Gay marriage may not become a national issue this election, but it’s certainly becoming more of an issue for Democratic nominee Barack Obama.
The Senator from Illinois sat down with ABC News’ Jake Tapper early this week, just as California began issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Obviously Tapper broached the issue. Here is their exchange:
TAPPER: Do you think that the fact that this is now going on in California, does that cause you to re-think your pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?
OBAMA: No. I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level. I’m a strong supporter of civil unions. And I think that, you know, we’re involved in a national conversation about this issue. You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.
None of this should surprise us, of course. Obama’s held the same view since he got into the election and doesn’t seem to be budging. The politico’s repetition of his ideal marriage definition has some gays riled, like Sara Whitman, who blasted Obama last night.
Wrote Whitman:
If I hear “Marriage is between one man and one woman” one more time from Obama’s mouth- or any Democrat’s mouth- I’m going to scream. Last night, while being questioned on California’s decision, Obama just had to say it. One man, one woman.
How is this change? Leadership? Hope?
Or do only straight people get to hope?
…
As historical as having an African-American man run for the highest office in this nation is, it is not the only history being made. The fact that the second state in this country- and a fairly big state- has laid claim to the belief that separate is not equal is just as historically significant.
All this begs the question: was Obama thinking aloud in that interview, video of which can be found below, or did he want to signal to conservatives that he’s on their side of the marriage aisle? In definition, at least.
Regardless of the answer, Whitman’s anger clearly indicates that Obama and his campaign could be in dangerous territory with some gays. As has been mentioned, he’ll have to make sure his LGBT Vote initiative gains traction with the rank-and-file. And, clearly, Obama should keep his gay explanations to a minimum. Besides, it’s not as if we haven’t heard it before…
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
[Image via Obama’s Flickr page.]
carl
I don’t know why anyone would be surprised with his response. After all this is a man who has never been present in the gay community and should not be trusted when it comes to our civil rights. He loves to talk, but what has he done of our community? Remember, while Hillary Clinton was marching in countless gay pride parades, appearing with the NYC gay mens chorus, and giving interviews to every gay publication that asked, Mr. Obama was holding meetings with James Meeks, Louis Farrakhan and Donnie Mcklurklin. If you don’t know who these men are you should. They are all men who believe gay people are sick and a plague on society.
villager
i’m strongly in favor of civil unions.
translation:
i am in favor of the ‘separate but not equal’ version of marriage for gays.
i’ll be gritting my teeth while voting for this guy come november. so much for change. selling out the gays is old political tactics.
l
Sir Edmund Hillary was a great man, but he is dead now. To turn to the matter at hand, getting federal rights and benefits is far better than full marriage at the state level. What Obama is proposing is far more significant than a patchwork of recognition at the state level.
ajax
Okay, so let’ say that Mr. Obama successfully creates federally recognized civil unions and codifies that marriage is between one man and one woman. What happens to all the men and women who have/will legally marry in California or Massachussets? Can they be married and “civiled”, or do they have to get divorced to get “civiled”? Will their marriages automatically be annuled to become “civilages”? What happens to legally-married UK citizens who travel or naturalize to the US? Can they remain married.
There are so many immediate and obvious flaws, no one with a normally functioning brain can possibly believe this is a good plan. I think Mr. Obama is, like most “pro civil union” politicians, disingenuous on the issue.
Sucks.
WeTheSheeple
Again we get to choose between the lesser of two evils. Obama is a typical politician, just covering his bases trying to please everbody without offending too many. Does this really suprise anyone?
Paul
He’s just another asshole politician – too bad so many drank the Kool-Aid BEFORE they found out what an absolute prick this guy is.
McCain looks better and better every day! Fuck this bullshit opportunist – Obama’s nothing more than a racist – I wouldn’t vote for that prick if he was the ONLY candidate on the ballot!
Dave
L –
Obama said “these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level.” How is this NOT advocating a confusing maze of local and state ordinances?
He says he’s in favor of civil unions, but wants to leave it up to the states.
The sick thing here is that in this year of change, we have two candidates who are at almost the same place on gay marriage:
Neither wants a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Both believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
Both think marriage decisions should be up to the states.
Both support some kind of legal recognition of same-sex partners (Obama calls them civil unions, McCain just calls it “legal recognition”).
Don’t get me wrong – I trust Obama much more on this issue, but still not enough.
Mike
Just to remind all of you, no one running for the Presidency this year was for legalizing Marriage for the GLBT community except one nominee. Senator Obama has always stood firm for Civil Unions (this will give you all of the legal rights of marriage at the federal level), but believe that it is up to the state to determine what to call it. You have every right to fight him on it. He even asks us to keep him accountable. SO, keep on him, but at least he has proven that he will listen. BUT, he isn’t just running to be president of Black America or GLBT America. The rest of the country has to move as well. It will undoubtedly happen sooner than later.
Tom
Obama was answering the question as to why he wants to repeal DOMA. Repealing DOMA is a good thing for us, right? McCain will not repeal it, right? And, in fact, because he will be beholden to the far right if he wins, he is likely to expand discrimination and non-recognition of gay civil rights, right?
Obama on the other hand wants to expand civil rights and benefits to recognize civil unions at he federal level, right? This is very significant.
And remember, Clinton held the same view of marriage, i.e., its between a man and woman. And 26 states have constitutional bans on gay marriage.
We are so fixated on the word “marriage” it blinds us as to how to proceed with a coherent and effective national strategy and it causes us to attack the person who is the better presidential candidate.
I for one believe civil unions, where all federal and state benefits are conferred, would be the most palpable nationwide approach to obtain what we ultimately want to receive. If the religious zealots want to co-opt the word marriage, let them have it.
I am so sick of this being a divisive and decisive issue I want to scream.
ousslander
Obama is not going to repeal DOMA or DADT. People are fooling themselves if they bel;ieve this. Us fags are not worthy of marriage in his view and should be happy with any scarps he throws us. The sad thing is must gays will accept this and twist themselves into pretzels justifying their selling out,
Qjersey
I wish he had the balls to say “As an African American I cannot support any system of ‘separate but equal’ because history has taught us it doesn’t work and hurts people.”
In my dreams
Dan
Remember Bill sweet talking the LGBT crowd, then throwing us under the bus (DADT) when it suited him?
Yeah, I’m sure Hillary would’ve been totally different. Morons.
CHURCHILL-Y
THANK YOU MISS SARA WHITMAN!, SO MUCH FOR CHANGE LEADERSHIP AND HOPE THAT’S RIGHT! Hope and change is only when it comes to black people based on their race, the Gays should be glad enough that I’m even mentioning them(Is what Barrack is thinking to himself). They(Gay people)need to shut up and follow in line if they know what’s good for them. You know what Mr. Hussein Obama THUG FU*K YOU, I said on one of my post that I would consider holding my nose and casting a ballot for you come November but unless you become a real candidate for change and stop viewing our relationships as less than the one that you have with Miss Loud Mouth Michelle I’ll go the other way. I rather suffer through ONE SHORT HORRIBLE YEAR OF MCCAIN and have real change afterwards than end up with Hussein for eight years and with the mess that No. 4 · ajax described so well.
NO! no No!, not after these two states, MA and CA in which we are fully recognize and not second class citizens.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS A HYPOCRITE!
http://www.obamameeksrecord.wordpress.com/
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=4831
NOBAMA ’08
THE KIND OF HYPOCRITICAL CHANGE WE DON’T NEED
Dan
Somebody skipped their meds this morning…
Ryan
Churchill-y, is there some reason why you think it is necessary and appropriate to constantly refer to Obama by his middle name? Or are you just another racist prick who realizes that typing HUSSEIN in all caps gets other racist pricks hard?
CHURCHILL-Y
Dan: bah-bah-bah, go on little sheep keep on following your messiah to the slaughter house.
carl
Dan – If you remember it was Obama’s friend and possible VP candidate Sam Nunn that pushed us under the bus with DADT. Obama is as homophobic as is 80% of the black population in this country.
CHURCHILL-Y
What’s the matter Ryan trying to deviate from the subject of this posting are you? You know this is B.S coming out from a supposed agent of change so you don’t want to talk about it. I get it.
Ryan
Churchill-y, I think it is you, not me, who is deviating from the subject and I’m trying to understand why. What does calling Obama by his middle name have to do with the subject of this post? The thing is, we all know the answer already. It has *nothing* to do with it; rather, you are just playing the racist smear card because you have nothing thoughtful to say.
YankeeGirl226
Carl, you’re a racist asshole. You are never going to get anywhere with that attitude. All you do is attack people and complain.
Dan
honestly, it’s people like churchill-y who wind up helping Obama in the end. Same principle as the Phelps “god hates fags” crowd.
carl
It am not being racist it is the truth. Homophobia is more prevalent in the black community than in other ethnic groups it is a fact.
noah
Please, can we get over marriage for the general election? People, get real. The Republicans used gay marriage as lighting rod to attract the fundies to the polls.
Are some of you folks this incapable of strategic thinking? The last thing we need is for gay marriage to be a major issue in the campaign.
This is stupid. Most of the GLBT would benefit more by ENDA than marriage. Get your priorities straight.
If you want to get into a stupid fight over marriage then you risk blowing the election. There’s a reason why the major gay rights groups are telling people not to push marriage now.
Finally, get your facts straight. Obama is for Civil Unions that have all of the legal rights of marriage. It’s not a question of being second class citizens. This is a way to get the most important rights, protection from discrimination in employment and housing first.
Read a history book. This was the successful strategy of the Civil Rights Movement.
Contrary to the dreamworld, there are a whole lot of evangelicals, Catholics, and everyday bigots who still go apeshit crazy about the words “marriage” and “gay” being associated. Pretending that it is not true does not change anything.
As for this crap about Obama not being in the “gay community,” get a grip. He’s constantly spoken out against homophobia. Obama has a gay out reach section on his website and has a number of gay advisers unlike McCain. Correction, McCain may have some gay advisers but he keeps them hidden away from public sight so as not to offend Michael Savage and the rest of Right.
Look at the big picture. Stop being naive. Wasting time and effort over something that could let McCain win is STUPID! Queerty editors, that includes you for pushing this story without laying out all the facts.
And this crap about Obama being racist is pathetic. Hello, he’s biracial! He was raised by his white mother and grandparents! His sister is white and Asian. He is close with his maternal family. He has white in-laws on his paternal side. Most of his top advisers on the campaign are white. One of his earliest supporters was David Geffen. So, cut the crap. Also, there’s no proof of Obama ever meeting with Louis Farrakhan.
This stupid conversation has been going on and on this week. Few people seem to learn anything and just want to hear what they want instead of understanding the truth. You’d rather run around like a chicken with its head cut off.
One last time: Obama is for ending DOMA, Civil Unions that are equal to marriage at the federal level, repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and passing ENDA.
John McCain couldn’t care less about gay people. They are not a significant part of his backers and they are hated by his the Republican base of evangelicals.
Finally, in 2004 the Republican National Convention sent out the message to party loyalist that gays would bring about the end of the family. Masses of scared bigots ran to polls to enact state bans on gay marriage while they voted for Bush. Do you people want a repeat performance in 2008?
ENDA trumps marriage for bringing about the most relief to the majority of the GLBT community. Having federal protection against workplace and housing discrimination is far more advantageous.
Clinton supporters, give it up: Bill Clinton went on the radio to brag about DOMA in 1996. In 2004, Bill Clinton advised John Kerry to back a federal amendment banning gay marriage. Kerry refused.
Where did Hillary Clinton say that she is in support of gay marriage? Oh, that’s right. She had the same policy as Obama….
fredo777
Blah. This isn’t news; he’s running to be pres. of the U.S. — the whole U.S. — + is covering his ass. It’s to expected, really.
fredo777
* to be expected
CHURCHILL-Y
What a great message Barrack Hussein Obama is sending to the black voters in California come November:
MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN SO FEEL FREE TO VOTE AGAINST MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Change and Hope.
Ryan
thank you Noah. I wish this could be the last word on the subject, but alas, some gay folks are just hellbent on a having a candidate who will be a martyr for our cause rather than one who will work to advance it.
Look folks, democracy is about compromise. You will never get a presidential candidate that you totally agree with. If you can’t deal with that without throwing a hissy fit, then you may not be capable of living as an active citizen in a democracy.
CHURCHILL-Y
I would love for Mr Obama to tell those same words to Mrs Martin and Mrs Lyon, who have been together for more than 50 years. Will he have the nerve to tell them in their face you know what I think the best thing for you is a civil union, I don’t support DOMA but if the voters of California think your relationship should not have the same footing, recognition as that of a heterosexual couple who have only been together for less than a minute, I’m going to abide by it.
THAT’S WHAT HOPE IS!
villager
#12: the argument wasn’t that clinton would have done/said better.
but how can someone seriously campaign for change then resort to the same old tactics? come on.
flightoftheseabird
h/t to Noah. Good post. As a gay man, gay issues are really low on my priority list. I vote on so many more issues before gay marriage. Perhaps that is because I am in an unconventional relationship where marriage will not help me. I think getting ENDA passed, repealing DODT, DOMA, ending the war in Iraq, doing something about oil prices, rectifying the big shitpile that is the mortgage crisis are all more important than marriage. It will happen, and it will probably come from the next few Supreme Court sessions (particularly if President Obama gets to appoint as many as 6 Supreme Court justices over the next 8 years).
Oh those of you worried/concerned about Sam Nunn, don’t be. He is not going to be on the ticket.
Mark
I’m not giving up my civil rights for a party and a candidate that doesn’t give a crap about me. Forget it.
Besides, Obama will just vote “present” yet again when something like this comes up for decision. That’s his history, and his pattern.
blackiemiko
Just remember that we could see up to 6 Supreme Court Justices retire.
Could you imagine the rights AMERICA would lose if McCain appoints them?
Mark
but why overlook what politics would look like with a McCain presidency and a Democratically controlled congress? Those justices have to be approved…
of course, you may believe as I do–that it simply doesn’t matter if Democrats control Congress because THEY DO EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS AS REPUBLICANS. They cry about needing a super-majority, but even with the majority they have now, NANCY PELOSI AND HARRY REID ARE NOT STANDING UP FOR YOU. They aren’t voting down war funding, they aren’t solving the mortgage crisis, they aren’t cleaning up the envirnoment, they aren’t supporting renewable fuels…no, it still looks a lot like G Bush’s show in Washington even with all those Democrats in the House of Reps and the Senate who are, btw, giving him everything he wants as if he’s still relevant.
And you continue to want us to think Obama’s gonna waltz in and change everything?
noah
Ah, Ch****ly, ever the racist to try to say that Obama is trying to get black voters to vote against gay marriage in California.
It’s great to know that your delusion of telepathy is still with us. It just adds to your over all mendacity.
Newsflash: Obama is not against the California decision. He supported the California Supreme Court’s decision. Obama has repeatedly gone to majority non-gay churches and spoken out in favor of gay rights. But, as far your concerned, those facts just don’t matter. If you lie enough, may be people will believe you. Right?
Play your little games, lying and twisting words, to suit your blatantly racist agenda. Your arguments are always based in your antediluvian view of race. You can’t deal with facts. They must be too scary.
Why don’t you run and join the McCain campaign and ask them to help you on a quixotic journey to rewrite history. I’m sure they would be willing to add you to their latest version of Nixon’s Rat F*ckers. Maybe you could be their token openly racist white gay guy at the GOP convention. They smile at you, pat you on the head, and then laugh at you when you’re out of earshot. But, who knows, given the number of closet case in the GOP, you might score with a younger Larry Craig type.
Obama is fighting for the general election. Hillary Clinton did not support gay marriage. Her husband pushed John Kerry to support a federal amendment to ban gay marriage.
Facts! Facts! They are part of the Reality-based community. I know the Evangelicals want to dismiss them. Dinosaur bones that carbon date to 100,000,000BC. Fooey! Those bones are from 5,000 years ago because that’s the earliest the Bible says that there is in the world. Stars over 5,000 light years from Earth? God’s just put the light of those in place to seem that its been traveling 5,000 years to reach the Earth.
You would be in the good company of the self-deluded in the GOP.
So, one more time:
Obama is for Civil Unions that have equality with all legal benefits of marriage at the federal level. Screw the name. Second, Obama is for ENDA. Hello?! Anyone there? Most states do not provide for protection against discrimination in employment and housing for GLBT Americans.
Play your little hateful games. You would rather spew hate than do something help.
And, Ch***ly? Have you had your DNA sequenced and analyzed? According to all major DNA surveys of white Americans, 33% have African-American ancestry. Remember last year when Dr. James Watson of Nobel fame learned of his ancestry after spewing racist garbage? Watson looked really as goofy as you.
With 16 to 18% African DNA, Watson has as much if not more African ancestry than Mr. Plessy, of Plessy v. Ferguson, who although 7/8th white was declared black by Supreme Court in the decision that legalized segregation. But, I’m sure you must look back fondly at the court case.
Just think, under Louisiana law, you too could be “black”! Back in the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court held up Louisiana’s racial categorization. It only takes 1/64 African ancestry. Though I’m sure there would be a serious desire to try to find some loop hole to push you out of African-American community. I know that I wish you weren’t part of the gay community.
Come to think of it, you could be just another Republican troll who’s looking to stir up controversy. 😉
CHURCHILL-Y
Melanin blinds you n**h, Looks to me like the conservative one here is you. You can filibuster all the other posts as much as you want, the fact remains that although Obama says he doesn’t support DOMA he only believes that we GLBT people are only entitled to a second class citizen status which is what civil unions are and since he thinks that it should be a matter left to the states he sees nothing wrong with the state or voters of California come November telling Mrs Martin and Mrs Lyon that MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN SO FEEL FREE TO VOTE AGAINST MARRIAGE EQUALITY and undo their marriage. I wonder if he would’ve felt the same way when past presidents even sent troops to integrate the south.
Hypocrite
greybat
Oy! Such a ruckus! I think I’ll vote for Mckinney…
flightoftheseabird
Mark: As far as I understand, you cannot vote Present in the US Senate.
Mark (again): This is why we need to elect not just more Democrats, but better ones.
RPCV
I can’t wait for the debates this fall. Take the teleprompter away from Hussein and he’s lost for thoughts, beliefs, policies, and words. McCain will whip his black ass, and I can’t wait to see it.
McCain and Whoever (it really doesn’t matter who the VP is – McCain will be the star!!) ’08
flightoftheseabird
RPCV: Your comment made me laugh out loud. Have you heard McCain speak? He has the same grasp of the English language and speaking ability as the current squatter in the White House. Please. The only problem Obama will have is making McCain look too stupid, thus helping McCain with the Bubbas in the country.
noah
Melanin blinds me? Uh, that’s original! That’s refreshing, like 5-day old toast. Literally, having more melanin in one’s eyes is what prevents blindness. Thus dark colored eyes are an evolutionary adaptation that are common for people who live closer to the equator to protect against sunlight causing ocular damage.
Figuratively, I couldn’t care less about the concentration of Obama’s melanin. Race has nothing to do with my support for him. I was for Edwards and then Obama.
And, if you could get past your racist views, you would admit that Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all shared the same opinion on marriage and civil unions. But, again, you would have to be part of the Reality-based community and not of the Bizarro Klan world.
You can continue to bring up the names of the two women who got married. That’s great for them. Obama supported the California Supreme Court’s decision. But again, none of the Democratic candidates supported gay marriage. They were all for civil unions. Obama has said that he is for civil unions receiving the exact same legal benefits as marriage.
Seeing the Democratic candidate destroying his chance to win over gay marriage is the epitome of stupid. ENDA is more important than marriage. It helps more LGBT Americans immediately.
But it’s interesting how you now switch your tactics away from using racism to attack Obama and try to use two senior citizens. If you had really cared about the substance of gay rights issues, you would not have spent the last few months arguing against Obama based on racist reasons. But, it’s too late for you to try to obfuscate your racism. Your infamy is well known.
Seeing those two women married after decades is beautiful. But because the Republicans used gay marriage as a rallying cry in 2004, 26 states passed bans on gay marriage. Only a fool would try to make an issue of something that is as radioactive plutonium.
ENDA. That’s legislation that can pass. That’s legislation is more impacting.
The only way to overcome anti-gay marriage bans is through a Supreme Court judgment that affect the entire Union since federal law trumps state constitutions. The same way that anti-interracial marriage laws were struck down. BTW, do you realize that state court ruling followed by U.S. Supreme Court rulings was the pattern that led to Loving v. Virgina, ending anti-miscegenation laws?
The Civil Rights movement fought battles on multiple levels, in the courts, in legislators, and in the media. It’s a strategy that worked. I’m sure to your racist fury based on your repetitive anti-African American comments.
Hey, you and your ilk are so dedicated in getting McCain elected, there will be no liberal judges on the Court to rule in our favor. Congratulations! Since McCain has no openly gay advisers and doesn’t see gays as part of his base but owes allegiance to anti-gay factions, there is zero chance of him doing anything to benefit gay Americans.
It’s funny how you continue your attack only on Obama but never direct your venom at McCain who holds far more conservative views. What you’re saying by your silence is that you tacitly approve of McCain being against gay rights throughout his whole career. What your’re advocating by silence is no chance of ENDA passing, leaving millions of GLBT Americans without federal protection in employment and housing. What you’re agreeing to is supporting someone who is actively supporting anti-marriage, anti-gay groups across the country.
So, why don’t you be honest about your own obvious self-hatred because a vote for McCain is a vote against gay rights in word, thought, and deed based on McCain’s own words, pledges, and history of votes.
As for calling in troops to enforce marriage, yeah running on a platform to put federal troops at town halls across America would really thrill voters. LOL. That would be a winning strategy for losing the election. As if the Republicans wouldn’t use that to invoke a fear of Obama imposing a dictatorship.
Ike did not run on a platform for Civil Rights. He deployed troops when the governor of a Southern state said that he would refuse to follow federal law. Ike had to deploy troops to ensure the dominance of the federal government (that whole thing about fighting a Civil War to ensure the Union and the supremacy of the federal government kinda came into play). Ike also had to do so to protect black children from the crowd of vicious, violent white racists.
JFK did not run on a ticket with the expressed purpose of implementing Civil Rights laws. He had to be pushed into doing so. Lyndon Johnson inherited the presidency from JFK and used his death as a tool to hammer away and get the 1965 Civil Rights legislation passed.
RC*V,
You are blatant in your support of McCain. Sorta like the guy on death row cheering the executioner to walk a little faster if not run. But nobody said you or C***** were very bright.
As for Obama’s oratory skills, get real. Obama does not need teleprompters. McCain, however, has been a tongue tumbling klutz of the Olympian heights. Has a week gone by recently where he’s misquoted facts (no need for guards in Iraq, etc.)?
Do your homework, Obama doesn’t use teleprompters much. He’s a trained lawyer and a former Constitutional law professor. Speaking extemporaneously well has been a crucial part of his successful career.
Maybe if we’re lucky, Cindy can tease McCain playfully and then he can give her the verbal slapdown of calling her a “tart” and a “c*nt” in public?
But what’s interesting about both of you is your continued dismissal of ENDA. Federal legislation that could pass with a Democratic president. Legislation that would ensure that every LGBT person in the smallest town would not have to fear losing a job or being denied housing.
Why doesn’t ENDA, legislation that Bush threatened to veto and McCain does not support, weigh less to you than marriage in importance? Given the rates of poverty and homelessness amongst LGBT Americans, one would think that ENDA would be the top concern for people who care about LGBT Americans being treated as second class citizens. You don’t seem to concerned about that at all.
And, R**V, the more you use Hussein the more obvious your xenophobia is. Seriously, blaming someone for the name given to him by his parents is mendacious. Trying to apply that someone raised by native Kansans like his grandparents would have any kind of Arab culture is pretty imaginative.
BTW, did you make fun of kids with “foreign” names when you were in school? Did you bully some kid named Stanislaw, Sanjay, or Wing-Lee? Did you get off on making kids suffer because they were different?
Like I suggested to your brother-in-bigotry, Ch****, why not take your act on the road and join your local McCain campaign as an out gay man. When you’re on the phone trying to solicit donations, make sure to announce your sexuality to potential donors. State your desire for gay marriage. I’m sure you will be a successful fundraiser. You’ll probably win an award for least money-raised.
🙂
noah
McCain Applauds Proposed Calif. Gay Marriage Ban
Download The California Marriage Protection Act (.pdf)
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) ― Sen. John McCain says he is glad California voters will get to weigh in on a ballot measure that seeks to overturn the recent state Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
The Republican presidential candidate’s campaign released a statement Tuesday in which McCain said California residents should decide who can marry “rather than having that decision made by judicial fiat.”
The initiative qualified for the November ballot this week. It would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The Arizona senator opposed amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage nationwide but supported a similar amendment in his home state that was defeated in 2006.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has endorsed McCain but opposes the November ballot measure.
McCain/C****ly ’08
R**V for Chief Gay Apologist & Ass Kisser ’08
noah
For a full list of McCain flipflops and gaffs:
http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm
Kevin Foster
Obama is just like any other pol, only with less experience. How he, of all people, can be in favor of separate-but-equal is beyond me. Looks like he missed the entire point of the civil rights movement. But, he has his equal rights and the rest of us can just fend for ourselves. Funny things is though, that if had been up to the states on mixed-race marriage, there would be a good chance of HIS marriage being illegal in about half of the US.
Hope is for hets, that’s the message I’m getting, and I’m not alone. Most of my friends feel less than enthused and very left out.
Sure, I’ll still vote for him, but I’ll have to hold my nose when I pull the lever for the lesser of two evils.
RPCV
Noah: Do you feel better after writing 10,000 word diatribes of late? Sort of therapeutic, isn’t it?
With regard to ENDA, the only people it would benefit are the flamboyant queers in the workplace. If gay men were to act as MEN and lezbos were to act as WOMEN in the workplace, then there would be no need for ENDA because straight society (who the flamers accuse of persecuting them relentlessly)wouldn’t have any basis to think anything differently about you. Think about it…….. Comments?
CHURCHILL-Y
Kevin Foster: Not only mixed-race marriage, but also schools, bathrooms, in the work place, neighbourhoods you name it. I agree with you I don’t understand it.
n**h: Keep filibustering babe you sound just like Afro, by the way how much is Obama paying you for spewing so much crap?
Tim
Another slap in the face; Obama announces Nunn is on his short list for Vice President.
Drink the kool-aid. Get in line. Vote Obama.
Nunn of Our Business ?
Nunn would bring national security credentials to the ticket, having served as the longtime Armed Services Committee chairman. The former Georgia senator is a member of Obama’s foreign policy advisory group.
But Nunn has not been in office for more than a decade so he is not well-known nationally. He is a conservative Democrat who supported school prayer and opposed gays in the military, while Obama tends to have a more liberal viewpoint. Nunn will turn 70 in September.
Mr C
One thing you kids need to realize is this civil rights for Gays is something meaningful to US not to the many of heterosexual Americans who DO NOT accept our lifestyle.
Now once again neither Obama, nor CLINTON believes, or supports Gay Marriage, They both support civil unions so I am so tired of some of you talking about Hillary going to Gay Pride parades and being on stage with The NY Gay Men’s Chorus….
SO WHAT!!!!
Representation without ACTIONS is NULL and VOID.
Have you ever thought maybe she does this to cover up sore feelings from the LGBT community behind Bill’s DADT & DOMA? also a pandering act.
Get real. Give this Man a DAMN chance, or once again just don’t simply vote for him. Just join CHURCHILL-Y-ASSHOLE and the rest of the McCain supporters on the suicide line because if he wins that is what will truly happen.
STOP KNIT-PICKING and think of YOUR future as a Gay individual.
PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
chuck
RPCV wrote: >With regard to ENDA, the only people it would benefit are the flamboyant queers in the workplace. If gay men were to act as MEN and lezbos were to act as WOMEN in the workplace, then there would be no need for ENDA because straight society (who the flamers accuse of persecuting them relentlessly)wouldn’t have any basis to think anything differently about you. Think about it…….. Comments?
Yeah. I got a comment. Are you gay…or a homophobic queer-basher?
chuck
And >Lezbos???
What time-warp are you stuck in?
I’ll bet dollars to donuts that you still use the “N” word too.
expatriate
My, my, my….it’s getting a little heated in here.
I have supported the Democrats for my entire voting career and where did it get me? Nowhere. Hell, California marriage rights is the product of a Republican led Supreme Court of California.
Clinton and Obama are both minorities and as such should understand that seperate is not equal. Why does a white and mostly male and Republican court (SCOC) get this simple concept, but two leading democrats who are minorities don’t???? Until Obama learns this very elementary truth, I will be sitting this election out. I am sick and tired of loyally supporting those who do not support me and my GLBT family. Pretty simple. Wish I learned this self love decades ago.
BTW, for those Obama supporters who cannot take this simple message, I do not support McCain and did not support Clinton for the same reason.
michael
I am not voting for him. I refuse to give my vote to anyone, Democrat or Republican that denies me a fundamental right enjoyed by everyone else. I don’t give a shit about Iraq, I don’t give a shit about Iran, those countries murder us so I say blow them off the planet. I don’t give a shit anymore about anyone but myself and my family. I have moved from the states and I don’t have to put up with this shit anymore and I just say to all gay Americans, take your assets, take your educations, take your skills and go somewhere that you can live free with dignity and let the evil empire fall, and it will fall and the rest of the world is anxiously awaiting. Don’t be like a Jew in Germany and think this land is for you because its not. I hope McCain wins and wins big and the Democrats go straight to hell, because they are twice as dishonest and evil as Republicans ever have been.
mds
I also am not voting for him. Just as the Republicans courted the evangelicals to tip the election in their direction the Democrats will learn that they cannot get elected without the Gay vote. I agree that its time to be selfish, time to take care of ourselves because no
body else is. And if the supreme court becomes completely conservative then I suppose that means that the United States is over as we know it, but in that event we won’t be the only ones that are oppressed. So if I am going to be oppressed under a Democrat then I say let everyone be oppressed under a Republican. And it is true that homophobia is rampant in the black community. And who gives a crap if someone calls him by his middle name. If he is so ashamed of it then he ought to change it.
fredo777
I’m voting for him. And I’m tired of all this crap about not wanting to vote for Obama for one reason or another, but not supporting McCain. Not voting for the Dem candidate is about as bad as tossing Johnny Mac another vote. Indirectly, you are supporting him.
Peter Pan
RPCV wrote: >With regard to ENDA, the only people it would benefit are the flamboyant queers in the workplace. If gay men were to act as MEN and lezbos were to act as WOMEN in the workplace, then there would be no need for ENDA because straight society (who the flamers accuse of persecuting them relentlessly)wouldn’t have any basis to think anything differently about you. Think about it…….. Comments? —
There are trillions of objects in the Universe. I don’t believe that any two are alike. There are probably thousands of planets in our galaxy, harboring life of one kind or another. Our solar system has eight planets (and many moons) of which at least one, Earth, has lifeforms of many different kinds behaving in many different ways.
Why then, and for who’s benefit, should we ACT?
Why should we be dishonest and be something that we are not?
I believe humanity must spiritually grow and understand that we are all different, yet the same. That the one is not better than the other!
Why must it be war when it should be peace?
There should not be THEM and US.
There should only be US!
Matteo
In all this confusion of words, Obama leaves out (AGAIN) one group of same sex couples that will NOT see their rights recognized if the decision stays at State Level: SAME SEX INTERNATIONAL COUPLES
Is anyone thinking about this? How can my partner and I be protected in the event that my Visa is not renewable one day? I don’t wanna fake a straight wedding to get a green card. I want to marry my man and get my rights recognized.
I can’t find any trace of solution in Obama’s words, in anyone’s words for that matter.
carl
The reason Mr. Obama and the majority of the black community do not see civil unions as separate but equal in comparison to civil rights movement is because they believe the being gay is a choice and it is something you can change unlike skin color.
in response to Mr. C: A politician showing up at gay events is similar to a parent showing up at their child’s game or school play, it shows that they support you and want to celebrate with you. All Mr. Obama has done is say I’ll give you a few bucks for you little parade, I just don’t want to be there to support it.
fredo777
Carl, you don’t know what the majority of the black community believes about being gay (or anything, for that matter). Stop assuming that you do.
RPCV
Hummm, I’ve interrupted my staycation to make one simple point – then back to preparing to sun myself in the back yard.
I sense an evolving sea change of feeling about Obama and the, well, queers. Would I be too pompous and arrogant to think that my subtle but continuous comments about Obama’s shortcomings could be having a subliminal effect on how queers think about him? On second thought, I’m too humble to take any credit. Just a thought…….. now back to the Hawaiian Tropic suntan lotion that I’m going to slather all over my naked bod.
noah
Carl,
Wow! Have you taken a survey of the 40 million African-Americans to come up with the line of reasoning? Thanks for making Obama’s decision a racial decision. I never heard of a vote being taken by the 40 million African-Americans. Do you know the date when that took place?
Once again, it’s always good to see someone to continue deny racial minorities their individuality and humanity. How about this theory? Some African-Americans don’t believe in gay marriage because they are Catholic and the Pope says it’s not okay? How about some African-Americans don’t care gay marriage at all? How about some African-Americans don’t believe in gay marriage because they are Republicans? How about some African-Americans don’t believe in gay marriage because they are bigots?
Gee? Many people having different opinions! Wow! You mean African-Americans are like other human beings? Well, scientifically, yes, that is true?
ROFLMAO!
So, how many times do we hear stereotypes of gay men being fashionistas, promiscuous, blah, blah, blah. Gays then protest against those stereotypes.
But it’s okay for some gays to stereotype African-Americans, because, you know, they’re different from white gay men. And, at the end of the day, some white gay men can say to themselves, like very other dimwit bigot, that they are white and superior to those black people. They are white. (Of course, you could substitute “white” with whatever.)
It’s funny, some of you folks just continue to hammer away at Obama but same not a word against John McCain, even though McCain is clearly the enemy and openly embraces anti-gay organizations. McCain can issue a press release supporting the attack on gay marriage in California. But silence on McCain.
Instead, what do we get, the continued racist rantings of Ch***** and R*** attacking Obama and championing McCain, the white guy.
Then there are the continued racial analysis of Obama and belief that all of his thinking is based on his African ancestry and stereotypes of African-Americans. Or translation, you think that since you are white supremacists and few every thing through your racial lens that Obama must follow your line of thinking.
Yeah, John McCain is going to support ENDA. Oh, that’s right he doesn’t. But he’s white! Well, even though the majority of gay bashers of white gay men are white, that doesn’t matter. Even though societies most prominent homophobes with political and religious clout are white, that doesn’t matter. James Dobson, Pat Robertson, the Pope, etc., etc., etc.
Whatever…there were prisoners in the camps of the Holocaust who helped out Nazis and then there are gays in America who are willing to help out the Republicans and fundies…
Hmmm….Nice of you to ignore that fact that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards shared the exact same opinion on civil unions vs. marriage. What is your explanation for their reasoning?
I
RPCV
Noah: Once again, if I could figure out your 2,000 diatribe, I’d offer some thoughts…..
BTW, why are you not at work? Got that sugar daddy buying everything for you, or, if are you AT work, why are you misusing your employer’s computer equipment and wasting company tme?
And, why am I not sunbathing???
carl
Noah: Are you black, because I am and let me tell you something. If I were to come out to my family by brother would beat the hell out of me and my family would erase me from their lives. I live on the DL and until you walk in my shoes don’t tell me there isn’t a huge problem with homophobia in the black community and that the majority of us are homophobic. This topic is discussed endlessly, do a google search and learn something.
RPCV
Carl: Are you contemplating voting Democratic? And, is your family contemplating voting Democratic?? Don’t you and your family remember that Lincoln, a REPUBLICAN, set you free? Wake up and smell the coffee. Cross the street. Think about it…….
CHURCHILL-Y
I’m so tired of you calling me a racist N**h, but you know what If like MR C and afro you think you are going to intimidate me and keep me from telling the truth by doing it then you’re wrong.
Thank you: No. 51 · expatriate
No. 52 · michael
No. 53 · mds
No. 57 · carl
No. 56 · Matteo: You just put it so beautifully, that it trumps any filibustering garbage that Noah posts here. The truth is that most of us here are reflective of the GLBT community, and we have no problem or just don’t care about Barracks color. But man if you’re going to make a historical presidential run as the first viable black man for that position just the same as Hillary as woman then you need to quit that second class bullshit. Understand guys/girls that people like Noah, afroguapo, Mr C, fredo777 although from the GLBT community their first alliance and priority goes to their race and hence they will support Obama no matter what shit he dishes out. And you know what if that is what they want we should respect it. But what we should not respect and put up with is as another poster put it, is the tiptoeing around our GLBT needs and Rights which are as valid and if let unattended lead to the same consequences that racial discrimination would. If we want to protect ourselves and most importantly as in my case(and I know as in many of yours too) our families, than we need to let our voices be heard and not follow blindly like sheep someone be it whoever it is, who takes our votes so much for granted that even in an era in which the majority of the new generation(which I belong to)support GBLT Rights, he still sees nothing wrong in leaving our rights be put up for a vote and at the mercy of the tyranny of a majority, He thinks that our rights should be left to the states and to top it off he thinks that our basic right to choose to marry or not should be reduced to a civil union which is stripped of more than 1,200 benefits and rights for married couples, including Social Security survivor benefits and joint tax filings, just to name a few. I will keep on calling Bullshit and hypocrisy when I see it whether black people like it or not.
fredo777
Carl, you’re black. Ok. So am I.
Homophobia isn’t a “black thang”, which many don’t seem to understand. It’s a people thang + it happens to occur in lots of cultures, but isn’t a unique problem to any one group of people. For instance, I happen to have several members of my family who are openly gay + have support from the majority of other family members, with trouble from some. That’s not exactly a strange occurrence, as most gays have some persons in their families who have issues with our sexuality. The problem isn’t saying that there is no homophobia in the black community, but acting as if it’s only prevalent among blacks.
carl
I never said it is “prevalent among blacks,” but it is MORE prevalent among blacks. Search your sole and you will surely agree.
fredo777
Would that be the “sole” of my shoe? ;P
I kid. I kid.
Anyway, I don’t think any amount of soul-searching would bring me to the conclusion that homophobia is more prevalent among blacks than non-blacks. Perhaps it is more pronounced among some blacks, but I don’t think it’s any more a problem with blacks than other ethnic groups.
michael
Are their any polls that have come to conclusions on the stance that most blacks take on gay issues? I am originally from the south
and I can flat out tell you that most blacks do not like gays. The on
going joke is that the only “out” black gays are drag queens. Sometimes the stereotypes are their for a reason. People take a look and base opinions on what they see. And most blacks in America come from religious backgrounds deeply rooted in fundamental Christianity and we know how they all feel about us.
michael
In the 1960’s people of all races marched along side Dr, King in protest. Do you see the NAACP marching with gays? Do you see
them coming out fighting for us? Hell no, wake up and smell the coffee, the oppressed becomes the oppressor, the victim becomes the perpetrator and the wheels of karma continue to spin.
fredo777
Uh…hello? NAACP supported ENDA.
Landon Bryce
Yes, there have been repeated polls that show that African Americans are more hostile to gays and to gay rights than most Americans are. They are matched with Latin Americans in their hostility to gay marriage. I would cite specifics, but they will be ignored by Noah and the other black gays who refuse to see that there is a problem. They would rather attach racism in the gay community than challenge homophobia in the black community. This is stupid, because gays are not working to deprive blacks of rights and the opposite is not the case. Oh, well.
I will absolutely vote for Obama. I would be a lot more comfortable doing it if he would:
A) Apologize for McClurkin- state that he was morally wrong to put bigots over their victims and promise that he will never, ever again pander to homophobes to win votes.
B) Denounce the attacks on gays that the Black Caucus of the DNC has been guilty of. Denounce Leah Daughtry and Donna Brazile, and anyone else who says that comparisons between the civil rights struggles of gays and African Americans are offensive. Pledge that people who hold that view will not have posts in his cabinet.
C) Show up at a fucking pride event.
D) Acknowledge that his standard issue statement on gay marriage is incomplete at best. It’s fine with me that he thinks states should be free to grant marriage equity in a variety of ways. It is not fine that he ignores that most states are using that freedom to push us further and further from equity. Shouldn’t the federal government have a role there?
James
Landon,
If you are going to cite those polls, you should also cite how those same polls show how blacks are more likely than whites to support anti-discrimination laws and hate crime legislation that includes gays and lesbians.
Landon Bryce
James:
That’s a valid point. However, I think that members of protected groups are in general more supportive of legislation against discrimination than members of majority groups are. Most blacks do not object on principle to hate crime legislation; many whites do. I think this poll says more about African American comfort with mechanisms for addressing discrimination than it does with opposition to bigotry against gay and trans people. Note that we are dealing with laws that “include” gays and lesbians: do you think they would support these laws if they did not also include people of color? Do you believe that they would not be more supportive of hate crime and anti-discrimination legislation that does not include sexual minorities?
MindOverMatter
Michael @69, the NAACP of California wrote a legal brief in support of gay marriage which was filed with the California Supreme Court.
It really would be nice if people spoke from an informed position rather than from knee-jerk ignorance. But this site certainly shatters the stereotype about gays being more informed and intelligent.
James
Landon,
Good questions. Can’t answer them; however, I do think the black folk are more homophobiac line gets a lot of traction because it is true the polls do show that blacks , when comapred to whites, have a higher disdain for same-sex marriage. However, being against same-sex marriage doesn’t make one homophobiac. Mainstream pols like Clinton and Obama are agianst same-sex marriage but no one would accuse either one of hating gays.
In short, I think it’s more than fair to address homophobia in the black community; however, what is also fair is to discuss it with nuance.
Landon Bryce
James:
I absolutely agree that a more informed and more nuanced discussion is always a better one. I understand that many people think that racism fuels a perception that blacks are more homophobic than whites. I believe that there is truth to this, even though no actual evidence supports the idea. There is substantial evidence, through polls on issues ranging from marriage rights to equality in general, that African Americans are more opposed to fair treatment for gays and lesbians than most Americans are. More troubling is how much more hostile they are to us than any other major constituency of the Democratic Party. Most troublingly, I think people are afraid to call out black homophobes because they know that people will regard them as racists or as elitists. If Leah Daughtry were white, she would have been fired for her bigotry by now.
James
Landon,
We disagree on these points:
1. yes blacks do not support same sex marriage in the same numbers as whites, but it is overstating the case to say “African Americans are more opposed to fair treatment for gays and lesbians than most Americans are.” Especially, as shown by Mindovermatter, that the NAACP wrote a brief in support of the same-sex marriage case in CA. The NAACP also came out an supported ENDA.
2. This leads to the hostility point in the Democratic Party. There is no polling to prove that at all. And as for calling out black homophobes, you are simply not paying attention. People such as Cornel West and Michael Eric Dyson have made it a point to be critical of black folk who are homophobiac.
James
Landon Bryce
James:
I think we disagree on the interpretation of the polling data more than anything else. Gotta point out that the NAACP also gave Isaiah Washington an Image Award in 2007 after his tirade at the Golden Globes. And he got a standing ovation.
West and Dyson are great, but they are are also unusual, which is why they have been praised for their support of the gay community. Thei is like arguing that blacks aren’t especially homophobic, then praising Obama to the skies because he said the word “gay” at Ebenezer Baptist Church. If there wasn’t a problem there, it wouldn’t be a big deal.
Tom
This whole discussion about which group is more homophobic is ridiculous. What end does it serve? What if I agreed that blacks are opposed to gay marriage or civil unions more than whites, now what? Do we stop being advocates for our cause? Do we stop engaging blacks because its easier to dismiss an entire race of people as homophobic? The absurdity of the discussion is obvious.
Moreover, there are 26 states which have bans on gay marriage. Did all of those states pass these bans because of black homophobia? Of course not. And what about the gay-bashing, hate crimes, and murders committed against gays, are the majority of those committed by blacks? Was Matthew Sheppard or Lawrence King murdered by homophobic blacks?
The point is there are close-minded people in all groups (even narrow-minded gays) and we can spend all day going back and forth on this most asinine debate, but the bottom line is where does it get you at the end of the day.
If you are a progressive Democrat, a more constructive discussion would be on how we can organize and change the hearts and minds of people so that equality and civil rights are expanded to all historically excluded and marginalized groups.
But of course, its easier and par for the course to think that all problems are caused by some other group of people who are different than you. And in America, it is always the blacks who cause all the problems, from crime, drugs, poverty..and now homophobia.
To quote En Vogue:
“Free your mind and the rest will follow, be colorblind, dont be so shallow.”
Landon Bryce
Tom:
If anyone has ever argued that blacks were primarily responsible for homophobia, that would be ridiculous. It is also ridiculous that gay advocacy organizations and journalists have not taken on the Black Caucus of the DNC for a) opposing efforts to raise the number of gay delegates; and b) successfully basing their opbjections on the idea that equality for gays and lesbians is offensive to the history of the civil rights movement.
James
Landon,
No. There is no one here arguing there is not homophobia in the back community. Let me rephrase that: I’m not making that argument and there is anything I’ve written that implies that. What I have said is alongside that homophobia there are actions/movements that are gay friendly. There are other folk beside West and Dyson, bell hooks and Eddie Glaude come to mind. And for the record: R Kelly also got a standing o and an Image Award.
Our difference comes down to this: you want to focus only on black homohphobia because you think it runs rampant in the community. I acknowledge and condemn the homophobia but also make the point it is not as pervasive as you assume.
James
Tom
I am not going to engage in this type of discussion with you because I can detect that you fit into the category of the naroow-minded person who will blame a different group for all the problems, and in this case (for today at least), your “boogeyman” are blacks.
Your blanket condemnation of the entire Black Caucus for comments or actions of a few is just one more example. Its Friday and you have all weekend to think about this: try judging each individual for the acts of that individual and not leap to the conclusion as you do in No. 76 above “that African Americans are more opposed to fair treatment for gays and lesbians than most Americans are.” Contrary to your delusion, that statement is not grounded in reality.
Let me see if this example makes sense to you: The Pope is white and he is staunchly opposed to gay rights (rooted in his Christianity). Now would it be logical to say that Catholic whites are homophobic because of the word or actions of one person? Obviously not. You look at the source, the historical context, and the cultural setting in which the opinion is made. Thats called analysis. Try it this weekend before you continue to leap to illogical conclusions and blanket assertions against an entire race of people.
Landon Bryce
James:
Of course, I never said anything that implied you thought there was no homophobia in the black community or that I did not believe that the gays had important black advocates.
I would say that where we differ is that I do not want to sweep black homophobia under the rug and I want some promises from a presidential candidate who has already bowed down to it that he recognizes that doing so was wrong and that he won’t do it again.
Why am I wrong to want that?
CHURCHILL-Y
Landon Bryce: They’ll never own up to the rampant homophobia in their community.
They want to have it both ways, crying out racism when it benefits them and looking the other way when they see their people support or remain indifferent when bigotry and discrimination is being committed against a group of people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.
As Donna Brazile has admitted and supported, they do not equate Civil Rights with Gay Rights.
How dare we(GLBT) even think of doing that! To do so is anathema to them.
Landon Bryce
Tom:
I would say that Catholics than more antigay than nonCatholics for a huge number of reasons. I would point to the Pope’s statements as evidence, sure, but mostly those that were made before he became pope: he is a dangerous extremist on the issue, and it speaks very badly of the chcurch leadership that they elected him. But I would point to polls, literature produced by Catholic laypeople, and further anecdotal evidence. I have no doubt at all that Catholics (white or not) are more bigoted against gay people than nonCatholics.
Would you disagree?
Of course, the comparison is silly: Catholicism is a set of values, one of which is the hatred and subjugation of sexual minorities. Black people obviously do not have the sort of shared values that Catholics do. But blacks do attend church in higher numbers than most Americans, and tend to attend churches adamant in their opposition to gay rights. Black Americans also suffer disproportionately from poverty and lack of education, and ignorance always walks hand in hand with bigotry. The lack of opportunity for black men has created a ritualized hostility toward femininity in black culture which has led to blatent displays of hatred toward gay men in black art and culture. These factors are cultural, not racial, but they exist.
James
Landon,
Who wants to sweep it under the rug? Can you point that out in anything I’ve said that even implies that?
As for what you are looking for in a candidate for president, good luck. Politicians are very good at making promises and breaking them. If you are looking for a mainstream candidate, who wants to be a power-breaker (ie- president) to support gay rights, then you are smoking something illegal. The history of minority rights in this country is a history of small baby steps, and those small steps are usually taken by folk outside of the mainstream.
James
Landon Bryce
Churchill-y:
Will you ever admit that you are every bit as racist as your detractors claim?
Landon Bryce
James:
As I said, I will vote for Obama. No question. I would be more comfortable doing so if he did not have a history of exploiting black homophobia to gain votes. And I do not understand why people are comfortable with high ranking officials in the DNC getting away with trashing gays, just because the ones doing the trashing are black.
James
Church-lady,
Please either learn to read or wait until the adults are done talking. Your racism is so deep that you have a difficult time handling complex topics.
kisses
James
Landon,
I really don’t care if you vote for Obama or not.
James
What I do care about is that when you talk about homophobia in the black community you be exact and precise. Acting as if homophobia is the providence of black people is not being precise.
I’m done. Thanks for the conversation. Hopefully Church-lady can learn something but I doubt it.
Sincerely,
James
CHURCHILL-Y
Landon Bryce: I’ll admit this much, my grandparents and I have been involved in protests side by side supporting both black and latinos in cases of racial discrimination. And even though my partner and I are not allowed to get married in our state I know that if tomorrow a black or interracial heterosexual couple were to be denied the same rights my partner and me are, my grandpa and grandma would be once again side by side with members of the black community as they were when they were younger in the 60’s. And both me and my partner would be doing the same as them and anything in our hands to repudiate that wrong. If calling out the hypocrisy of Mr. Obama , the black caucus and a great number of those same African Americans that marched side by side with my grandparents and those who came after, makes me a racist then so be it.
expatriate
Let’s get this discussion back on track shall we?!
I am not voting for Obama because he does not support civil and equal rights for the LGBT community.
Race has never been an issue for me and never will.
Want another resason not to vote for Obama? He came out in support of FISA today, totally capitulating to the Republicans and we will now give Telecoms and the Bush administration Amnesty for breaking the law all while trashing the very concept of the 4th Amendment.
Obama has now truely shown his real colours in just one day. I will not vote for him or anyone of his ilk.
Things will apparently have to get MUCH worse in the USA before they have a chance to get better. The only way to get Obama and the rest of the Democrats to listen to us is to withold our vote for them until they do.
For all you Obama apologists: Just remember this, your support for him has not changed his mind about supporting you. Sort of like how a loyal child will still love their parents, even though they mentally, physically and spiritually abuse them.
PumaJ
Here is Hillary Clinton’s stand on Gay Marriage:
“Clinton opposes same-sex marriage but favors civil unions in which gay couples receive full recognition and benefits. She says that “marriage has always been province of the states” and advocates repeal of a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. In the U.S. Senate, she opposed amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage. While she has solicited and received the support of gay and lesbian groups, many gay activists were alarmed over her March 2007 comment that the morality of homosexuality was up “to others to conclude.” She later released a statement saying that she does not believe homosexuality is immoral. In an April 2008 interview, Clinton said she would change federal tax policies and immigration laws to eliminate disparities affecting same-sex couples.”
Hmm.. seems basically the same stand as Obama’s.
RPCV
All: I’m constantly amazed how many people are one-issue voters. I’m voting for McCain for the totality of the package; quite frankly, I couldn’t give a shit less what he feels about gay marriage, DOMA, DADT, ENDA or any other related issues. And, I invite you to read my previous postings (i.e., archives) to learn my opinions about these gay-focused issues. Please, read and LEARN!! And, base your vote on the myriad issues of the day. I encourage you to add the Wall Street Journal, Business Weekly, The Economist, The New Republic, Congressional Quarterly, and a host of other respectable wide-ranging publications to your bedside reading materials. (I know, it might be difficult to find room on the floor since your bedside is already littered with The Washington Blade, The Advocate, Men, DNA, Blue Boy, Metro Weekly, Philadelphia Gay News, Bay Windows, Houston Voice, and similar uni-focused rags). However, in so doing, you may wish to bring along a dictionary since they may contain words that are unfamiliar to you. I know, but, dictionaries are cheap; you can pick up paper-bound versions at Wal-Mart for under $10. Just a thought……….
James
RPCV,
Ooooo. You is well read. Goody for you! What other advice do you have for us imbeciles?
RPCV
James, my love. When you’ve bought your dictionary and read the publications I’ve suggested above, write back and I’ll offer you some additional suggestions………
James
RPCV,
Don’t worry baby. I’ll take advice on how to be well read from someone less windy than you.
kisses
ps: The New Republic is tired. You could at least read The National Review.
michael
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.â€
“In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.â€
“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be
demanded by the oppressed.â€
“The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhoodâ€
These are the wise words of Dr, Martin Luther King. They inspire me to not sell nor compromise my soul anymore. I will not vote for one oppressor just because the chains he binds me
with are a bit more comfortable than those of the other oppressor. To those of you who are trying to manipulate and shame people for choosing to take a solid stand for once in their lives by refusing to take crumbs from the masters table I tell you
to read and re-read the third quote of Dr. Kings I have posted.
Simon
I’m reading this in Germany. I didn’t realise that queer US Americans could be so politically stupid as NOT to support Barack Obama. There will be, can be no change in gay civil rights under a Republican administration. Are there ANY out gay or lesbian GOP politicians? Do the Democrats have a rabidly anti-gay wing which sees us as damned agents of satan? Please people, even if Obama isn’t everything you want, organise, work for his and other Democrats’ election, vote for him and keep him on track once he’s elected.
crazylove
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
No, blah, blah, blah.
No, I disagree, blah, blah, blah.
No, I am not a single issue voter, and blah, blah, blah.
No, I am smarter.
No, me.
No, I am smartest of them all.
No, I am bitch.
Blah, blah blah.
100 posts later, and the ego remains the central issue.
Peter Pan
@ 95 who said ‘I know, but, dictionaries are cheap; you can pick up paper-bound versions at Wal-Mart for under $10. Just a thought……….’
— 0 —
Some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing!
Thanks for the advise on ‘paper=bound’ (sic) versions of dictionaries. Did you get all your ‘paper-bound’ (sic) versions from Wal-Mart then?
Here is a NICE clip about your hero:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/325.html
(He’ll sure make a great president with Zionist Lieberman pulling the strings.)
And another one about your current C.i.C.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pvWCLobIlM
Peter Pan
@ 101 who said ‘100 posts later, and the ego remains the central issue.’
Did you mean 101 posts later?
Endymnion
Lying at of both sides of his mouth
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/331.html
McCain is asked why he voted TWICE against a Congressional investigation into the massive failure of the Army Corps of Engineers-built levees in New Orleans.
First, he says he supported it. Then he says he doesn’t know anything about it.
Then, just seconds later, he claims to know all about it and that the proposal is too flawed to merit his support.
Which story is true?
It doesn’t seem to matter to this guy.
Is it possible we’re on the verge of getting an even worse president than Bush?
crazylove
me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me?
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
me, me, me, me, me, me, me.
blah, blah, blah.
me.
blah.
you?
blah.
gay.
yum.
Dale
Now who’s going to get around to reading this after the torrent of preceeding comments? But – Look: I’m a musician. Music not only means a lot for my emontionsl life, it’s how I make a living. I, and others like me, would go ape over a president who supported music, classical music, which is as left-handed as being gay. Okay? Now look around at the world. There is hunger, even here among working people. Natural disasters have caused rising food prices. All prices are going up, while jobs are being lost. People are dying in conflicts everywhere. The world itself is teetering on the brink of extinction.
But all you can think about is whether to wear white, how long a train you can manage, veil or no veil, and if Obama won’t dance at your wedding, well, then, you JUST WON’T VOTE FOR HIM!
So there! That will show the bastard!
WAKE UP & SMELL THE WORLD SWIRLING DOWN THE DRAIN.
CHURCHILL-Y
“THE WORLD SWIRLING DOWN THE DRAIN.”
In this world were all interconnected in one way or another and people need to stop viewing our humanity as
some sort of eccentricity. Much too often thought history many GLBT people have put aside their needs and dignity for the betterment of other causes and look were it has gotten us. This is year 2008.
crazylove
actually since this is one world we shouldnt ignore any of it. that’s why all these “i am not a single issue voter” arguments are specious. You don’t have to be a single issue voter to see gay rights as a part of human rights and the greater part of humanity. someone once said there is not a single part of me that’s different from you because at the end of day we are both human. if you don’t already see that then perhaps that’s why you think of it as single issue voting. Bayard Rustin comes to mind. Or Harvey Milk. Both these guys fought for a wide variety of issues, not just gay rights, but they didn’t feel the need to create this faux selfless either. one of the reasons I am looking for to the Milk biopic is that I am hoping they get the part in the Mayor of Castro street where this guy was building coalitions with the Chinese, conservative Italians, unions, etc, while the rich gays were sitting around saying “we can’t do this.” He was proving we could. You all are just some whiny little pampered bitches who thinks life is about compartmentalization. well not all but way too many.
Bill Perdue
Instead of hoopla and joy apologists for the bigoted leaders of the Democratic and Republican Parties are reduced to whimpers and whines.
They’re learning to wince at the term “civil unions†and getting squeamish about calling it by it’s real name, “second class marriage for second class citizens†The truth is dawning on them that they’re trapped into apologizing for a party of bigots. Second class citizenship is all the Republicans or Democrats have to offer.
The implications of supporting bigoted candidates like Obama or McCain are beginning to sink in. It turns out that when they pandered to christian bigots, and both continue to do so, it wasn’t a mistake after all, but a strategy, the same strategy used by Bill Clinton and George Bush.
Apologists for the Democratic Party certainly have their work cut out for them. They have to dream up some scare tactic to frighten the clueless into voting for bigots because McCain, Clinton and Obama agree on most things. They both support NAFTA, a union busting measure and a rolling environmental disaster. They both voted to cut taxes for the rich and welfare for the poor. They both oppose socialized medicine.
All three will continue the genocide in Iraq for years. More GI’s and more Iraqis will die. All three support zionist ethnic cleansing and apartheid. More Palestinians will die. McCain says he’ll “never surrenderâ€. Obama promises to invade Pakistan. They’re lunatics. Their wars for oil companies are killing people.
Obama’s Party refused to repeal DADT and DOMA. Then they shredded ENDA and finally dumped it and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill in the garbage. McCain’s party, who are also against GLBT equality, happily supported the Democrats.
So in 2008 the only thing Democrat apologists can come up with is “McCain will appoint Bogeymen to the Supreme Court†to gull the clueless into voting Democratic. It’s not very effective when you remember that the California Supreme Court, with a six to one Republican majority, voted for full marriage equality. The US Supremes who’ve occasionally voted for us but only when our movement had become powerful enough to compel them. The courts main role is to protect the rich, and if they have to throw us a bone or two they will, but that happens ONLY when we force them to. It’s unity our strength that wins, and that has nothing to do with the political makeup of the courts, the Congress or which lunatic is prowling around in the White House.
peachperry
1st PAGE.
Christian Wedlock.
QUESTION:
Can a woman have more than two husbands?
ANSWER:
No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.
1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).
Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.
1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:
A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A man and courtesan/prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
An adulterer and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A fornicator and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.
Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.
2nd PAGE.
Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.
Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.
Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.
Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.
Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. Judah then pledged Tamar that she could marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry. Tamar came and Judah demanded that Tamar tell him by which man she was with child. Tamar then produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar could have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.
3rd PAGE.
Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.
Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.
1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.
1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.
Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.
1 Timothy 5:9 King James 1611.
Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age who have only had one husband.
The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.
To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.
Luke 1:35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.
4th PAGE.
Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.
Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.
But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.
1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.
2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.
3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.
A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.
But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!
A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.
Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.
5th PAGE.
Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.
That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.
And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.
The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.
Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.
Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.
And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.
Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.
Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.
Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MOHAMMEDRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTI.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATI.
6th PAGE.
CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.
1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.
2nd. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.
3rd. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.
4th. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.
5th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.
6th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.
7th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.
8th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.
9th. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.
10th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.
11th. If any child or children, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child or those children so offending shall be put to death.
12th. If any stubborn and rebellious son or sons, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son or sons will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son or those sons so offending shall be put to death.
7th PAGE.
13th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.
14th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.
15th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his wife; he shall be put to death.
16th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.
17th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case he shall not be punished.
18th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case she shall not be punished.
19th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.
20th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.