Oppression is Oppression, And Oppression is Harmful to Society

February 3, 2010 at 4:35 pm 184 comments

by Brian Leubitz

Henry Louis Gates may be more famous today for his run-in with the Cambridge police, but his record of scholarship goes back decades. He is one of the leading scholars of the African-American studies field. And back in 1993, in the wake of a gay rights march in Washington, he considered whether gay rights were a matter of civil rights. The essay is a must read (or here for non-subscribers) for anybody interested in gay rights, or any notion of a changing definition of civil rights. But, here’s a short snip:

But can gays really claim anything like the “victim status” inherited by black Americans? “They admit to holding positions at the highest levels of power in education, government, business and entertainment,” Martin Mawyer, the president of the Christian Action Network, complains, “yet in the same breath, they claim to be suffering discrimination in employment.” Actually, the question itself is a sand trap. First, why should oppression, however it’s measured, be a prerequisite for legal protection? Surely there’s a consensus that it would be wrongful, and unlawful, for someone to discriminate against Unitarians in housing or employment, however secure American Unitarians were as a group. Granted, no one can legislate affection or approval. But the simple fact that people enjoy legal protection from religious discrimination neither confers nor requires victimization. Why is the case of sexual orientation any different?

This actually states a point that was made during this case as well. That is, despite the fact that a few members of the LGBT community have reached high office, it does not mean that oppression is any more or less justified. While Gates makes his point with Unitarians, but you can substitute any group in there, redheads, lefthanders, whatever. Back in 1993, we were fighting for simple equal rights protections. Those fights are still our fights today, with a fully inclusive ENDA still a distant dream on the horizon. In 33 states, it is still legal to fire somebody simply because they are gay. And in some places we are going the wrong way, with Virginia’s Governor Bob McDonnell saying that he intends to end what protections there were for LGBT residents of the Commonwealth granted by executive order.

When a group can be oppressed through political means, ipso facto, they are not politically powerful. When one of our most fundamental rights, as enumerated in Loving v Virginia, can be taken away, can we be said to have any real power? Power is only power when it is not transitory or subject to the whims of the day.

This is exactly the point of the judiciary to protect the rights of Americans, and to ensure equal protection under the law. Hopefully, our judges agree.

Entry filed under: Trial analysis, Uncategorized. Tags: .

Prop 8 trial + DADT debate = Death rattle of the Right Wing Prop 8 trial re-enactment: Day 1, Chapter 3

184 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    The only thing worse than oppression is GENDER-FRIENDLY BATHROOMS!!!

    (See First Episodes….for thread.)

    Reply
    • 2. fiona64  |  February 3, 2010 at 4:47 pm

      Ewww! Not … GENDER-FRIENDLY BATHROOMS!

      Why, the next thing you know, the women will be wanting to vote! And wear shoes!

      ;->

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 3. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 4:52 pm

        Those on LSD would work hard to prevent such affronts to Basic Christian American Godly Religiously Self-Evident Human Family Ostrich-egg Values!

        Reply
      • 4. wodenponey  |  February 3, 2010 at 11:35 pm

        the “other” church backing prop 8 is very truthful about treating women as 2nd class cit zines.

        From the SBC website:
        ” A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.”

        You can read it all here: http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#xv

        Reply
  • 5. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 3, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    AMEN, Brian! This blog post is one more reason I am proud to be part of Courage Campaign, and why I think everyone involved with CC and the fight for full equality for ALL Americans, just totally ROCKS! Equality Rules!! ALL Families matter!

    Reply
  • 6. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 3, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    forgot to hit the subscribe button again! AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!

    Reply
  • 7. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    I think this is why SSM is at the heart of our struggle. Once we have that kind of legitimization everything else falls away.

    Reply
  • 8. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    “with Virginia’s Governor Bob McDonnell saying that he intends to end what protections there were for LGBT residents of the Commonwealth granted by executive order.”

    see..I told you so..I told you so, i told ya, i told ya…told you so

    Reply
  • 9. Lo  |  February 3, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    So here is my question to you all, esp those of you with a good legal brain out there… we have big things going on right now: DADT, Prop 8 at federal level, DC gay marriage hopefully about to pass, RFMA (the Respect for Marriage bill), and ENDA introduced….
    Is it possible that with all these things going on at the same time, and we get a win out of one of them (like Prop 8), will all the others have a good chance of falling into place??

    Once I piece things together, I become hopeful, and I feel like we have a good chance of finally getting some justice going in our favor. Although the Dems are on a bit of shaky grounds right now, I feel like something has got to give before the extreme right wing can fuck it all up.

    Reply
    • 10. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 5:19 pm

      You are my man Lo! Last year was the tipping point…once the first state legislated Equal Civil Marriage more followed. Now it is a reality. The claims of ‘social experiment’, and fearmongering of ‘social upheaval’ are spectacularly debunked! Now that one state has done it it cannot be taken away. More are obligated to follow due to legal precedent!

      Yes, all the pieces are falling together. DADT must be addressed due to legal issues (regardless of what Obama wants.) Either ENDA will pass or courts will be full of gay anti-discrimination suits. DOMA will disappear in a wisp of smoke seemingly overnight. It has no currency now. It is an impotent piece of legislation that is being trampled by an impotent congress’s inability to stop DC.

      You are awesome….keep pointing out the obvious!

      Bump you in the Down Lo! (OK I am sure that was not the first time but hey….;P)

      Felyx

      Reply
      • 11. Bill  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:17 am

        Felyx, you say, “Now that one state has done it it cannot be taken away.”

        Yet, in November of 2008, my rights in the state where I live WERE taken away.

        And in November of 2009, may LGTB citizens in the state of Maine had THIER rights taken away.

        Existing rights. Taken away.

        Can you clarify what you meant by that?

        Reply
      • 12. Felyx  |  February 4, 2010 at 10:10 am

        I apologize for the confusion. The comment was made in the context of a sociological premise, a social movement. California’s right was given overturned and is currently in litigation. Maine was poised to be given the right but had a last minute vote that trumped the legislation. It too has a case in court, with some other fine legal minds I might add.

        The comment was made in the context that, SSM has been recognized and reaffirmed in enough contexts (several countries, several states, and soon possibly a territory) that the impetous for maintaining the status quo is losing all potency.

        Now that it has been granted in those states on a constitution level it cannot be overturned and SCOTUS would not even consider overturning it (as it would violate a well established state right to determine its own marriage laws and that SCOTUS does not interfere with approved pro-civil rights policies on a state level.)

        Since SSM is here to stay there will be a constant outcry of ‘That’s not fair!’ until a National Federal Standard is achieved. The tipping point happened the last two years and now it will be an unstoppable series of cascading events.

        I am not going to write a 5-page explanation elucidating all the relevent facts of the issue but suffice it to say…

        We have hit the crest and there is no way to stop it…dude, all we can do is hold on and ride the wave!

        Reply
      • 13. Felyx  |  February 4, 2010 at 10:16 am

        A friend is telling me to tell you that it is like Whack-A-Mole…

        Introducing the game is like legitimizing gay marriage. We are the moles. There are too many of us now clammering for our rights….the Christian Coalition of Creeps can’t knock us all down fast enough.

        I thought it was a good analogy. Funny too!

        Reply
      • 14. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 10:34 am

        I love that game, you know there is a home version from Mattel? I really need to get it to control my frustrations…LOL

        Reply
  • 15. David Kimble  |  February 3, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    “Although the Dems are on a bit of shaky grounds right now, I feel like something has got to give before the extreme right wing can fuck it all up.”

    Yes, Lo, the pendulum does swing both ways and right now it does appear, as though it is moving toward the other side. I don’t know, since my crystal ball is in the shop and not expected back anytime soon. Still I remain hopeful that our side will prevail.

    BTW, I have been watching the trial re-enactments and listening to the powerful testimony given does give me hope that change is at the end of the rainbow.

    Love,
    David

    Reply
  • 16. Marlene Bomer  |  February 3, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    Just the fact that sexual orientation and gender identity have been the ONLY people whose civil rights have been put up to popular vote, *proves* that despite those lucky few who’ve gained high office or well-paying jobs, they’re still fa**ots and d*kes to so many.

    Some bigot seeing two men or two women leaving a bar or restaurant, or club whether they’re holding hands or not, doesn’t care whether you’re the CEO of some company, or that your suit costs more than their monthly paycheck, or any other status you might have that makes you think you’ve arrived and not have to worry about losing your job, or your perks. You’re just another f*g or d*ke he and his buddies are going to have fun beating you to death with a baseball bat!

    Reply
    • 17. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:02 pm

      Only one thing to add, Marlene. It is not always a baseball bat. It could be a tire iron, a length of chain, or a section of pipe. They don’t care what they beat us with, all they care about is killing us. And we could almost have been neighbors. I grew up just outside of Charleston, West-by-God-Virginia. Thank you for fighting.

      Reply
      • 18. Alan E.  |  February 3, 2010 at 9:48 pm

        Where outside of Charleston? I grew up in St. Albans.

        Reply
      • 19. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 4, 2010 at 4:49 am

        Then you would even know what street I grew up on. I grew up on Abney Street. I am a Red Dragon, Class of 1981. OMG! Contact me on FB, please. This is great!

        Reply
      • 20. Alan E.  |  February 4, 2010 at 7:14 am

        I escaped before I could go to high school there. I lived on the hill near Maranatha church off Kanawa. There was a school up on the hill that got closed down and they built houses on the property, but I can’t remember the name (McKinley?) on Poplar. My house was on Wildwood Circle.

        I went back there when I was driving cross country in ’06, and the town is a lot smaller than I remember, but I guess that comes with growing up.

        Reply
      • 21. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 4, 2010 at 7:17 am

        Wait a minute! They closed McKinley Junior High? That means all the kids have to be bused out to Hayes, because they closed my old junior high even before I left 20 years ago. Still, It’s nice to see another transplanted mountaineer on here.

        Reply
      • 22. Alan E.  |  February 4, 2010 at 8:00 am

        No sorry, McKinley is still, but the elem. school on Kanawha Ter down te road (at the light) was closed sometime between ’97 and ’06.

        All I can say it was tough being a little gay boy in a small town. My dad even told me, long before I came out, that when I turned 18 he would take me to the strip club right there where Kanawha meets route 60. Looking back, that would have been a traumatic experience!

        Reply
      • 23. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 4, 2010 at 8:13 am

        Okay. They closed Highlawn. I can see that. AndI know where that was. And trust me, you are so right that it would have been a traumatic experience for you to go to that strip club. In more ways than one. Who knows what you would have caught from them. Of course, I can remember when that building wasn’t there. Originally there was an A&W drive-in on that spot. I hope we get a chance to meet sometime. I sent you a friend request on FB.

        Reply
  • 24. David Kimble  |  February 3, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    “The essay is a must read (or here for non-subscribers) for anybody interested in gay rights, or any notion of a changing definition of civil rights.” – wow that was certainly a bit of caustic chaffing! I just read his views and while he makes some very good points, it seems to me he misses the point entirely in trying to equate the black civil rights movement with the GLBT movement. While it is plain to see the similarities, it also makes the point that I think Rick was making in this article – we are not readily identifiable, (but I would add, some of us just wear a sign, that says, GAY.

    Reply
  • 25. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 3, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    And in some places we are going the wrong way, with Virginia’s Governor Bob McDonnell saying that he intends to end what protections there were for LGBT residents of the Commonwealth granted by executive order.

    McDonnell is a graduate of Regent University School of Law – Pat Robertson’s institution. He’s an unfortunate example of a Catholic siding heavily with the Religious Right in political matters.

    Reply
    • 26. David Kimble  |  February 3, 2010 at 5:50 pm

      Yes, I agree with you on Governor Bob McDonnell, yet Virgiinia is an extremely conservative State. I have an aunt (on my mother’s side), who lives in Virginia and every time I bring-up the subject of gay marriage, she says, “I don’t want to discuss it.”- end of discussion. Love, David

      Reply
    • 27. rpx  |  February 4, 2010 at 2:36 pm

      Oh great (sarcasm) that is where my daughter lives with her wife, Virgina. She tols me it is bad there. Now that I am tuned in because of all of you here educating me, I see what she means.

      Reply
  • 28. Shlee  |  February 3, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    This is my first time posting here but I’ve been following the blog and comments for awhile. I just moved to a new city and I’m seriously missing the strong gay community I left back home. In a way you all have become that community for me and so I just wanted throw up a quick post saying thank you for being the wonderful people you are!

    Reply
    • 29. David Kimble  |  February 3, 2010 at 5:51 pm

      Thank you Shlee for being here – we appreciate you very much.
      Love,
      David

      Reply
    • 30. Christopher in San Francisco  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:02 pm

      Welcome Shlee! Glad you’re here!

      Reply
    • 31. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:10 pm

      Shlee….is this any reference to Futurama The Beast with a Billion Backs? Just Curious.

      Reply
      • 32. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:13 pm

        BTW it would be so apropo if it was seein’ as it dealt with religion and universal love and shtuff! ;P

        (Great commentary of Gender shtuff….even had a stunningly beautiful Polyandrous Polygamist Police Person!)

        Reply
      • 33. Shlee  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:26 pm

        Sadly I have to say no. It’s just a nick name. My first name is Ashley and when I was a kid my best friend couldn’t pronounce it correctly and so he ended up calling me Shlee. It just kinda stuck.

        Reply
      • 34. Felyx  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:29 am

        Still an awesome name!!

        ;`P

        Reply
  • 35. Kendall  |  February 3, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    Very interesting and powerful. Thanks for the post/link, Brian.

    Reply
  • 36. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    “Revolution!” courteously of Margaret Cho: Notorious C.H.O.

    Reply
    • 37. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:30 pm

      Ronnie, Ronnie!! You DA MAN!!! Margaret Cho RULES!!!

      Reply
    • 38. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:19 pm

      And Our Revolution Is LOOOOOOOONNNGGG Overdue!!! Thank you, Margaret Cho, and Thank you , Ronnie for posting this!

      Reply
  • 39. David Kimble  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    My favorite line – “so that you will take your hard-earned money and spend it at the mall on some turn-around cream that doesn’t turn-around shit.” I love Margaret Cho!
    Love,
    David

    Reply
    • 40. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:23 pm

      LMAO!!!!! I would put the part of this special were she talks about gay marriage but the only vid. has the whole segment that is a little inappropriate at times…But she is my idol…People if you notice this is what my humor is like….my friends say I should have my own shoe…lol

      Reply
      • 41. Ronnie  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:24 pm

        hahahah…SHOW!!!! holy typo!!!! of course I have my own shoe…DON”T JUDGE ME!!!!!

        Reply
  • 42. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 3, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    It’s good to hear that Prof Gates is on our side. So many AA tend to dismiss the comparison of racial civil rights with sexual orientation civil rights.

    Reply
  • 43. Casey  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    I live in Richmond, and have been furious over McDonnell’s announcement to end what small protections we have. I would like to add, though, that Virginia is making a lot of progress. We went to Obama, which is the first time VA has gone to a Democrat in decades in a presidential election. So many people are moving here from NY and NJ and other such northerly locales (like me, for example. I’m from Syracuse. Go Orange!) that the demographic is sliding bluer every year. I talk to my students all the time about equality of every kind, and they are refreshingly open-minded and willing to listen. And, they are rapidly approaching voting age.

    Have hope for Virginia, but simultaneously write volumes of letters to McDonnell expressing your extreme disappointment with his bigoted abuse of power in this decision. I am! He hasn’t even been in office for a month yet! The sad thing is that during his campaign, he *refused* to talk about social issues and his views on minority groups because he has such a radical record. People went for his “I’ll create jobs and I’m a family man!” schtick. He *lied* by omission to get votes. Classy! Now, mere weeks into his term, he’s already stripping law-abiding, taxpaying, working, respectable families of their much-deserved rights. he even had the gall to add in his speech that he respects people equally and that we should all work together to move his agenda forward (paraphrased). Uhhhh…….thanks for being so condescending, but you can keep your nasty little agenda. I’m officially alienated.

    Reply
    • 44. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:33 pm

      Casey, this is exactly why we need peope all over the US to form Equality Teams. My husband and I know a couple in Richmond, and my blood is BOILING over what this piece of “Bovinus Turdus” in the VA Governor’s office is trying to do to them. But we can only figh if we form teams in our neighborhoods and mobilize our entire community nationwide. We really need another Equality March.

      Reply
    • 45. Lo  |  February 3, 2010 at 11:56 pm

      Can he actually do that without getting into some legal issues? Whats the law in VA about being able to simply do this?

      Reply
  • 46. draNgNon  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    you say this, yet Rick Jacobs felt the need to point out that Blankenhorn, was left-handed, as if that was significant in how we view the man.

    http://prop8trialtracker.com/?s=left-handed&searchbutton=Go!

    Reply
    • 47. Alan E.  |  February 3, 2010 at 9:52 pm

      Rick mentioned little tid bits about people, and being left handed is a minority thing. It was more about pointing out something unique than to pass any sort of judgement.

      Reply
  • 48. Felyx  |  February 3, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    http://lezgetreal.com/?p=22031

    Nice article. I especially liked this part…

    Making matters worse, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is struggling with the negative publicity surrounding the Prop 8 battle, and other issues relating to the LGBT Community. The Mormon Church might be embarking on a massive building and restoration project, but they too have been rather badly hurt by the Great Recession and may find their tax status completely yanked this time if they choose to make this fight in Congress’ back yard.

    Nice!!!

    Reply
  • 49. rick jacobs  |  February 3, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    I just have to say that we are all very fortunate that Brian posts here. His insights, research and attention to detail are rare. His ability to connect the current legal, legisliative and poltical challenges into one thread are close to unique.

    Thanks, Brian.

    Rick.

    Reply
  • 50. Kay Moore  |  February 3, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    Professor Gates, regardless of the precise content of his words, has always had a gift for the science of written and spoken words. The only thing that really made me think was his reference to a measuring stick of prejudice and how such a thing is an absurd assumption. The reason that particular observation is so striking to me is that immediacy has always been a strong force in what struggles get the most support and investment of time. Towards the end of the Civil War, the choice was between suffrage for women and suffrage for blacks. At that time, leaders such as Frederick Douglass argued that
    “The right of women to vote is as sacred in my judgement as that of a man, and I am quite willing at any time to hold up both my hands inf favor of this right. I am now devoting myself to a cause if not more sacred, certainly more urgent, because it is one of life and death to the long enslaved people of this country. While the Negro is stabbed, hanged, burnt, and is the target of all that is malignant in the north and all that is murderous in the south, his claims may be preferred by me.”
    Largely, this is how the 1960s’ era civil rights leaders decided on what may well have been to them the very important issue of gay rights. My own thought on his matter, however, is strongly colored by very unfortunate personal experience. On the issue of anti-discrimination laws, I have frequently gotten into a heated (albeit very respectful) argument with a woman who is transsexual and has experienced the great tragedy of law enforcement ignoring existing laws to do great injustice to her. Yet she is convinced that adding more laws will cause the people who ignore existing laws to respect the new ones.
    Ultimately, this causes me to seriously wonder about the utility of piling additional laws forbidding and severely punishing discrimination on top of other laws that already contain the necessary framework to protect the downtrodden and abused. For example, SSM advocates take the position that the Constitution already provides for SSM and already demands equal treatment under the law regardless of orientation. Yet, there are all these additional laws that do the same thing as existing laws already do. So I always end up with the question: when the law already does what you want, why are more laws required to do what those previous laws already do?
    Chalk it up to a general distrust of a bureaucracy to do only what is is instructed and not invent new ideas beyond the scope of their original instructions.

    Reply
    • 51. fiona64  |  February 4, 2010 at 6:46 am

      Dear Kay:

      Please let me know when our LGBT fellow citizens stop being beaten, harassed and discriminated against. Please let me know when the laws that already exist prevent things like Measure 36, Prop 8 and Question 1.

      I’ll be waiting.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
      • 52. Kay Moore  |  February 4, 2010 at 5:55 pm

        The severe edge is one that undergoes a gradual fade so that is many decades in the future.
        As to M36, P8, and Q1, the Constitution explicitly allows them, thus their existence (and the existence of similar laws in more than 30 other states).

        Reply
      • 53. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:39 am

        Dear Kay:

        What is it like to be so deliberately obtuse? Seriously. I am curious.

        Every single one of those propositions are a violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution; thanks to the CA Supreme Court’s creation of two classes of married gay and lesbian couples, we now have a federal question for the first time (the “state’s rights” thing was always considered in the past).

        It is abundantly clear to me that you don’t care that LGBT people are beaten up, murdered, harassed on the job, fired, denied housing … all things that happen to them regularly.

        Is it okay to discriminate against *you,* Kay? Again, I’m just curious.

        Love,
        Fiona (who doubts you have one single, solitary LGBT friend … for reasons previously discussed. LGBT people tend not to remain friends with people who are happy to deny them their rights)

        Reply
      • 54. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:06 am

        I’m not sure, Fiona… perhaps you could tell me?

        If they violated the 14th Amendment, Fiona, why is it only after California passed one just like all the others that it’s suddenly a federal matter? Why wasn’t it a federal matter when the number of anti-SSM statutes went over 25?

        It’s abundantly clear to me that you don’t recognize the difference between not caring about people being abused and thinking that legal and statutory means already exist to fight against that abuse and that no more are needed.

        Love,
        Kay (who is torn between saddened and amused that the assumption of conformity exists among LGBT people too. Knows who my friends are no matter what narrow people refuse to believe)

        Reply
      • 55. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:14 am

        Dear Kay:

        I think you fail to understand the meaning of “Federal question.” There is one now, thanks to the CA Supreme Court — which is a situation I think that they created deliberately. Up until Prop 8, there was NOT a federal question because of state’s rights and DOMA. Now, there is a Federal question, because some gay and lesbian couples are married and others are not allowed to be — which is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

        Love,
        Fiona (who really is sick of explaining the same thing over and over again)

        Reply
      • 56. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:28 pm

        Again, Kay, if being in favor of equality for *Everyone* makes me small-minded and pitiable? I’ll take it.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 57. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:30 pm

        Now that there is pretty dang funny. According to the anti-Porp8 folks, it’d be unjust to retroactively nullify all gay marriages and now the party line is “because they didn’t retroactively nullify all gay marriages, it violates the 14th Amendment.” So by doing the right thing, the CA Supreme Court has apparently violated the Constitution. That needs no further ridicule than stating it out loud.

        Love,
        Kay (who enjoys wheedling convoluted logic out of people)

        Reply
      • 58. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:32 pm

        Yes, Fiona, of course that’s what I must have meant.

        Reply
      • 59. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:36 pm

        No, Kay, that’s NOT the argument.

        It violates Amendment XIV because there are different classes of citizens in CA, with regards to marriage. Prop 8 is what violated Amendment XIV, not the non-nullification of legal same-sex marriages.

        Reply
      • 60. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:53 pm

        Can’t you come to some sort of agreement on this? Either none of the previous cases where a statute/amendment violated the 14th Amendment were a “federal case” because they didn’t set up two separate classes of citizens or they weren’t federal cases because when challenged, the state supreme court applied it retroactively where the CA supreme court did not.

        Reply
      • 61. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:01 pm

        Kay, please use your brain.

        Any law that sets apart certain citizens for unequal treatment under the law is a violation of Amendment XIV.

        Every law in the USA banning same-sex couples from marrying is a violation of Amendment XIV. DOMA is a violation of Amendment XIV and Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution.

        The Constitution is for all citizens, not just the heterosexuals.

        Reply
      • 62. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:06 pm

        That was EXACTLY my original point: if each and every one of those laws could have been a federal case, why wasn’t it until California passed one that it became one? Fiona’s theory is that the CA Supreme Court made it into a federal case by something they did and the only thing they did that no other previous court had done was refuse retroactivity.

        Reply
      • 63. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:14 pm

        This is not the first federal challenge to same-sex marriage laws. The state of Massachusetts attempted to sue the federal governent for refusing to recognize same-sex marriages granted in Massachusetts and for refusing to grant those couples fhe same federal rights, privileges and protections opposite-sex couples receive from the federal govt. The DoJ issued a brief claiming that said federal benefits were not automatically granted married couples. This is, of course, utter BS. I’m not sure the status of the case.

        Reply
      • 64. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:15 pm

        In addition, things don’t just make it to federal courts automatically.

        Reply
      • 65. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:18 pm

        Perhaps this will help you, Kay.

        http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~axellute/ssm.htm

        It explains the point of the federal question very nicely, from several sources.

        I, OTOH, am tired of casting my pearls before Randian swine.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 66. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:31 pm

        Whereas the “Randian swine” is wondering where you came up with the idea that she’s Randian.

        Reply
    • 67. Ozymandias ('cause it's cooler than 'Elbert')  |  February 4, 2010 at 7:20 am

      “I have frequently gotten into a heated (albeit very respectful) argument with a woman who is transsexual and has experienced the great tragedy of law enforcement ignoring existing laws to do great injustice to her. Yet she is convinced that adding more laws will cause the people who ignore existing laws to respect the new ones.”

      So what would your solution be? If local law enforcement ‘looks the other way’ where could a LGBT person go for redress? Hate crime laws address this ‘terrible injustice’ by enforcing federal review on the crime. While this is not a perfect solution, it is far preferable to someone wringing their hands about ‘additional laws’ who will, more than likely, never find themselves in a position of needing to rely on them.

      Love,

      Ozy

      Reply
      • 68. Kay Moore  |  February 4, 2010 at 6:09 pm

        My solution would be to stick “hate crimes” laws in the same dustbin that Jim Crow resides in but that’s just the first step. The second step would be to remove the specificity of current discrimination laws because at present, they exclude all protected classes that are not specifically named; a law wouldn’t have to be amended to protect a new group unless the law implied exclusion of that group without the amendment. The third step would be to enforce the sort of wide-ranging federal review on local law enforcement that is already practiced when there is an allegation of discrimination against a racial group (which requires no new laws); I seem to recall that sexual orientation is either being considered for addition or has already been added as a protected class so such review is already possible using existing precedent.

        I don’t wring my hands because I might need them; I wring my hands because legal precedent in other nations that use the English common law system (like the US does) allows such laws to fly out of control.

        Reply
      • 69. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:31 pm

        And you are forgetting one thing, Kay, when you want to throw the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes act out the window. You are forgetting that when a hate crimes law makes it a hate crime to attack someone based on gender Identity and expression, and also for sexual orientation, that this includes male, female, gay, and straight. So if someone attacks you for being a heterosexual female, that is now a hate crime. By stating that you want this law thrown out, you have finally answered our question about which of YOUR rights you are willing to have us put up to a vote and nullify.

        Reply
      • 70. Kay Moore  |  February 7, 2010 at 9:41 pm

        That’s because I know the difference between a law that states the protections that generally and one that will be applied that way. Courts have consistently ruled that laws outlawing discrimination based on race cannot apply to whites because that is not who they were intended to protect even if the text of the law is general. Thus, I do not have that right and it is meaningless to suppose that I am willing to give up what I did not have in the first place.

        Reply
      • 71. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 9:49 pm

        Hey dopty- daddy….Maude!!!!..haha…lol..Discrimination and harassment sucks right?

        Reply
      • 72. Kay Moore  |  February 7, 2010 at 9:57 pm

        From time to time. Speaking of occasionally, I’m getting the strange impression that you’re making an attempt to rap or something.

        Reply
      • 73. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:00 pm

        Reply
      • 74. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:30 pm

        That was to give David Kimble a laugh because a few of us know the serious health problems he is having…I hope you sleep well tonight David K…your new Friend….Ronnie…<3

        Reply
    • 75. Bill  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:36 am

      I can only wonder how Kay Moore might feel if she lived her life being hunted in the streets of her very own neighborhood.

      LGTB people DO know what it is like to be hunted. By heterosexuals.

      In nearly every state, in nearly every town, and on nearly every street of this ‘great’ nation.

      With all due respect, Kay:

      You’re a fucking idiot.

      Reply
      • 76. Bill  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:38 am

        um…

        Love,
        Bill

        Reply
      • 77. Kay Moore  |  February 4, 2010 at 6:15 pm

        She wonders that too and promises to spend a great deal of time in solemn contemplation. And then she’ll just find some n00bs to pwn on Star Trek Online and forget about it.

        I’m sure a few of them do, Bill. I’m sure James Byrd is aware of the feeling as well and laws punishing THAT sort of abominable act have been around for many decades and didn’t seem to have stopped those three racists.

        With all due respect, Bill:
        I believe what I see instead of see what I believe.

        Reply
      • 78. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:35 am

        Actually, Kay, I’m pretty sure James Byrd is not aware of anything, him being dead and all.

        I realize that you are laboring under the delusion that racial bias, or bias against LGBT people, should not be considered when examining motive. You are (as usual) incorrect.

        I pity you, Kay. It must be very sad to be so small-minded. (I still stand by my assessment that you live in some rural backwater in Oregon; that seems to be where cesspools of ignorance develop up there …)

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 79. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:59 am

        “Actually, Kay, I’m pretty sure James Byrd is not aware of anything, him being dead and all.”

        That was precisely my point.

        Of course it should be considered when examining motive but only in the context of the normal sliding scale between, say, Murder 2 and Murder 1 (where bias would go towards proving premeditation). But hate crimes laws pretend that bias makes a crime worse, much like hitting someone with a baseball bat instead of your fist.

        I pity you for the same reason, Fiona. I’m betting you still think I’m really multiple people named “George” and it appears that you simply don’t believe I live within 30 minutes of Portland. There are multiple towns that fit that description, by the way: Tualatin, Sherwood, Newberg, Beaverton, Wilsonville, Hillsboro, and others.

        Reply
      • 80. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:15 am

        Kay, it is laughable that you pity me for believing in equality, equal protection under the law, and fairness toward all.

        If that is pitiable, well, I’ll take it.

        Love,
        Fiona (Yeah, Newberg … there’s a thriving metropolis …)

        Reply
      • 81. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:26 pm

        I pity you for your small-mindedness, Fiona, not your principles. I would have thought that pretty clear when you said you pitied me for being small-minded and I replied that I pitied you for the same reason.

        Love,
        Kay (indeed not but it has good vineyards)

        Reply
      • 82. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:25 pm

        And often in their own homes, Bill. While still children. By the heterosexual men who are supposed to be their “fathers,” yet through a vicious campaign of terror from the child’s earliest memories, set the children up to be rapred by the “father” in an attempt to “turn them straight.” So yes, we do know what it is to be hunted down, and not only by strangers.

        Reply
  • 83. dieter  |  February 4, 2010 at 1:34 am

    Personally I love all those hot little mormon elder LDS boys that come – a -knocking periodically. I must admit that i have personally removed many a pair of those Magic Mormon underwear…LOL
    seems their faith is not as strong as their sexual urges…..

    Reply
    • 84. dieter  |  February 4, 2010 at 1:36 am

      lol…

      Reply
      • 85. Felyx  |  February 4, 2010 at 3:36 pm

        where is this from? Just curious.

        BTW I can’t believe she would use such language….

        in front of the freshly planted flowers!

        Respect for God’s natural design woman!

        Reply
      • 86. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:31 pm

        Felyx, it’s from the movie Orgazmo.

        Reply
  • 87. dieter  |  February 4, 2010 at 4:32 am

    Amazing coincidence that the congressional elections are in 10 months, and so the military has said that it needs 11 months to decide what to do about DADT. clearly they are thinking that republicans are going to take over, and if they can wait until one day after elections, they can simply say well we WANTED to overturn DADT, but the republicans won’t allow a vote on it so sorry gay people….back of the bus again…
    why 11 months?…why not a year?…just an odd amount of months to pick to “review” this issue, and clearly obviously an attempt to block repeal until they get more anti-gay republitards in congress.

    Reply
    • 88. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 6:04 am

      I would not be surprised if that was the case.

      Reply
    • 89. Callie  |  February 4, 2010 at 6:17 am

      That’s exactly what I’m expecting because that’s all we’ve ever gotten. It’s going to be painful to see another round of “how could they’s” in the GLBT community, but it’s a comin’…again and again and again.

      Reply
    • 90. David Kimble  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:49 am

      Yeah, I had the same thought. Still Obama wants to do away with DADT – at least the talk, yet I wonder how serious any of these people are about real change.
      Love,
      David

      Reply
  • 91. dieter  |  February 4, 2010 at 6:25 am

    Watching Obama speak live at the National prayer breakfast. so far he has spoken about race, religion, politics, health care, economy, war,and the people in Haiti.
    he seems to be giving a campaign speech.
    perhaps that is why he has discussed every issue, and every group of people on the planet.(except gays) He kinda just announced that he thinks “some” of the bills in “some” countries maybe need a little work. Wow.
    wouldn’t even say what it was…gays are not worthy of discussion here…not in this speech. Not in the most important place he could have spoken up for us…
    he just praised every group on the planet except for gays.
    I am sick to my stomach. I will be voting republican.
    turning off the speech now, so I can contact my voters registrar to switch my party affiliation.

    Reply
    • 92. Bill  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:47 am

      Any speech given by any politician is ALWAYS a campaign speech.

      Reply
  • 93. js  |  February 4, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Im curious if the people at the top are actually out of the closet. What does it mean to rise up in business if you have to hide your sexual orientation?

    Reply
  • 94. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 7:26 am

    Good Morning, I though I would start today off on a good note. I’m not sure if anybody is keeping track of this but there is a huge possibility that Australia will be the 9th country to legalize Same Sex Marriage!

    Reply
    • 95. JPM  |  February 4, 2010 at 7:56 am

      Details? Links?

      Reply
    • 96. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 4, 2010 at 8:01 am

      Ronnie, you’re sliiping. Usually you have a link for news like this. Please post it as soon as you can. In the meantime, I am going to look and see what I can find.

      Reply
      • 97. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 8:29 am

        I had some links but it didn’t post…I’ll try again but I have to find all of them.

        Reply
      • 98. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 4, 2010 at 8:33 am

        Thanks, Ronnie. By the way, tell your chihuahua that I said, YOU GO!

        Reply
    • 99. JPM  |  February 4, 2010 at 8:53 am

      Google News shows nothing relevant.

      Reply
  • 100. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 8:04 am

    Oh and I have another great story for you… On a previous thread I had mentioned that I have a 3 & 1/2yo Long Haired Chihuahua named Woody. Well what I posted was how sometimes when I walk him at night, there is the guy who I guess is walking home from work, but Woody is always in attack mode when he sees him..one night that guy was basically like dude what is wrong your crazy little dog…I asked him do you support gay marriage…to make a long story short he said no and some offensive things…the entire time I was fighting my dog from attacking him.

    I said in short well even a dog can tell when a bigot is full of sh!t and walked away..He did nothing.

    So onto my recent encounter with the same guy last night. I was walking Woody and that guy was walking in toe opposite direction coming our way…but Woody wasn’t in attack mode (I don’t know why, but I thought it was weird) until we passed each other….He muttered that age old insult “F@G”…and then all of sudden Woody went nuts….I mean, I’m saying foam at the mouth when you try to take food or his bowl from him nuts.

    The guy freaked out and was like ok ok I’m sorry, Just keep that crazy dog away from me. dude!

    I got a laugh out of it and it just made my day.

    Reply
    • 101. David Kimble  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:52 am

      Damn, thanks for the great story! I nearly piddled my pants, laughing so hard. BTW, I have a deaf Dalmatian that I adopted from a shelter in California – she is that way with any of my mother’s Mormon friends…hmmm!
      Love,
      David

      Reply
      • 102. fiona64  |  February 4, 2010 at 1:20 pm

        Hi, David. I have two Dalmatians (one is 13 and one is 10), and they are the 2nd and 3rd Dals I’ve had. Dals have always been my very favorites. Thank you for taking on the challenge of a deafie. :-)

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 103. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 1:24 pm

        Fiona…are your dalmatians named Pongo and Perdita.?…..Bwaaa…i couldn’t help it…lol

        Reply
      • 104. fiona64  |  February 4, 2010 at 1:37 pm

        ROFLOL, Ronnie.

        No. The eldest one (she is 13) is CH Aviator n Marquis Insignia; we call her Phaedra. The younger one (he is 10, and Phaedra is his auntie, as his mother is Phae’s littermate) is Aviator n Marquis Flying Colors; we call him Jarvis.

        My first Dalmatian was named Ladybug; she was a rescue and had been a puppy mill mama.

        We also have an Australian Kelpie named Katie, and five cats (Seamus, Paddy, Monty, Abigail and Lulu).

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 105. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 1:50 pm

        I use to have 3 cats….Sassy was a beautiful black cat with white on her belly….I had her from 3 months after her birth for 16 years…I grew up with her.She died last june my 2nd to last semi of college during finals..I almost died myself.

        Now I only have 2 Serenity, the prissiest of female…I mean girly, shes gray w/stripes and white/gray spotted belly and is half persian

        Cashmere is a freak of nature I am 5’10” and on her back legs she goes up to my waist…she is white with like brown, orange, and gray stripes and spots….her right eye looks bigger then her left because it has a liner around it so we also call her egypt…shes retarded…lol

        Reply
      • 106. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:32 pm

        And David, I think it is great that your dog is a rescue.

        Reply
      • 107. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:35 pm

        Fiona, I meant to reply to this before, but have spent two days on limited computer use while mine was in the shop. Anyone who has ever had one computer shared by four people knows that struggle. Any how. The fact that your first Dalmatian was a rescue who had been a puppy mill mama is only different from our Shoshanah because of the fact that Shoshanah is a cocker spaniel. And I am sure that Ladybug ws every bit as loving and protective of you and the rest of her family as Shoshanah is of us. Your already high rating in my book just took another upward flight!

        Reply
    • 108. Bill  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:54 am

      You need to be careful, Ronnie. Lest you wind up a headline in the daily news…

      Just sayin.’

      Keep your personal safety in mind!!!!

      Reply
      • 109. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 10:07 am

        You see David they know…they just do.

        To Bill, don’t worry about me I know how to defend myself, they last guy who tired to bash me wound up in the hospital. I posted it on the “Scorecards” thread what actually happened.

        But I can see the headline:

        “Gay Basher’s attempted attack on young Gay Male, reversed while victims Chihuahua hangs from offenders crotch!”

        Reply
      • 110. fiona64  |  February 4, 2010 at 1:23 pm

        Okay, Ronnie, you will love this.

        I have a musician acquaintance from Ireland named Seamus … and he tells a whole slew of Chihuahua jokes.

        Seems there is this guy who goes into a bar and takes wagers for anyone who is willing to have their dog fight his Great Dane. So, one night, he’s in there trying to get up wagers and another fellow walks in, asking “Who owns the Great Dane outside?”

        The first guy says “I do, why do you ask?”

        Second guy replies: “My Chihuahua just killed it.”

        The first guy is dumbfounded. “That’s impossible. I raised that Great Dane from puppyhood to be a savage killer. How on earth did your Chihuahua kill it?”

        “Got stuck in his throat.”

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 111. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 1:30 pm

        BWAAAAAAAAA!!!!…first “Seamus”? let me shut up.

        2nd…that did not end they way i though it would but …hehehehe.

        3rd…if you had said wiener dog..you would have had to buy me a new keyboard.

        4th…BWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Reply
      • 112. fiona64  |  February 4, 2010 at 1:38 pm

        Yep, Seamus. It’s Irish Gaelic for James. We named our cat after him, I am not kidding.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
  • 113. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 8:39 am

    The Links will not post.
    but this site has some good info:
    http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/

    Reply
    • 114. JPM  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:07 am

      There is absolutely nothing there that indicates

      there is a huge possibility that Australia will be the 9th country to legalize Same Sex Marriage!

      Reply
      • 115. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:13 am

        the link I wanted to post with statistics will not post…I tried 5 times…but basically it says the opposite of what ours do…that the majority of aussies are in favor of SSM, and that there is a bill on the table to legalize it.

        Reply
      • 116. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 12:05 pm

        I didn’t say that there was an article that says that…It was my opinion on what I read but i can’t post they link and from a friend that lives in Australia. Basically here is one of the articles that was written after they tabled the bill(not rejected). That website has 3 articles about the future od aussie SSM and one how the gov. and economists has realized that the ban in 2004 negatively effected the economy..the parallels to prop ha8te are staggering.

        Reply
      • 117. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 5:26 pm

        So I had an exchange with a guy from Australia on the “Reason Will Triumph” thread about what exactly is going on in Australia….My friend who lives in Melbourne says diff. but I will talk to him 2morro about it….The numbers and stats are still right and that is what I based my opi on since that is how our gov works. but I didn’t realize who Aus. was. Check out the convo. I had with Andrew and check out his blog. He posted how to find it on the “Reason Will Triumph” thread.

        Reply
  • 118. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Megan McCain ROCKS!!!!

    Reply
    • 119. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 8:48 am

      I’m sorry ….Meghan McCain (Will she be the first female President?)

      Reply
      • 120. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 4, 2010 at 8:56 am

        Only if we can get the legal age of ffice lowered. Otherwise, i think we will have a different female elected. I really think we will have a female POTUS within the 11 years before Meghan McCain turns 35.

        Reply
      • 121. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:42 am

        Well lets put it this way…it took what like 9 years for the civil rights movement to win(even though it was going on for many years prior to that)…and yeas the official start of the gay rights movement started in 1970’s it appears that even though we have some significantly huge wins we are actually starting back at zero without an Anita Bryant. Specifically because Virginia(or is that west virginia)I always get them confused…anyway they are trying to repeal Hate crimes laws,,,which will allow them to do what they use to do without ramifications.

        So if we do need to take another 9-11 years for this (which will Never happen because it will happen within the next 3 thanks to all the young voters) But is that is what happens Meghan will be the one to do it….If i were straight…watch out now!….I’ll be her first lady…LOL

        Reply
      • 122. fiona64  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:44 am

        Hi, Ronnie. It’s Oklahoma that’s trying to repeal the hate crime laws. Virginia’s brand-new governor (he’s been in office for a month) is talking about repealing protections for LGBT people. Similar, but different.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 123. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:45 am

        I mean I’m gonna be honest, If they manage to get the hate crimes bill repealed….The gloves are off..you know what I mean?

        Reply
      • 124. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:47 am

        Thanks Fiona…I knew I had things switched around.

        Reply
      • 125. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:43 pm

        It is Virginia. West Virginia’s Governor, Joe Manchin III is in favor of marriage equality. I watched him grow up. His father was our state treasurer, A. James Manchin, and a more equality-minded family you will not meet.

        Reply
  • 126. Bolt  |  February 4, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    We shouldn’t be blind idiots, and assume that we’re going to win the prop 8 challenge in the SCOTUS. I’m holding the attitude that we’re going to lose in the SCOTUS; however, I expect the majority who rules against us to hand down something rational. Our opponents are flaming idiots, liars, and lack any type of fact to back up their claims. If the SCOTUS wants to remain respectable to it’s legal community after this important challenge it needs to break away from the disgusting religious slobs who are the proponents of proposition 8.

    Reply
    • 127. Kay Moore  |  February 4, 2010 at 6:30 pm

      I’m surprised you don’t assume that, Bolt; most of the disgusting religious slobs are expecting SCOTUS to kill Prop 8 in the most stringent terms. For some of them (who pay attention to things other than just religion), SCOTUS gave up its right to respect the moment it was willing to endorse putting a racial group in concentration camps for ANY reason, regardless of the fact that the decision was later reversed.

      Reply
  • 128. David  |  February 4, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    Can someone point out where McDonnell is “saying that he intends to end what protections there were for LGBT residents of the Commonwealth granted by executive order.” I live in Virginia, I’m gay, I’m paying attention to this governor for obvious reasons, and I haven’t been able to confirm this statement.

    Reply
    • 129. Kay Moore  |  February 4, 2010 at 6:40 pm

      It seems people are confusing McDonnell’s proposed programs with the 20-year-old thesis paper he wrote in which he suggested ways to strengthen the traditional family and argued against working women, abortion, and gay rights. It caused a big stir when it came out but at last call, McDonnell said that his views have changed in the 20 years since writing the paper and during the campaign, his campaign pointed out that his opponent had taken out a newspaper ad in 1999 in which Deeds wrote “I don’t believe in discrimination, but I don’t believe in special rights for anyone” and added that he’d never voted to allow medical insurance—or any other benefit—for gay partners. In the same year, Deeds’ spokesman told the Staunton Daily News Leader, “Mr. Deeds does not support gay rights.”
      Article cited:
      http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2009/09/10/mcdonnell-thesis-heats-up-virginia-governors-race.html
      Another article on McDonnell’s perspective on gay rights is found here:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/08/AR2009090803715.html
      I’m still looking for an assurance by McDonnell to voters that he planned to undo gay rights or hate crimes laws, however.

      Reply
    • 130. Ronnie  |  February 4, 2010 at 9:50 pm

      Actually David here is one article basically he won’t sign a non-dicrimination bill that states sexual orientation:
      http://hamptonroads.com/2010/02/governor-says-policy-based-law-not-bias

      and here his constant spats with the LGBT comm:
      http://www.stonewalldemocrats.org/node/915

      but that is what I was able to find

      And one of the things I flipped out about was this article that Caliie posted on Feb.2 on the “Is this case” thread. For Callie it makes her want to take a self defense class. For me it make me want to get a licenses to carry a firearms, I took boxing lessons in high school so I already know defense. I’m not scared of shite but be prepared is my motto.

      http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60842

      Reply
      • 131. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:19 am

        It certainly took long enough… I’d been wondering why it seemed that no one had tried to bury one of these “hate crimes” laws but whatever their motivations, it seems as if someone is finally out to make the attempt. Progress comes in odd and unexpected ways.

        Reply
      • 132. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:27 am

        I asked you nicely to leave me alone.

        Reply
      • 133. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:32 am

        Kay has a very peculiar definition of progress, I think …

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 134. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 10:47 am

        So do those who call themselves “progressives,” really.

        Reply
      • 135. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:18 am

        Dear Kay:

        Please let me know how stripping a given group of people of their civil rights constitutes “progress.” Please also let me know how eliminating hate crimes enhancements is “progress.”

        I’m dying of curiosity.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 136. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:40 pm

        Because an attempt by the government to treat bias as using a baseball bat instead of a fist is nothing more than thought control. Eliminating it increases everyone’s freedom.

        Reply
      • 137. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:44 pm

        Okay. Let me see if I understand you correctly.

        If the KKK is allowed to murder people of color without hate crimes enhancements, since the people are dead regardless, we’re all more free.

        If a gang of straight guys rapes a lesbian (two days after Prop 8 passed) while screaming anti-gay epithets, since she was raped regardless, we’re all more free.

        Yeah.

        Whatever.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 138. Mr. HCI  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:48 pm

        Kay,

        How should terrorists be tried? For acts of terrorism or simply for vandalism, arson and/or murder?

        Reply
      • 139. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:56 pm

        Libertarian Larry Elder put it nicely: “If I’m standing at an ATM and a Klansman hits me in the head with a brick, the operative word is not ‘Klansman’… it is ‘brick’.” No present laws are without the ability to fully punish assault, murder, rape, etc so hate crimes laws have punitive purpose unless it is to punish the thought instead of the crime.

        Reply
      • 140. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:59 pm

        Either/or. If you pin 3000 first-degree murders on someone, how is the punishment going to be any less severe than charging them with terrorism?

        Reply
      • 141. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:01 pm

        Oh, gawd.

        You’re a freaking Randian.

        Thanks, Kay. I understand now.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 142. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:04 pm

        What the hell is a “Randian”?

        Reply
      • 143. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:42 pm

        Kay, the repeal and destruction of hate crimes laws is not progress, it is regression. You may want to reconsider your stand on hate crimes legislation after talking to Tracy Thurman and seeing what her exhusband did to her out of hatred. Had the Shepard-Byrd act been in place when she was attacked, Buck Thurman would NEVER have a chance to get ot of prison, especially after promising in court to finish what he started once he got out. Hate crimes laws that include gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation as blanket terms protect straight as well as gay, women as well as men. But since you want them thrown out the window, I guess you don’t want those protections for yourself, do you?

        Reply
      • 144. Kay Moore  |  February 7, 2010 at 9:42 pm

        I’d love them but that law won’t give them to me no matter what it says.

        Reply
      • 145. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:26 pm

        Hey dopty-daddy…I missed this before and wanted to say something about that…Last summer A young that worked in the hospital that mu mother works at….She was in an abusive relationship and had the guy arrested….when he got out of jail he stabbed her 20 times if that bill was around just a few months earlier she might have been protected and she might be alive….It’s shame what a few months really means…rights dopty-daddy…<3

        Reply
      • 146. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 10:27 pm

        I’m sorry its late…. I meant a young woman that worked with my mother

        Reply
    • 147. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 7:42 am

      Actually David here is one article basically he won’t sign a non-dicrimination bill that states sexual orientation:
      http://hamptonroads.com/2010/02/governor-says-policy-based-law-not-bias
      and here his constant spats with the LGBT comm:
      http://www.stonewalldemocrats.org/node/915

      Reply
    • 148. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 8:05 am

      Ok so it says that my comment with the links I found is waiting for moderation so I will tell you how to find them. Yes It has something to do with his “thesis” but what WE are talking about is his what he says now.

      Actually David there is information about what he does and wants to do: Here his constant spats with the LGBT comm: to find the site google:
      “Bob McDonnell end protections for LGBT” it is the second result “Don’t Forget About Virginia”/ Stonewall Democrats

      Second article I found is this. just google the title:
      “McDonnell: Opposition to gay Measure based on law” by Julian Walker for The Virgin-Piloy Feb 2, 2010 much more recent info then what K.I.A. says.

      He is directly against the LGBT Community, He doesn’t have to always directly say it, His actions and his prejudices speak volumes. Of course he’s not going to directly assure the voters that he plans to undo Gay rights or hate crimes laws. We Know how they work, they lie and omit, so that they can get more votes.

      Reply
      • 149. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 8:11 am

        Sorry typo…….. The Virginia-Pilot

        Reply
    • 150. David  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:00 am

      Thanks for the links. I am well aware that McDonnell is no friend to gays and that while he says that he does not discriminate on any basis, he does not plan on extending Kaine’s executive order banning discrimination in state employment based on sexual orientation. I am disappointed to learn that he withdrew the proposed rule change that would have allowed state employees to purchase health insurance for adult members of their households, a proposal that had a lengthy public comment period, most of which were in favor.

      I’m pretty sure that gays aren’t going to gain any ground in Virginia during McDonnell’s tenure.

      Reply
  • 151. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 9:35 am

    More from the gorgeous Meghan MaCain….I <3 her.

    This is from The View, Feb.4, 2010

    Reply
  • 152. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:19 am

    Hate Crimes Laws must stand the way they are or made to protect LGBT people, because NOBODY has been murdered for being straight. NOBODY straight has been attacked for holding hands with the person they love(unless it was interracial).

    Being attacked for your beliefs is one thing, but being attacked because of who you are is absolutely wrong. When you tell somebody you should die and go to hell and don’t expect to get popped in the face then you are beyond ignorant….You wouldn’t want somebody to say that to you…LGBT people are threatened on a daily basis…but when we do it to you….”It’s wrong”…hypocrites.

    Believe in what you want to believe in but don’t pass laws based on your religion and then expect someone who does not follow that religions pay taxes,,,our ancestors wouldn’t do it England and we shouldn’t have to do it now.

    America is not a Theocracy…..It’s Cheerocracy….Torrance….and your be a Theotator….and a real pane in my @$$!

    Reply
  • 153. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:25 am

    Oh and LGBT people are not friends with people who are against gay rights….Bigots only assume they are because some of us are nice to them….But really we hate you and tolerate you because you say things that are equivalent to “I love you, But I’m not IN love with you”.

    Reply
    • 154. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:33 am

      Actually hate is too strong of a word….We Love you and tolerate you, but we’re not in love with you…hehehe

      Reply
      • 155. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:34 am

        You’re right, Ronnie. Hate is a big emotion to waste on people you don’t care for.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 156. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:03 pm

        Ronnie, don’t waste any more time on Kay. She’s a Randian. She figures that she and hers will be over in Galt’s Gulch sneering at the rest of the world. (Think of it as a snobby version of the Rapture.)

        Sucks to be her.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
    • 157. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 11:34 am

      Or “You’re okay … you’re the good kind” of whatever they’re prejudiced against. :-(

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 158. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:47 pm

      I shall duly inform the LGBT folks I know that they’re not acting the way LGBTs should act. I’ll also find a well-spoken black man and tell him he’s “acting white”. Same bigotry, different subject.

      Reply
      • 159. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:51 pm

        i asked you to leave me alone..Please stop!

        Reply
      • 160. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:02 pm

        Sorry, Ronnie. You don’t get to cry “leave me alone” and then directly aim a criticism at me without being responded to. Either stop trying to sneak in a bash against me or deal with being responded to. It’s your choice but I’m making every effort to respond to your statements without directing them at you personally.

        Reply
      • 161. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:09 pm

        Did I mention your F-ing name trash bag…NO! I didn’t;t direct anything at you if that was true I would have relied to you ignorant comments which I have not…no you read into it that it was to you… which makes it true,,,thanks for proving my point

        I asked you top leave me alone,PLEASE STOP!

        Reply
      • 162. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:11 pm

        Not anymore, Ronnie. You officially surrendered the right to hide behind “leave me alone” by trying to cleverly bash me without mentioning me by name.

        Reply
      • 163. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:14 pm

        You know what? *Both* of you are acting like bratty little children. Knock it the eff off.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 164. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:19 pm

        I asked you to leave me alone…unless i refer to you by name you are harassing me TROLL!

        Reply
      • 165. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:33 pm

        No. You gave up the right to have that request respected with your little “I didn’t use your name” potshots.

        Reply
      • 166. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:37 pm

        there are other people on here that said what you said..it was a general statement made as a person who is gay…and knows the truth…and you know by now if I meant you I would have said you

        Please leave me alone…you are repeatedly harassing me.

        Reply
  • 167. Ronnie  |  February 5, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Eliminating Hate crimes legislature leaves Bigots the freedom to kill and bash LGBT people without ramifications..If this happens people, be prepared to return the favor….JMHO!!!!

    Reply
  • 168. fiona64  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    For those unclear about what Randians think and believe:

    http://www.noblesoul.com/rl/essays/cult.html

    The bottom line is that once a Randian has arrived at Truth(TM), there is no point in discussing further (you know, the old saw about “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.”) You either toe their line or are to be “excommunicated.”

    Absurd, but true.

    Love,
    Fiona

    Reply
    • 169. Kay Moore  |  February 5, 2010 at 1:08 pm

      So… “Randian” is some sort of fancy word for a cultist? Interesting but how do you come to that conclusion, exactly?

      Reply
      • 170. Ben  |  February 6, 2010 at 7:09 pm

        Essentially, your consistent answers that you believe hate crime laws should disappear, under the premise that existing laws already cover the particular nature of these attacks—no matter the evidence presented to the contrary—has placed you as Randian. You are not necessarially a cultist, however the philosophy you have presented in your comments is similar enough to the writings of Ayn Rand as to classify you, based on this, as a “Randian”.

        In other comments, I find your statement that hate crime laws should be binned right with Jim Crow laws to be interesting, given that you have two absolutely different sets of laws that you’re talking about there. On the one hand, there is a set of additional punishments on attacking groups who are historically attacked, be it for disability, race, orientation, etc. and on the other hand is a set of discriminatory laws. To my mind, you seem to desire a world where everyone gets along. This is wishful thinking. As someone who has faced direct homophobic attacks, it is really hard to deal with being different. I’ve only come out at school recently, and only partially still.

        Just some thoughts (and a wall of text.)
        Ben

        Reply
      • 171. Kay Moore  |  February 6, 2010 at 10:31 pm

        Well, see, that’s the real trick, isn’t it? You are correct that sentence enhancements do not exist to tack on extra punishment for certain motives in committing crimes of assault, felony murder, rape, menacing, and a whole plethora of other crimes that can be–and are–committed against certain classes of people. But no one has tried to establish that a law sending someone to 25 years of prison for beating someone to death with a baseball bat (2nd degree murder, at least) cannot handle someone seeing that their victim is black/Asian/gay/transsexual and consciously deciding to corner them and beat them to death with a baseball bat (premeditation and/or unusual brutality moves it up to 1st degree murder). Change the crime, change the weapon, change the circumstances, change the opportunity for consideration or premeditation… and the law can handle each and every variation on the theme. Meaning no disrespect at all, Ben, but where is your evidence that laws against the varied crimes that are committed against LGBT people are inadequate for the task?

        I compared hate crimes laws to Jim Crow laws not because I regard the content as the same but because I regard the nature as the same. In the modern age, Jim Crow laws are regarded as extremely unjust, a means to give one class of people more justice than another; I see hate crimes laws to be very similar in that they partition out extra punishment for premeditation and/or brutality against a favored class; I can be almost perfectly certain that you couldn’t care less but it is no less of a brutal crime to harbor hatred for a heterosexual white man and beat him to death for it than it is to harbor hatred for a black homosexual woman and beat her to death for it. Is making it more of a crime to hate and murder the second person than the first consistent with the 14th Amendment guarantee that is so often cited to justify overturning anti-SSM laws? I do not believe that it is and so, would prefer to see a modern example of unjust law buried in the same disreputable hole as an older example of unjust law.

        I appreciate your thoughts and wall of text and thought that it deserved a serious reply (and wall of text).
        Kay

        Reply
      • 172. fiona64  |  February 7, 2010 at 12:40 pm

        Dear Ben:

        Kay doesn’t get it … because she doesn’t seem to comprehend (despite, as you point out, significant evidence pointed out to her) that far too many law enforcement jurisdictions *ignore* crimes against LGBT people. As the thinking folk know, hate crimes laws turn the issue into a case that allows *federal* authorities to investigate what local law enforcement ignores.

        I am sorry that you, and everyone else who has suffered, has been the victim of attacks based on nothing but fear and bigotry. Those who don’t understand the value of hate crimes enhancements are really no different than the kinds of people who think “well, if he were straight I wouldn’t have had to kick his ass” or “if she’d just shut up when I’d told her to, I wouldn’t have had to beat her.”

        I speak as a domestic violence survivor, BTW.

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 173. Kay Moore  |  February 7, 2010 at 9:34 pm

        Oh, she comprehends just fine. She fails to see why the supposed improvement of “hate crimes” laws addresses the problem of law enforcement ignoring the crime. She further notes that federal investigators have very little means to become informed of something that would fall under their “hate crime” purview without local law enforcement informing them of it and thus, the issue returns full circle to the beginning: local law enforcement ignores the crime. “Hate crimes” laws do nothing about this unless all law enforcement was federalized.

        Those who don’t understand the value of hate crimes enhancements are the type of people who know that injustice is not the proper solution to injustice. Unfortunately, far too few people know this.

        Reply
  • 174. Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan  |  February 7, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    Fiona, remember when we were asking KM which of her rights she was willing to have put up to a vote and have annulled, and she never answered us? Well, with her wining about hate crimes laws, which include the Shepard-Byrd Act (which states gender identity/expression/sexual orientation as blanket terms), she has finally answered us. Because with this in place, if someone attacks her for being a heterosexual, or for being female, she now has even more protection. I guess she doesn’t want that, though, does she?

    Reply
    • 175. Kay Moore  |  February 7, 2010 at 9:37 pm

      The problem with that is twofold: first, the question was answered and ever afterwards, I have refused to do others’ work for them and track down the exact post in which I answered.
      Second, it is absurd to expect that a law stated in general terms will be applied generally; technically, anti-discrimination laws encompassing race protect all races but courts have consistently ruled that since the law was obviously enacted to protect all non-white races, it cannot apply to whites. To expect this precedent to be reversed is to engage in wishful thinking.

      Reply
    • 176. fiona64  |  February 8, 2010 at 8:41 am

      Dear Richard:

      I, honestly, have never heard of anyone being attacked simply for being heterosexual. That said, I would say that yes, the Shepard-Byrd act would definitely add hate crimes enhancements if a woman was beaten up while a man was screaming misogynistic things at her. DV (yes, there are cases of woman-on-man, but they are rare) is a hate crime based in misogyny. Perhaps my friend Stephanie Rodriguez would still be alive of the Shepard-Byrd act had been in effect when she finally escaped her abuser.

      Instead, he went to court where (even though he had been arrested several times for DV) he said that she was keeping his kids away from him and demanded that she be made to move back to the town where he lived and that he be kept apprised of her address. The court so ordered … and two weeks after she obeyed the court order, her estranged husband broke into her home and shot her at point-blank range, after which he suicided himself.

      It is my deepest regret that I never asked Stephanie about her home life; the last time I saw her alive was on a hot July day in Richmond, where she was wearing a longsleeved turtleneck sweater to a professional meeting we both attended. That was a huge red flag for me, but we never had a moment alone where I could ask if all was well and I didn’t want to embarrass or shame her in front of others.

      Two months later, she was dead. If the Shepard-Byrd Act had been in effect, I believe that the judge would not have ordered her back into a situation where her *known abuser* had access to her and that she would be alive today.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
  • 177. Ronnie  |  February 7, 2010 at 9:40 pm

    Maude!!!!!!

    Reply
  • 178. David Kimble  |  February 8, 2010 at 8:36 am

    Thanks, Ronnie!
    I appreciated that one! BTW, it was fortunate I wasn’t taking a sip of coffee, when that happened or I would have spewn it all my computer! Thanks for laugh…laughter is good!
    Love,
    David

    Reply
    • 179. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 8:50 am

      LOL…you’re welcome…I’m drinking Coffee right now too….I’m avid coffee drinker…..When I was a baby around 2 my other threw my baby bottle out the window(hew words)

      Her best friend’s Mother was my “Abuela” since my bio granmom was dead(my moms mother) and my other bio granmom(my dads mother) wasn’t, still isn’t in my life….anyway she would give me coffee in a baby bottle I mean it was more sugar and milk then it was coffee but its ALL HER FAULT…that I am naturally hyper…lol

      Reply
  • 180. David Kimble  |  February 8, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Hmm, I wonder if that’s a part of the “Gay Agenda” to convert everyone in the world to coffee drinkers? (LOL) I love coffee, I can drink it all day and usually until I go to bed and it never bothers me…hmmm, I have not been drinking coffee in the evenings recently, maybe I should start again…

    Reply
    • 181. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 8:57 am

      Well Starbucks is like a gay mating ground…yeah?……i have had plenty of dates start and end there.

      Reply
    • 182. fiona64  |  February 8, 2010 at 8:58 am

      There isn’t enough creme/sugar/chocolate/whatever in the world to make a coffee drinker out of me.

      I’ve tried.

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 183. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:01 am

      Isn’t caffeine a sin to some?

      I love coffee in the morning, but coffee in before I go to sleep…no way! I also don’t like starbucks, wifi isn’t free, at least not where I live, and blogging and coffee go so well together.

      Reply
      • 184. Ronnie  |  February 8, 2010 at 9:17 am

        Not that i’m aware of…but if it is then what does it matter if I’m gay….I’ve been drinking coffee far longer then participating in any other homosexual activity other then going gaga for Zack Morris and David Silver…..lol

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,293 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...