacrifice her own quest for happiness and a supportive and nurturing relationship with a member of the opposite sex and instead of literally making herself into a martyr for the “gay cause”?

      Wow low blow. I have been in a happy fun monogamous relationship for three years with a supportive man who happens to like West hollywood (plenty of straight men do live here)

      I

      Mar 3, 2009 at 2:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      Why don’t you leave me alone Charles? I am frankly tired of your long list of grievance and all the ways you have been hurt and injured by life being laid at my door step as if I, a person who has never met you is somehow to blame. I’m not your mother or ypur therapist or your friend. I have tried to be tolerant of you but really I’m not responsible for how the church failed you or whomever ever failed you in life. I am on here and in this movement because it is the right thing to do. The same way so many rabbis made it there business to fight for the civil rights of blacks. Some of us do things simply because it is the right reason clearly that is not something you understand. I would appreciate if you would stop acting as if you are the king of the gay rights movement who chooses who can and cannot help this country reverse unjust policies and laws. The way you address that idiot lawyer guy wishing him crabs and VD I just think that kind of conduct is gross and I would not anyone around me who acted that way. I really don’t think we have anything to give to one another so let’s avoid each other.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 2:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Charles J. Mueller: No problem Charles. Calling people pederasts (except for priests of course) is something everyone should condemn. It’s what the right wing christers call us all the time when they’re not blaming us for Katrina and the depression. The irony is that it’s the christers themselves, catholic priests and protestant ministers, who are infamous for being child rapists. I guess christers don’t do irony.

      As for the christers I think we can permit their help if there are no strings attached. But I also think that it’s far, far more important to build alliances with unions, who are the heavy infantry of social change and with groups that represent women, Africans Americans, Latinos etc. They’re our primary concern but people in cults like Cops for Gay Rights and the LCR, they’re pretty far down on the list.

      In terms of trying to convince right wing christers to cease being bigots that’s a pipe dream and we shouldn’t waste a second trying. We’ll meet them on the field of battle and win or lose as implacable enemies. The christers as a whole, liberal and reactionary are becoming increasingly isolated in American society and in a panic are looking everywhere for new places to recruit to their chosen, if very unhealthy lifestyle. People are sick of their puritanical meddling and I don’t see them having much luck.

      You may get a lot of flack for being an atheist but most of mine comes from liberals. They like to think of themselves as part of the left, as progressive. When I point out that their party is run by bigots, handpuppets of the rich and chicken hawk war promoters they get apoplectic. I guess they’re just too right wing to even concieve of a socialist, working class approach to politics. If this develops into a real depression it’ll be an eye-opener for Democrats.

      As for what the editors have in mind I don’t have a clue. They may just be trying to calm down the personal attacks and that’s not a bad thing. No one has been called a pederast in 24 hours. That’s a record.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 2:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      Do you think that anyone who visits this forum must obviously be cruising for sex? Ultimately there is nothing else on our minds?

      And if someone does happen to want to come here to cruise, flirt or just get a good eyeful, is that something you think he should feel ashamed about?

      I don’t like it when homophobes make those sort of assumptions about me, so why do you think it is fair to use that kind of shame against others?

      Mar 3, 2009 at 3:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • petted
      petted

      @strumpetwindsock: His argument looks like it was taken straight from the official yes campaign’s court briefs – cause his view of the case reads like the only research he’s done is read the pro 8 briefs every case he refers to is used in the main yes campaign brief and debunked by numerous pro equality briefs. That said it does seem as though Michael Ejercito did in fact read at least the main pro 8 brief and understood it well enough to rephrase though if Michael feels that US bill of rights provides adequate protection then why do we bother having a division between state and federal governments at all.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 4:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @petted:

      Thx. And though this is an important fight I suppose this issue will never really be settled until your federal supreme court rules on it (I presume your federal supreme court has supremacy over states, no?)
      No matter how many states legalize it (or not) you will always have that sword of Damacles hanging over the issue. Though that can be a good or a bad thing, depending on how they finally decide.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 4:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      Maybe I’m naive I think Prop 8 will be repealed. My father is a judge and he says he believes that anti-gay legislation will fail because it is intrinsically unconstitutional.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Well, Getreal, it would seem equality is equality or it isn’t. Prop 8 should be invalidated, but clearer things which were wrong prevailed for a while.

      Ultimately we will win though. Just remember, I never thought I would see legal marriage in my lifetime, ever, and we have it in Mass., Civil Unions more and more places. It’s wonderful. We’ll get there.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 5:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Jaroslaw:

      I agree I think marriage equality is simply and idea whose time has come and the desperate scrambling of the Mormons and right wing conservatives can only slow down but cannot stop it. I think before most of us think we will have some kind of federal gay rights legislation hopeful marriage equality legislation.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 6:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Ejercito
      Michael Ejercito

      I assume you are a lawyer? I am not, but a number of other things were decided in this country without a vote of the people, most significantly: the abolition of slavery, suffrage for women and civil rights legislation.

      The thirteenth, fourteenth, and nineteenth amendments were adopted via the constitutional amendment process. (Two-thirds vote from both houses of Congress, and three-fourths ratification from the states.)

      Equality I’m sure was defined two centuries ago that all white men (not women!)were equal, and I think you had to have property to vote on top of that.

      That was true.

      It took a constitutional amendment to change that.

      That the fourteenth was ever adopted at all was a political miracle, considering that a majority of abolitionists believed in the superiority of the white man.

      Thank you for sharing and have a rotten life like the one you just wished on the LGBT community.

      I simply cited the relevant case law on this issue.

      Whether or not an initiative is a good idea has no bearing on whether it is a legitimate amendment.

      The people could, in theory, amend the Constitution to eliminate state protection from unreasonable search and seizure, an admission the court made in In Re Lance W. . I would oppose such a thing, and vote against the thing, but I would have to admit that if such a thing passed, it would be a legitimate amendment as far as the case law in the revision v. amendment issue is concerned. (Of course if such an amendment is adopted, the American Fourth Amendment still applies to searches and seizures within California.)

      What is opinion as a human being? How can reconcile American citizens being denied their basic civil rights based on how they were born?

      I was taught by my parents and relatives that marriage us between one man and one woman. For me, it is a matter of common sense. Furthermore, if defining marriage like that constitutes denial of civil rights, then Thomas Paine, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and George F. Edmunds supported violation of Americans’ civil rights.

      I noticed as well that you said you feel the legislation would stand – not whether you support it or not (not that you are absolutely required to do so).

      Whether or not legislation is legitimate is a separate issue of whether or not I agree with it.

      For example, if the President were to issue an executive order forcibly relocating people convicted of domestic violence to an internment camp in the Owens Valley, I would disagree with it, and yet agree that the case law ( Korematsu ) supports the action as a legitimate exercise of executive power.

      Similarly, if the people of California were to amend Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution to read “Only marriage between two people regardless of gender shall be valid or recognized in California”, I would disagree with it, and yet admit that it is a legitimate amendment.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 7:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Michael Ejercito: Whatever your parents taught you do you believe you deserve special rights that should be denied to some Americans. It is possible to feel a certain way it becomes unacceptable when you try to impose your beliefs on other people’s lives. Whatever your beliefs of the rightness or wrongness of some people’s love do you think it is right to deny the thousands and thousands of children with gay parents the right to have their parents legally sealed? It’s not the United States of Micheals Opinion it is the United states Of America.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 8:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Michael Ejercito:

      Michael, I’d like to know why you put yourself in the same camp as Locke, Paine, Jefferson and Franklin (haven’t heard of Edmunds, sorry).
      Do you have any record of them speaking out against same-sex marriage? I only remember these gentlemen’s records on recognizing human rights and arguing for the separation of church and state.

      If you mean that it was customary in their day to have only male/female union, well a lot of things were customary back then, like slavery and not recognizing women’s right to vote. You are talking about 200 years in the past.

      We recognize equal access to marriage in my country, Canada. There are a lot of people who personally object to it, like you, and I am sympathetic to that, though I disagree. The fact is it is a matter of equal human rights, and to not recongize it is morally and legally wrong.
      I hope your country comes to the realize soon that sometimes the morally right thing is the hard thing for some people. You did it when you overturned slavery and recognized women’s suffrage.

      You had better get ready, because it is going to happen again.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 8:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Ejercito
      Michael Ejercito

      Michael, I’d like to know why you put yourself in the same camp as Locke, Paine, Jefferson and Franklin (haven’t heard of Edmunds, sorry).

      George F. Edmunds sponsored the Edmunds Act . The act was upheld by the Supreme Court.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 11:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Ejercito
      Michael Ejercito

      It’s not the United States of Micheals Opinion it is the United states Of America.
      There is no legal protection of any right to “marry” however we please.

      If there was , explain why the Supreme Court ruled then way it did in Reynolds and The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints .

      Mar 3, 2009 at 11:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MadProfessah
      MadProfessah

      @Michael Ejercito: You honestly think Korematsu is good law, in 2009?

      Mar 3, 2009 at 11:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Michael Ejercito: The US has a history of denying rights to populations of people when people seek change there are always people like you who cling to the past and unjust laws. People defended slavery, the laws against women’s right to vote, segregation, and the internment of the japanese. History has shown that laws like these always are eventually changed and history will remember you with the same horror we look back at all the supposedly well meaning people who championed prejudice and inequality.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 11:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Michael Ejercito:
      Michael, I still don’t know why you claim those other statesmen and philosophers support your position. Even though they lived in a different age, their actual records actually go against the spirit of what you support, I think.

      Regarding the Edmunds Act, in the first place that was more an act of political expediency than a moral crusade.
      And regardless of what was done in that 100-year old decision, a good many things have changed in your country since then.

      Numerous human rights, including Women’s right to vote, are recognized in law. You have a range of anti-discrimination laws which were not in place back then

      Any law can be nullified if it runs afoul of any one of the individual human rights guaranteed in the constitution (or of a state’s constitution).

      That’s exactly what happened the last time people tried to get in the way of right to equal access in California, if I understand correctly.

      If all goes well exactly the same thing will happen again.

      And some of your states do recognize same-sex marriage rights, no? California was among them until the dictatorship of the majority tried to get in the way.

      Mar 3, 2009 at 11:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @strumpetwindsock: It is so great to see intelligent political debate I’ve got goose bumps.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 12:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Ejercito
      Michael Ejercito

      You honestly think Korematsu is good law, in 2009?

      Korematsu is legal precedent.

      The Constitution has allowed unjust acts in the past, and under the current U.S. Constitution, something like the internment of Japanese-Americans would be legitimate. Courts use constitutions and case law to determine if a statute or policy conforms to the constitution.

      Any law can be nullified if it runs afoul of any one of the individual human rights guaranteed in the constitution (or of a state’s constitution).

      There is a difference between mere law and constitutional amendments.

      The eighteenth amendment took away any legal protection of people’s right to drink alcohol. It was only overturned by the twenty-first amendment.

      The eighteenth amendment was wrong and unjust, and yet courts were bound by oath to uphold it since it was part of the highest law of the land.

      And regardless of what was done in that 100-year old decision, a good many things have changed in your country since then.

      How has the Constitution been amended such that Reynolds and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints no longer apply?

      Mar 4, 2009 at 1:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      Your arguments seem very well researched but they seem to lack an attention to the fact that we are talking about people’s lives and legalese aside the most basic of human rights. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As someone who based on your earlier comments has/had a lot of respect for your parents why would you want to deny another couple the chances they had? What if someone had legislated away their right to marry but had a lot of legal precedent? What next are there other populations that you would support losing rights? I’m truly interested?

      Mar 4, 2009 at 1:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • idyllicmollusk
      idyllicmollusk

      I haven’t checked out Queerty’s comment section before.

      I am saddened to discover that it mostly amounts to personal attacks and insult-hurdling.

      The dismissal of the discomfort that some blacks feel towards the image, and the racism used in defending this lack of intersectionality is disappointing.

      If Queerty were serious about intersectionality, and being inclusive towards QPOC, the image would have been changed by now.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 1:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @anderson cooper is my future husband:
      http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/03/gays-are-not-persecuting-christians.html

      Christers are always claiming gays persecute them. It’s not true.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 2:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anderson cooper is my future husband
      anderson cooper is my future husband

      @Bill Perdue: First of all I don’t even believe god exists I think it’s all made up but I don’t believe in shitting on people especially our allies who are supporting us. You lost a lot of people’s respect and showed people on this thread what an embarrassment you are. I may think the religion thing is stupid but jumping all over someone who wants us to succeed is crazy. After reading that thread I believe you are mentally ill and the worst stereotype the religious right could produce and since you like link here: let everyone see how you try to run allies off the site and turn them into homophobes I’m starting to wonder if you are some Baptist preacher who is on here to cause trouble why else would you try so hard to cause chaos and why would you be trying to turns the few christians on our side against us. So yeah I saw you persecute a christian the site threatened to ban people because of your nuts behavior.

      http://www.queerty.com/good-riddance-to-james-dobson-20090227/#comments

      Mar 4, 2009 at 3:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Bill Perdue: Hi Bill,

      You wrote: “No one has been called a pederast in 24 hours. That’s a record.
      Posted: Mar 3, 2009 at 2:51 pm

      I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, Bill. Drunk with power over her perceived “Win”, as well as her perceived exemption from the blanket warning Japhy issued, she is now dancing in the isles between the church pews with wild abandonment and…has now teamed up with Anderson Cooper to resume her vicious crusade of insults, lies and despicable character assassination allegations.

      This is what she posted over on the Good Riddance to James Dobson thread.

      No. 124 · getreal

      The only person who was ever called a pederast was someone defending sleeping with underage boys 12-16. Anyone include the cops would call that pedophilia
      Posted: Mar 3, 2009 at 11:20 pm · @Reply · [Comment already flagged. Email holla@queerty.com for help.]

      Obviously, she feels that she now has the backing of Queerty to do and say whatever she likes on these threads with impunity and now asserts her will and power over the rest of us serfs by saying “since you find my presence here so disturbing why not just ignore it.”

      The woman is clearly a loose cannon on a rolling deck.

      My heart goes out to Chitown Kev, who I believe has been unfairly censored and gagged by the editors. In response to a direct question from Getreal last evening, Chitown Kev made this eloquent statement as his reply to her.

      “1)First of all, I don’t like the way this thread was hijacked nor am I pleased at the part I had to play in it.

      2)My community is the gay community, period. Or rather, communities. For all it’s faults, it’s the place I belong, it’s the place that best suits my view of the world.

      I totally understand how the man feels and told him in a subsequent post that I felt very much the same way and that I supported him 100%

      What Getreal does not get, is that this, in fact, OUR COMMUNITY, period., a fact that she seems loathe to recognize or accept. Her response to Chitown Kev boiled down to nothing more than a dismissal. *snap*

      Totally un-phased and with the insensitivity of a steam roller, Getreal then announces to the thread that her daddy is a Judge.

      Whoa. Get back! Y’all have been warned. I had an immediate flashback from the movie Mommie Dearest where Joan Crawford says:

      “Joan Crawford: Don’t fuck with me fellas. This ain’t my first time at the rodeo”

      Like Dubya, with a powerful and influential daddy behind him and whom he wished to emulate, GetRule saw her chance to grab power and wanting to be just like her daddy, seized it without a moment’s hesitation.

      The pattern of behavior for power-hungry people like this is always the same, totally obvious and easily recognizable.

      Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present to you, our glorious new leader, Her Majesty, Queen GotRule! (all kneel in respect, please)

      Mar 4, 2009 at 3:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @anderson cooper is my future husband: I don’t believe a thing you say.

      All I know is that you engage in the reprehensible habits of claiming that gays oppress christers and that gays are pederasts. Those are both typical tactics of right wing christians.

      Your actions are what we’re looking at not your justifications for them.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 3:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anderson cooper is my future husband
      anderson cooper is my future husband

      Charles you really need to get a life this poor girl does nothing but post how we should all love each other and all kinds of hippie bullcrap and all you do is pick on her. You monopolize these boards. Poor me mommy left, my rent-boy friend that i pay $1500 a month (your words)won’t move here and somehow some ally who won’t even get mad at you is to blame. You seem to have a problem. Do you even have opinions on queer issues? Or do you want to chase the 1 christian who does not hate our guts around this site. Power hungry? This site isn’t your kingdom it a website about queer stuff. Get a reality check and a life. The one good thing is clearly she thinks you are a sad joke and completely ignores you. Unlike her I don’t believe in being kind to people who bug me. Stick to the issues if you even can.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 3:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anderson cooper is my future husband
      anderson cooper is my future husband

      @Bill Perdue: Who cares no one cares about you and Charles Mueller you are so desperate for attention you live on these board and think people here care about you. You are comic relief. A perfect illustration of what none of us wants to become bitter angry lonely old queens inventing drama because they have NOTHING else in their lives.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 3:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • anderson cooper is my future husband
      anderson cooper is my future husband

      @Bill Perdue: Charles was talking about how it is normal in some places to sleep with 12-16 year olds I could post the link that is gross. And it is pedophilia. You guys must be so happy you are getting attention!

      Mar 4, 2009 at 3:28 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Japhy

      Please consider this my formal protest to Queerty.com. A copy of this formal protest is also being mailed to the office of my attorney in Tampa, FL.

      There have been four blatant and unfounded allegations of pedophilia made against me by two parties on these threads who have ganged up on me. One of which took place back on Feb. 6, 2009 and the other three within the past 24 hours.

      I have flagged the three offending posts from this thread. They are, specifically:

      From the thread: http://www.queerty.com/good-riddance-to-james-dobson-20090227/#comments

      No. 124 · getreal

      The only person who was ever called a pederast was someone defending sleeping with underage boys 12-16. Anyone include the cops would call that pedophilia
      Posted: Mar 3, 2009 at 11:20 pm · @Reply · [Comment already flagged. Email holla@queerty.com for help.]

      From the thread: http://www.queerty.com/q-how-many-lawyers-does-it-take-to-overturn-prop-8-20090302/#comments

      No. 96 · anderson cooper is my future husband

      I am a gay man and old queens supporting exploitation bothers me. And hiding behind your computer and picking on posters because they are straight allies not gay doesn’t help our cause. I think Japy had big balls calling bullies on the carpet. Hit the treadmill guys you are going to have to find a new way to get that aggression out.
      Posted: Mar 2, 2009 at 11:20 pm · @Reply · [Comment already flagged. Email holla@queerty.com for help.]

      From the thread: http://www.queerty.com/q-how-many-lawyers-does-it-take-to-overturn-prop-8-20090302/#comments

      No. 163 · anderson cooper is my future husband

      @Bill Perdue: Charles was talking about how it is normal in some places to sleep with 12-16 year olds I could post the link that is gross. And it is pedophilia. You guys must be so happy you are getting attention!
      Posted: Mar 4, 2009 at 3:28 am · @Reply · [Comment already flagged. Email holla@queerty.com for help.]

      The following is a cut and paste of an earlier commentary made by Anderson Cooper Is My Future Husband:

      @Charles J. Mueller: As someone who does a lot of traveling to south east asia I know exactly the kind of traveler you are. For those of you who have never been to the Philippines it is infested with pervy old western men who go there because there are a lot of people who live in poverty who will form relationships with these old men out of sheer desperation. I have seen these men they go to these countries pay young men and women to have sex with them (often underage people) and delude themselves that “asians are not hung up on age” or “their sense of morality is different than ours” not taking into account crushing poverty and hunger for some people becomes so unbearable that sharing a bed with someone, anyone western is a ticket out of a very hard life. These relationships are always based on money.We met men like this there with their “boyfriends” they are essentially johns but pathetically don’t know it they genuinely think these people they pay for sex and eventually to live with them actually love them. No wonder you are not disgusted by this kid who blackmailed kids into sex acts you probably haven’t had uncoerced (free) sex in years.
      Posted: Feb 6, 2009 at 8:58 pm

      Not only are these despicable comments a violation of Queerty’s Comments Policy, the three comments posted today were made following and in violation of Japhy’s blanket warning issued on Feb. 2, 2009.
      I quote your Post No 27 – Japhy

      This is blatant character assassination and is definitely grounds for a Defamation of Character lawsuit which I fully intend to institute if this matter is not remedied by a written retraction and apology for the slanderous comments made by the offending parties.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 5:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Charles J. Mueller: @Charles J. Mueller: Here’s the politics of the debate. Ironically these christers are basing their defense of calling gay men pederasts on a series of threads around their attack on two gay men in Portland, Sam Adams and Beau, who had sex after Beau turned 18.

      Torches and pitchforks in hand they were gung ho to politically lynch a gay man, newly elected Portland, OR Mayor Adams, calling him a pederast. Everyone here knows that’s one of sickest and commonest charges that bigots throw at us. In those threads various gay men reported that in Europe and elsewhere the age of consent was from 12 to 16. (It’s also 16 in many US states, for instance Washington, right across the Columbia.) They didn’t say it was good or bad just that it was legal, the law of the land.

      And guess where the lowest age of consent, at 12 years, is the law. You guessed it. Jeebuztown, Vatican City! That may be convenient for all those child raping priests who are citizens of Vatican City but I’ll bet the altar boys and girls think it’s a pain in the ass .

      The truth is that these christers do such a bang up job of imitating Dobson that you have to wonder about them. Dobson says we’re pederasts and so do they. Dobson claims that Christians are being persecuted by gay men and so do they.

      Now we’re going to get replies that we’re old, lonely, bitter, have zits, halitosis, alopecia and flat feet. And poor fashion sense. That’s all they can say when they’re exposed. Pathetic.

      And ultimatley not a problem. People see through that pretty well.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 6:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Bill Perdue: Hey Bill,

      You wrote: “And ultimatley not a problem. People see through that pretty well.

      *sigh* If only that were true.

      As Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters said…

      “No matter how farfetched or deceptive they are, random stories about gays allegedly persecuting Christians are effective. No matter how many times they are discredited, there is always a crowd ready to believe them – especially when these anecdotes take centerstage in “documentaries” that will repeat them ad naseum.”

      Mar 4, 2009 at 6:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Michael Ejercito – you still haven’t explained WHY you a straight boy per you webpage is here?

      Mar 4, 2009 at 8:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Bill Perdue: Hi Bill,

      Here’s a perfect example of how these disingenuous liars twist and convolute people’s words.

      “my rent-boy friend that i pay $1500 a month (your words)won’t move here and”

      My “boy” that he alludes to is 38 years old. Anderson insists though his numerous, libelous posts, on making it look like my partner is underage and hence, making me a pedophile, the tactic that was mentioned in Holy Bullies and headless Monsters. They just keep repeating the lie, over and over and over until everyone believes it.

      Not that I give a good shit, but the $1500. a month that he says are and he accentuates his lie by putting this in parentheses (your words), which he has again twisted, is the total expense for keeping up a second home in the Philippines so we can be together at least a part of the years. My partner is a college teacher with a bank account of his own and pays his share of our domestic expenses including the upkeep of separate cars.

      This cretin deliberately twists my words like one of the scag-rags at a supermarket checkout counter, to make it look like I am paying an under-age rent boy for sex.

      Anderson Cooper, who as his name attests to, lives in a wanna be, illusory world where he imagines himself the servile wife of Anderson Cooper, is probably eating his heart out that a man my age has a sexy, virile and handsome young lover who is half my age and that we can afford to live in a beautiful home on a gorgeous island in the tropics. Something he’ll never be able to have.

      Turn green, bitch.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 8:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      Oh…and another lie I just caught Anderson in.

      It’s not that my partner “won’t” come to the US. He’d come here at the drop of the hat, if he could.

      It’s the SOB Christers America who won’t let us get married that prevents him from coming to the USA because bi-national couples are not allowed to bring their families to the US, get a green card and file for citizenship like the hetero Christers can.

      That probably delights the deviated, perverted mind of Mrs. Cooper no end.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 8:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Jaroslaw:

      It’s pretty obvous, Jaroslaw.

      He a psychological fag-basher. An interloper whose sole purpose for being here is to foment upset and emotional pain fro those of us who blog here.

      He really ought to stay at Starbucks and nurse his latté as he grows old waiting for some so-so chick to even give him a look, much less go home and have sex with him.

      Then again, maybe a chick isn’t really what he’s looking for?

      Mar 4, 2009 at 9:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Michael Ejercito – Re; Reynolds – the difference here the way I see it, is you keep missing the point. EQUALITY dude! Each person can marry the ONE person of their choice.

      You claim to have researched all the laws – well think about this – many of our laws talk about the rights of spouse for spouse. EG one spouse gets sick, the other has automatic power of attorney, “inherits” the kids without adoption through probate etc.

      Polygamy is unworkable within our current framework of laws because which wife gets the say over the other in the hospital? The longest serving wife? Or is her seniority pro-rated? etc. etc. etc. It is not a moral question, it’s a practical legal question why polygamy is not allowed, albeit with lots of moral overtones through the years.

      This problem does not exist with Same Sex marriage because each party only has one spouse. So contrary to your assertion “we can’t marry how we please” yes, we can in some states and eventually all will have SSM. But one person per “customer!” :)

      Mar 4, 2009 at 9:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Jaroslaw:
      Jaroslaw, you know he is here to argue the case against overturning Prop 8. Straight or not, he has every right to do that, and we have every right to rip his argument to shreds.
      But lets keep it on the issue, man. You know only the owner of this site has the right to say who belongs here and who doesn’t. Start making arbitrary decisions like that and you’ll wind up being banned because you’re wearing the wrong colour tie.

      You do after all, live in the freest country in the world, unlike us poor suffering fools in the Soviet Gulag to the north.
      *snicker*

      And I wouldn’t be too sure about your argument about polygamy either. Part of the reason they have held off charging polygamists up here is because they think the law might fall as contrary to equal rights and freedom of religion. That may happen down in the states too. Remember, rights are rights, and you can’t necessarily stop them where they start to offend you.
      (and for the record, I’m not a big fan of polygamy either).

      Mar 4, 2009 at 10:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      (sorry,I had to break off that post)
      Again, I might not like polygamy, but is it any of my business what happens in someone else’s family, so long as no crimes are being committed?
      And is it fair to immigrants from other countries who do have polygamous families to say their unions are not recognized?

      Again, my point is we have to keep it on the principle of the law and equality, not what we think offends us. That’s the basis of our opponents’ argument and we don’t want to fall into the same trap.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 10:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      Well, what would Mildred Loving say about the use of that photo? She is on the record you know:

      “Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.
      I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.”

      Mar 4, 2009 at 12:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Jaroslaw: The first I was brought to this site google took me here. I was reading an article on CNN about the constitutional basis for voting NO on Prop 8. (This was way before the election). I googled for more information and was brought to this site. I don’t think it is unusual for straight person to have an opinion on Prop 8 it is a human rights issue. As we know there are people straight and gay who care a great deal about this issue. If we want straight people to vote against anti-gay legislation let’s not be surprised if they come to this site and look around sooo many links on the internet lead to this site and that is a great opportunity for them to get another perspective from the propaganda. Even that lawyer whose posts are as dry as three day toast deserves to posts he is a different perspective. If anything his posts show the almost(not a personal attack I’m talking about his arguments not him) soullessness of his comments they read like law books with no mention of the actual people’s lives being affected. The gay community has succeed in making this a national issue and it is the primary human rights struggle in America right now a lot of straight people are now interested in the issue those candlelight vigils and marches woke a lot of people up. Just like the marches of MLK and his followers woke people up to the injustice of segregation. This issue is not going to be won by 10% of the population it is going to take people in other populations caring about the rights of LGBT people to pass a federal gay civil rights so it is counterproductive to assume that every straight person who supports gay rights should be looked at with suspicion. That being said I think Micheal Erjecitos arguments fall flat on their own insulting him just gives him more justification.

      @Michael Ejercito: I’m really shocked that a person of color would support denying rights to anyone whatever the legal basis is. Wake up man. For many right wing conservatives as a hispanic man you are just as unimportant as LGBT people.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 1:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Michael Ejercito: And Micheal why don’t you try ANSWERING people’s questions instead of just spouting someone else’s legal research.

      How can reconcile American citizens being denied their basic civil rights based on how they were born? How can you support 2nd class citizenship and special rights for some “chose” citizens.

      Please explain. I am not attacking you but if you feel so confident in your position you should at least be able to answer basic questions.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 1:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Chitown Kev:
      Thanks for sharing that.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 4:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Chitown Kev: Hi there,

      There was another loving lady of color who said much the same thing as Loving did.

      “No government has the right to tell its citizens whom to love. The only queer people are those who don’t love anybody.”

      Her name was Rita Mae Brown.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 6:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Bill Perdue:

      “For many right wing conservatives as a hispanic man you are just as unimportant as LGBT people.”

      Had you or I said that, we would have had a slew of people our back who, at the very least would be telling us that we could have handled that better and at the worst, accuse us of being racist

      And watch how many will probably jump onto my back just pointing this fact out.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 6:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Michael Ejercito: If my pointing out that you were a person of color or my perception of the conservatives ideas of hispanic people was in any way offensive I truly apologize. I was trying to sat that people with a shared past of oppression should be the first to champion the causes of other oppressed people nothing more.

      Mar 4, 2009 at 7:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @getreal:

      I just wanted to say that I think offering Michael Ejercito was a very classy thing to do, although, quite frankly, I don’t think that he is deserving of one with his rigid marriage is between one man and one woman stance which translates into no civil rights for gays. I thought his whole approach to this blog was coming from a disdainful and superior attitude. I could be wrong.

      I knew where you were coming from and that there was no mean intent or racial slur intended on your behalf. As I am ceertain that you have noted, we do seem to attract a lot of surf-by shootings, as Vernon would say. I was feeling a little ganged-up on and hence the snarky comment.

      Somehow, I have the feeling that we won’t be hearing anything anything further from him, but not because you didn’t make every effort to reach him, which is very commendable. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you have a helluva lot more patience than I do.

      I guess in the final analysis, he is the only one who truly knows what his motivation was for coming into blog and laying whatever his trip was on us.

      I’m not a religious man, as you well know, but I will say bless you for trying.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 9:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      Oh my. I have been up all night and I think I am punch-drunk.

      My first sentence should read “I just wanted to say that I think offering Michael Ejercito an apology was….”

      Mar 5, 2009 at 10:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Charles J. Mueller: Bless me? After all the vicious attacks you have made against me personally. The only person who has ever tried to undermine people here is you as far as I have seen. I’m not interested in continuing whatever game this is. I just want to post my opinion on the articles like everyone else.

      I don’t know what your trip is but after days of vicious attacks from you I surmised that neither of us have anything to offer to each other. As far as feeling ganged up on if there are people on these threads who are taking you to task for your posts that has nothing to do with me.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 11:44 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Strumpet – read carefully ;) I never said he COULDN’T be here, I just wondered WHY he was here! (smile) which you will note he hasn’t answered….

      Second, the polygamy argument I offer is from two different books, both written by law professors at major universities! Think about it – if each man had five wives and the “wife” has automatic power of attorney through marriage and he ends up in the hospital, who decides what treatment? Pull the plug?

      That argument that more than one spouse makes our legal system unworkable makes perfect sense to me.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 12:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Getreal – thanks for an explanation how you got here, it is possible that is the same for Michael E (and this is not intended to be snotty) but he has had a lot to say here, so he can say a bit more and answer for himself.

      Others have said less than kind things here, quite justified some of them, but I haven’t insulted him at all.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 1:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • getreal
      getreal

      @Jaroslaw: I agree you, you always contribute great things to every thread you are on without ever getting petty or personal. That being said I was giving more of a blanket response to several people commenting on “why are all these different kinds of people here” query. So when people wonder why straight people are here I feel compelled to answer as a straight who just happened upon this site and has gained a greater understanding of the national fight for equality with the great articles and commentary. So my post to you was in no way a criticism I actually look forward to reading the insights of many posters and you are one of them it is unfortunate there is so much superfluous negativity but the good outweighs the bad. I see people like Micheal Ejercito logging on as an opportunity because even if they posts and run maybe they get a few minutes of the truth.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 1:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Getreal – having had very long, many days in a row “discussions” with hard boiled fundamental Christians and gotten absolutely nowhere; it is very very very very doubtful a few minutes of “truth” here will do much good. But keep up your good spirits!

      Mar 5, 2009 at 3:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Jaroslaw:
      Hi J, Sorry if it sounded like I thought you were telling him to F-off. That wasn’t my intention (though I admit I may have been talkign over your head to others as well). I just meant that it seemed pretty obvious he was here to challenge us; while I don’t want to get inundated by pro-8 supporters I don’t have a problem with some of them coming here to get an education.

      But I apologize if I came on too strong.

      And I understand your polygamy argument, yes. I’m still not sure if it ever came down to a decision based on equal rights if the polygamy law would not fall. After all, it is a perfectly-workable system in a lot of other countries. Also, rights are rights, and we can’t just limit them based on the “ick” factor, nor even if they make things more complicated.
      I am sure those slave owners had to do a fair bit of business restructuring after emancipation was declared.

      As I said, they have charged some polygamist leaders here in canada solely based on polygamy – not child abuse. So I guess we will find out in the next few years if our Canadian polygamy laws are constitutional or not.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 3:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      No problemo, Strump – ! :0

      Well, of course any law can be changed to accomodate polygamy- but I’ll stick to trying to get equal treatment under the laws we have – that seems to be more than enough of a struggle.

      As to whether or not polygamy works in other countries – I find that reading blogs like this and others a lot of things come to light that don’t otherwise easily do so. My contention would be polygamy in other countries works because women being subjugated is part of their culture and that seems to be the case with most of the polygamists in the USA also, as well as child abuse often, but not always factoring in. I will readily admit I’m not an authority on the subject, but it seems to me a fairly large percentage of people can’t make a two person marriage work, I don’t know if our society is ready to open the door to that kind of complexity. Pluralism is a great thing, but even the USA cannot accomodate every possible variation.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 3:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Jaroslaw:
      Again, I hear and agree.

      The problem is that even in a system where there is coercion and brainwashing, as in a religious cult (and I am not saying all polygamous arrangements are cults) there is nothing we can legally do if there is no crime being committed. We can’t prevent an adult from making a choice that we think might be bad, and regarding children it is very difficult to set the precedent to remove them from a family simply because we don’t like the family’s politics or beliefs.

      Unless there is child abuse or another crime, we may not like what is going on, but our hands may be tied.

      Sometimes the law can be hard and difficult, but especially in a case like this if we don’t stick to it then we cannot turn around and use it to defend ourselves against those who would take rights away from us on a whim.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 4:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      OK Strump – I opened myself up to your reply by mentioning the subjugation of women – I agree that we cannot make choices for adults. My intent was to respond to your “polygamy is perfectly workable in other countries” comment.

      I don’t think it would be “perfectly workable” here for reasons mentioned plus probably a lot of things we don’t know about. I wish I had a good example for you right now how how something in “Sweden” or someplace is mentioned to support or discredit an argument yet there are hugely significant details left out.

      But while I understand the tenor of your last paragraph above, I will still disagree with it in THIS case – equality in marrying the person of your choice is one argument (one spouse per person) – polygamy is a very different discussion.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 5:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      One other thing I might say about polygamy – since at least the ones we hear about intertwine religion & “rights” of individuals to pursue their own destiny, these compounds have been pretty hard nuts to crack into, due to privacy concerns, due process etc. when alleged problems do occur.

      Now I’m not suggesting nanny government, but it is not just the men who have rights – the women & children do too. How to allow free expression & protect everyone’s interests?

      Mar 5, 2009 at 5:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • strumpetwindsock
      strumpetwindsock

      @Jaroslaw: I won’t argue with you, Jaroslaw, since I agree with you 100 percent about being concerned about about the welfare of people in polygamous communities.

      It is a difficult issue; the collapse of the recent seizures down in the states shows how difficult it is to deal with problems in tight communities like that.

      Again, I suggest you keep your eye on this Canadian case:
      http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/02/18/bc-bountiful-court-appearance.html

      Regarding how to interpret the law and human rights, I don’t need to repeat how I see it.

      Good discussion; I enjoyed it.

      Mar 5, 2009 at 6:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.