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/briti.....rance.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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

“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.

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.

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.

@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.

“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.”

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.

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).

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!” :)

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?

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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-ri...../#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-m...../#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-m...../#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.

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.

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)

http://www.queerty.com/good-ri...../#comments

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

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.

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?