Reason Will Triumph
February 4, 2010 at 8:00 am Brian Leubitz 179 comments
by Brian Leubitz
As you may or may not know, I’m a progressive. I blog every day at Calitics about California politics and our wayward walk towards failed state status. As Rahm Emmanuel would put it, the left of the left.
So, it’s not often that I find common cause with the viewpoints put on display in Reason Magazine. It’s a libertarian publication which spends most of its time bashing the governmental organizations in which I believe. Yet, on gay marriage, Steve Chapman and I are on exactly the same page.
But [Maggie Gallagher] and her allies are the political equivalent of a Minnesota Vikings fan, gazing upon Brett Favre’s middle-aged gridiron wizardry. They had better enjoy it now, because it’s not going to last.
*** *** ***
Time is on the side of gay marriage. The heaviest opposition comes from people over 65. Among those under 30, by contrast, supporters predominate—and by a hefty 58-to-37 percent margin. Ask any actuary where this disparity will lead. (Reason Magazine)
Chapman argues that civil unions or domestic partnership, or whatever, are a decent, if not very flawed stepping stone. While I don’t ignore his point that they are flawed, his acceptance of separate but equal for temporary gain is where I part ways. But in the end it’s only a matter of timing. Did I support domestic partnerships four years ago? Of course, but I feel that we were in a very different place four years ago than where we are today. It’s a testament to just how fast the nation is changing, and to the incredible work of the LGBT community.
But, at this point, we shouldn’t have to wait in artificial holding tanks as the public wraps their mind about that which is already reality. It’s time for marriage equality now.
Entry filed under: Uncategorized.
179 Comments Add your own
Leave a reply to Straight Ally #3008 Cancel reply
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Prop 8 Trial Tracker 
1.
Richard W. Fitch | February 4, 2010 at 8:11 am
Prop 8, DOMA and DADT(DP) will all collapse in the very near futurre.
2.
Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | February 4, 2010 at 8:21 am
Brian, you are so right. And so are you, Richard W. Fitch. Prop 8 will be overturned, DOMA is in the process of being repealed, thanks to RMFA, and even the general who had the responsibility of creating the implementation strategy for DADT says it is time to get rid of it. But we as a community cannot sit back and rest on what few laurels we have. Now, more than ever, we must all unite. We must get together in our communities and form Equality Teams. And for those of us who are outside the state of California, CC will give you all the help you need to get your team started. We are in the startup and building process for the Cumberland County, North Carolina Equality Team, and Anthony has just been so great! Reason WILL triumph, and we will win this battle. But we will only win this if we continue to stick together and fight for one another. We cannot afford to fight amongst ourselves. This is our very lives we are talking about folks, so let’s get with it.
3.
Marlene Bomer | February 4, 2010 at 10:49 am
There is an equality group here, Equality BG (Bowling Green, OH) which is being forced to gear up for a ballot fight here in November.
Last summer, our city council voted *overwhelmingly* for equality, 7-0 on a housing ordinance, and 7-1 for a full non-discrimination ordinance.
Both included conditions other than GI&E/SO — pregnancy, military status, veteran status, political ideology, etc. But mere days after it was passed a cabal of religious bigots were able to easily get enough signatures to put both up for a vote in November!
So watch this blog, and other avenues as the months drag on to see whether or not Equality BG’s going to need your financial and material support.
4.
Sean | February 4, 2010 at 8:46 am
It’s time for marriage equality NOW!
5.
Richard Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | February 4, 2010 at 8:54 am
Yes, it is, Sean, but even when we get marriage equality, we still cannot give up our fight. We stll have to mobilize and become more visible. We have to work harder to get more LGBTQQI’s into elected office in more places, in more levels of government. We need to unite on all of these issues. None of these necessary changes will come about if we just sit back and wait. We have to unite and fight. We have to wage a war of a different kind. We have to wage our war with kindness, peaceful demonstrations, and getting everyone to show up at events wearing their work clothes. This way, we can show the rest of the world that we are not that different from the heteros.
6.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 10:22 am
I’m all for peaceful demonstrations, but the second they return to the way things were in the 60’s and 70’s…the gloves are off
I wouldn’t say heteros, I would say Bigots because we have heteros who are right there with us.
And yes we are different from them, we are better, in the sense that we have not gotten as violent as to murder like they are still doing. It really is a shame that they try to paint themselves as the paragons of virtue while they bash, murder, lie, insult, and disrespect. But its wrong when we do any of those things.
7.
waxr | February 4, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Ronnie, if you believe that the 60’s and 70’s were bad, you should have seen the 50’s.
8.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Unfortunately people will not know about the violence of the 50’s towards LGBT people because according to everything and everybody who supports LGBT rights, there was none. From what i’ve read being Gay in the fifties either didn’t exist or was extremely hidden. I mean I wasn’t their and all the people in my family who were adults at the time are dead. I have read about it though, and I know that it was very behind closed doors but it wasn’t until the 60’s when the violence started to be noted and widely seen.
Just because you can’t see the wind, doesn’t mean it’s not their.
I like the movie,”Common Ground” because it shows the evolution, but I think we need to revive it and really show people what we go though, what we have gone through…I’m talking really show them the dark side of their history towards us.
9.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Correction I meant people who do not support LGBT rights
10.
Kai_Jones | February 4, 2010 at 9:11 am
I’ve been following this blog religiously since Jan. 11th, and I’ve finally decided to comment.
I’m 22, and someday soon, it will be legal for me to marry the person I’d like to marry. I know this because the greatest indicator in whether someone supports gay rights is if that person someone that is gay. So as conservatives point to the polls showcasing my generation’s pledge to equality and spout some nonsense about how we will inevitably grow more conservative and start hating equality, I know I only have to wait.
While it is true that people grow more conservative on social issues as they age, it’s in part because many services are no longer necessary to them. But that’s the key difference, once you’ve known a gay person and they’ve been humanized, you are rarely going to try to take away their rights.
I’ve noticed a huge schism in the gay community based on age. My friends and I have grown up with an iota of social acceptance, a hope that someday the discrimination against us will completely subside and we would be allowed to get married. The truth is, my gay friends and I don’t see ourselves as different from our heterosexual counterparts. Gay marriage is not what the revolutionaries that came before us had in mind…but it’s because those revolutionaries were so incredibly at shaping public opinion that the country’s concept of homosexuality have changed so drastically.
So please, continue the good work you’ve all done in making the country a better place for those that come after you. I will try to carry on that legacy, and make life better for the next generation of gays and lesbians.
11.
Kai_Jones | February 4, 2010 at 9:12 am
Aww, typo. If that person knows someone that is gay*
12.
Roberta K | February 4, 2010 at 11:51 am
I’m more than twice your age, and you’re absolutely right.
I was brought up to believe that homosexuality was “icky”. Then I went off to college, and one of my best friends came out to me because another mutual friend had a crush on him and he wanted my help in breaking the news to her gently. (After she got over the shock, the three of us were fast friends for several years.) I then went off into the working world and had several gay/lesbian colleagues, and discovered they had the same issues in dealing with assholic bosses and paying the bills and coping with relationship hassles that I did — the only difference is that they were dealing with the same gender and I was dealing with the opposite. Not the first time nor the last that I questioned my upbringing.
That’s why it’s so important for GLBT folks to be out and proud — you help disprove the lies and smears put forward by those on the Religious Reich and their political and media cohorts.
13.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | February 5, 2010 at 10:16 am
Kai, it is people like you who give me such hope for or younger generations.
14.
Pearl | February 4, 2010 at 9:12 am
I don’t care if you want to call it marriage/civil union or DP. It is not fair or equitable if the Fed govt does not recognize it. My spouse and I have no legal protections if we leave Calif unless we go to one of the progressive states which allow gay marriage. Even then we have no Fed protection. We just went through a tortured tax return exercise whereby we file Fed single and married Sate and in the process file a faux fed return to use for our state. WTF?!
15.
Mike | February 4, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I totally AGREE
I really don’t care what you call it…DP, Marriage, CU…. or even “super-glue” !!!
But, at the moment, I am typing this from another country….because the USA Immigration policies does NOT recognize my relationship with my partner….and thus, my family ( …of 4 = us and 2 american kids) remains living in EXILE…..we are forced to choose between our husband, our father…or our country, and our parents and grandparents.
Fair ? Justice ? Freedom ?…..for all ? or for a few ?
16.
James | February 4, 2010 at 9:15 am
I hate the idea that my generation has to die off before we see positive change…. sigh…
17.
Ed-M | February 4, 2010 at 10:57 am
Tell me about it. I was born in late 1960 at the very cusp between the baby boom and Generation X (according to Strauss and Howe’s reckoning of the two generations). I would hate to have to wait til I’m eighty to get legally married because of the prejudices of far too many baby boomers… who still throw infantile temper tantrums over issues they are sensitive about yielding outcomes they don’t like. If SCOTUS strikes down Prop 8 (and there’s no reason they won’t, except blind prejudice) these same baby boomers who are against same-sex marriage will throw the biggest temper tantrum ever.
18.
fiona64 | February 4, 2010 at 10:58 am
I was born in 1964 … I don’t think it’s us. ;->
Love,
Fiona
19.
Frijondi | February 4, 2010 at 11:21 am
Another senior GenXer here; I very much fear that a lot of those baby boomers have successfully passed their prejudices on to their children. I keep encountering people in their twenties and early thirties, both IRL and online, who are much more conservative than I am on social issues, particularly gender issues. It’s very odd to be 42 and hearing college students expressing views that my grandmother would have considered Neanderthal.
There’s a whole generation of people, now well into adulthood, who grew up being homeschooled with fundamentalist Christian textbooks, and plan to do the same with their kids. Then there are those neo-pentecostalist movements that seem to have no problem attracting young people, because they blend fundamentalism with whatever’s currently hot in the youth culture. If you saw that King of the Hill episode in which Bobby joins a Christian skateboarding club and embarrasses his dad by wearing a “Satan Sucks” T-shirt and toting his Extreme Teen Bible everywhere, that’s the kind of thing I’m talking about. That episode is fairly old, now, but that style of religion and proselytizing still seems to be going pretty strong.
20.
Straight Ally #3008 | February 4, 2010 at 11:36 am
Frijondi, here I have to blurt out my favorite quote from that episode:
Can’t you see you’re not making Christianity better, you’re just making rock and roll worse?
-Hank Hill
21.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 11:38 am
Unfortunately the polls say different and as someone who is 25yo and gay with a family that spawned from 8 sibling baby boomer generation in which 6 of them all had at least 4 kids who all want to legalize SSM not to mention that I have 13 2nd cousins btw. the age of 7 and 22 who all are in favor of gay rights and SSM
Odds are in favor of equality,
22.
Roberta K | February 4, 2010 at 11:41 am
Frijondi — That’s one of my favorite “King of the Hill” episodes (along with the one where Luann is “revirginized”).
And civil unions will never have the same status as marriage as long as they don’t automatically grant the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. I’m about to head out to the bank to see about paperwork to access my parents-in-law’s accounts, because they’re both in extended medical care. I have friends who spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to do the same thing. And the only difference is that I’ve got my signature on a $35 (1991 prices) piece of paper that’s denied them.
What affects one, affects all — straight ally standing with all of you in this fight.
23.
Roberta K | February 4, 2010 at 11:44 am
@Straight Ally: My favorite part is when Hank pulls out the box of past “fads” like the Star Wars figures and Pet Rock, and I have to laugh because there’s a Members Only jacket and my spouse still loves them though they’re hard to find now.
Sorry for the threadjack…carry on.
24.
Mr.HCI | February 4, 2010 at 1:09 pm
I still have my Pet Rock! It’s in the curio cabinet in our living room.
^_^
25.
truthspew | February 4, 2010 at 9:49 am
Exactly – we have to wait for the bigots to die off. There are two trends I am very interested in right now. The first of course how the 18 to 29 groups approves of marriage equality by high margins (Here in RI it’s 82% for the group, overall about a 2:1 margin in support of marriage equality)
The other trend is the rise of atheism in this country. The northeast runs at about 20% overall. Without the religious beliefs, the arguments against marriage equality fall away.
26.
Richard W. Fitch | February 4, 2010 at 10:17 am
Please don’t automatically lump all religious beliefs into the same dung heap. As an American Episcopalian, I am proud that the leadership of our church is moving vigorously ahead to make “all the baptized equal”. That includes writing new liturgy for same-sex MARRIAGE, LGBT leadership at all levels – from parish to General Convention, and the consecration of all clergy in committed relationships to the office of bishop. ….Now the Southern Baptist Convention may take another 500 years to follow suit, but even they may see the light, albeit, it may be the headlamp of the express train about to run them over.
27.
David Kimble | February 4, 2010 at 10:31 am
Thanks, Richard, I do understand your point and agree there are those religions that are moving towards equality, yet others, like the Catholic and Mormon beliefs, I see very little movement. It is part of their dogma that marriage is for procreation only.
Love,
David
28.
fiona64 | February 4, 2010 at 10:52 am
To this, I would add that the Metropolitan Community Church is at the forefront of equality efforts.
The only reason I ever walked into a church again (after more than 20 years away) was the loving compassion of a MCC pastor in 2009.
Love,
Fiona
29.
David Kimble | February 4, 2010 at 10:56 am
Yes, Fiona, the MCC has long been known in the gay community, as respecting equal rights – there is also the Unitarian Church, which has been at the forefront of change too.
Love,
David
30.
Straight Ally #3008 | February 4, 2010 at 11:01 am
The other thing to keep in mind is that the increase in support for marriage equality is running well ahead of any decrease in religiosity in the U.S. We don’t see a comparable trend (alas) for acceptance of evolution, for example. I think the driving force is our distaste for discrimination combined with greater numbers of friends, neighbors, and family who are openly LGBT; once you see someone as a normal human being and not some shadowy “other,” you see that treating them differently for something that an inherent trait is unjust.
And yes, at the same time, outreach to various religious faiths is critical (another parallel to evolution education). As Richard noted, religious communities can be powerful allies.
31.
Straight Ally #3008 | February 4, 2010 at 11:02 am
make that “that is an inherent trait.”
32.
Bill | February 5, 2010 at 7:34 am
Telling an LGTB citizen not to lump all religious beliefs into the same dung heap is like telling a former slave that some slave owners are friendly.
33.
Sheryl Carver | February 5, 2010 at 9:55 am
Actually, Bill, with all due respect, it’s more like asking a former slave to remember that not all white folks were slave owners. And that many whites worked very hard to abolish slavery.
Love,
Sheryl (bi-sexual woman; very ex-Catholic)
34.
David Kimble | February 4, 2010 at 10:27 am
I just clicked-on the 365gay.com link at this site and this is what I found.
http://www.365gay.com/news/nepal-to-legalize-gay-marriage-offer-weddings-on-mt-everest/
I find it amazing that other countries can recognize gay marriage, yet in the land of the free, it still boils down to a battle of religiousosity.
Love,
David
35.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 10:38 am
Not to mention that America is supposed to be the leaders in everything right?
36.
David Kimble | February 4, 2010 at 10:53 am
Yes, exactly, Ronnie! Yet, as we all know, America has not been the leaders in everything right. As a matter of fact, other countries have usually taken the lead in such matters, first, long before America signs-onboard.
Love,
David
37.
slsmith66 | February 4, 2010 at 10:53 am
I’d say as far as equal rights were a 3rd world country.
38.
fiona64 | February 4, 2010 at 10:58 am
Heck, our resident Phyllis Schlafly clone, “Kay,” seems to think that’s fine. Am I the only one who’s seen her screed about how no-fault divorce shouldn’t be permitted, because “opportunistic cads” use it to prey on women? ‘Cause, of course, there were no opportunistic cads preying on women before no-fault divorce — or who used the fact of its non-existence to abuse their wives.
Love,
Fiona
39.
David Kimble | February 4, 2010 at 1:33 pm
No, you are not the only one, who has seen Phyllis’ own brand of tyranny and hatred. My mother used to subscribe to her newsletter and she had me read it once. My reply was short and to the point, “hatred and bigotry wear many caps.”
Love, David
40.
Kay Moore | February 4, 2010 at 6:49 pm
No, you weren’t the only person. The guy I was responding to, who cited no-fault divorce as something that weakened marriage, also presumably saw it. But Phyllis Schafly is much better than I… she contributed to taking down the ERA while I simply express opinions.
41.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | February 4, 2010 at 9:32 pm
slsmith66, I hateto disagree with you, but in all honesty, when it comes to equality, even third world countries are doing better right now than the US. I would say that, where equality is concerned, we are more like a fourth or even fifth world country.
42.
Lo | February 4, 2010 at 12:21 pm
“I find it amazing that other countries can recognize gay marriage, yet in the land of the free, it still boils down to a battle of religiousosity.”
I agree! and to add to that.. PORTUGAL, a very religious country, had Parliament approve same sex marriage. They know what separation of church and state actually means!
43.
David Kimble | February 4, 2010 at 1:44 pm
What is ironic, is when Prop8 came on the horizon and the Mormon Church began its organization to support Prop8 (all under the direction of the priesthood), I pointed-out to them (my mother is Mormon and I live with her), the “separation of Church and State” clause to them. Yet, they argued, it did not apply to them, so I shut my mouth and figured, okay, I will just let you guys hang yourselves.
Love,David
44.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Excuse me!…Keyboard meet head…BOAW! BOAW! BOAW!
“That doesn’t apply to us”…out …get out,…. traitor!
OMG! the law doesn’t apply to you? seriuosly they say that and used untaxed money to pay for prop ha8te campaign..How are they still in this country?
45.
Kay Moore | February 4, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Well, at one point they tried to leave then the country decided to annex them back in. But they seem to understand the legal precedents of “seperation of church and state” better than most.
46.
Felyx | February 4, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Regarding Marriage in other countries;
It is important to consider the size, population and political structure of these countries that have recognized the value of free and happy people.
Europe as a whole is not unlike the United States and in fact Europe itself recognized this when it decided to coalesce its economic structure. Currently, based on the success of the European Economic Union, it is investing a great deal of time creating a ‘treaty’ of sorts that is similar to the full faith and credit clause of the US. A major issue in this legislation is how SSM is addressed.
When you point out Portugal or Spain or Ireland as being progressive, remember these countries are the size of Texas or smaller. These countries are small enough to make progress at an uneven rate as opposed to a larger country like China, Russia or The US that has enormous populations, economies or political systems.
In light of this, the US is the first and only superpower to recognize gay civil rights on level of Marriage Equality in part or in whole. From this point of view, the US is very progressive!
As California goes so goes the nation…as the nation goes so goes the world!
(FYI, Iran is not actually part of this world but is being materially projected here from the planet that is adjacent to the one from which the LDS are being projected….it’s all in the Book of Mormon as explain by hte Church of Scientology……..just so’s ya know.)
47.
Andrew | February 4, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Felyx
Are you serious?
As the USA goes, so goes the world?
Have you ever been outside of the USA ? Or lived in another country?
48.
Felyx | February 4, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Yes, I have lived in several different countries. I am not suggesting that we own the world or the world only looks to America; but suffice it to say, democratic and republic style governments have spread in large part due to US influence, monetary policy looks closely at the US for guidance, most of South America feel repressed by our influence, Israel is probably still in existence due to US support, Russia railed against the American way before adopting certain (primarily economic) practices, the Middle East has a love hate relationship with the US unlike any other ethno-national group…..yes we are a benchmark, a standard, a leader, a profound influence on the world……at least until China gets its act together. Then we will have an equal that we will be obligated to respect!!!
So in essence yes, I know a little bit about what I am talking about. US social policy regarding SSM will have a profound impact on world politics.
49.
Felyx | February 4, 2010 at 7:39 pm
A caveat— The US may be the global heavyweight at the moment as it was for the last century, but I still think it has a nasty divisive arrogantly edgy attitude. I want to live in Canada or Denmark or even France. I felt so much more comfortable there.
50.
Andrew | February 4, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Felyx,
*sigh*
re: China getting it’s ‘act together’ and you suggesting “Then we will have an equal that we will be obligated to respect!!!”
ah.. Wake up to yourself. I’m sorry, but America is not the most free country, or the most powerful country in the world.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad you’re having the Mariage Equality fight, and I’m hoping that you win for the sake of countries that do look to America for legislative precedent. However, please do not be so ostentatious to assume you are the One Country, To Rule Them All.
China owns you. And most of the rest of the world (free and not free) despises you (America & Americans) and not because your average American is ‘bad’ but because people like you consistently utter ridiculous statements like “So goes the nation, then the world” and “When China gets it’s act together, we will have an equal”
51.
Felyx | February 4, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Andrew, I am not USian so much the less an arrogant one. I only live here because my business is here. China doesn’t actually own the US; its deference to the US is profound and will remain so for some time to come!
The US (and, unless you are referring to a larger American social structure, please call it the US because there are other Americans who are not USian)
is indeed not the most free or powerful (except in military might and perhaps is some important ways economically. It is however a world leader and because of its shere size and economy will remain so. All those non US people, nations or corporations wishing to do business with the US know KNOW how important it is to appear appealing to US interests.
China is too large at the moment to be completely independent but is in the process of becoming very self reliant. Iran is too small and otherwise well connected to have to be dependent. Much of the rest of the world is far more cautious. and North America in general would do well to start to heavily and wisely invest in SA and Africa as well as any other lesser economy.
I have an exceptional broad view of ‘how things work’ due to an extensive sociological background. I do not call the US anything more or less than it is.
52.
Andrew | February 4, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Felyx,
I’ve read your response and my previous comments stand.
53.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Andrew I say the same thing about this country and I live here, My family has been here for 7 gens, since right after the D.O.I was signed(on my mother side) My fathers side well we all no that early AA’s didn’t have choice….I have always said that the new “American” attitude is that we are the leaders are are supposed to be the leaders in everything. But I don’t agree with that. I believe that America is just as f-ed up as the rest of the world. I have even pointed it out on other MB’s. Don’t get me wrong I have a little pride for this country because of my current family….i never met my grandmother but she was a racist.
I’ve never been out of America but I have friends who lived in France and live in Italy…I know how the rest of the world sees America an dI try to explain to them but there is this ego..I call it “atom supercilious”. If it wan’t for my family I would have no connection to this country at all. When I was younger I had pride for it with my grandfather sailor who survived Pearl and me uncle who was brave enough to come out at 13 in the 60’s..and how support my 100+ family is supportive ther is not one person in my family that is against SSM and gay rights and that includes JW’s, christians, and catholics. but I don’t feel that strong connection to America with all its you are free to be like me. I like to thing of myself as an Earthian….who can’t afford to see the rest of his home…cuz this Betch is broke…lol
Although I’ve actually considered moving to Canada, Belgium, or Denmark and I want to see Melbourne and France and Milan.
54.
Felyx | February 4, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Standing Comment: ah.. Wake up to yourself. I’m sorry, but America is not the most free country, or the most powerful country in the world.
“ah.. Wake up to yourself.” This is simply a comment. It is not one that would be used in a debating format. It stands on the mere fact that you said it.
“America is…[a] country” America, at best is two countries, The US and Canada. ‘The Americas’ would include SA…but then that was not your word. This comment perhaps stands on the perception that Canada is not American? Or are you claiming the only country worthy of the title ‘America’ is the US? Your implication in your message was that I was unfairly extoling the virtues of the US or was protraying the US to be more than it was, yet your use of the title ‘America’ to represent just the US is an indication of either your own misperception of the US’s relative greatness or your on disrespect of other Americans.
“I’m sorry, but America[sic] is not the most free country, or the most powerful country in the world.” This comment stands again on the mere fact that you said it. It is not a rebuttal of anything I directly stated or implied. The US is the most SINGULARLY powerful country in the world but its power is not greater than the rest of the world taken in whole or even in the greater part. Military Might aside, I made my statement based on America’s economic standing and particularly the US’s position as the largest economy in the world with Japan placing second. (A country PROFOUNDLY influenced by the US!)
I decline to analyse further. If this doesn’t make my point then there is no point.
Andrew, I would ask, humbly, that you reconsider your view that I am ostentatious, dispicable, ridiculous or United Statesian (Not that there is anything wrong with that! LOL)
55.
Andrew | February 4, 2010 at 9:03 pm
When you wrote:
The US is the most SINGULARLY powerful country in the world but its power is not greater than the rest of the world taken in whole or even in the greater part
What you should have wrote:
The US is the most SINGULARLY stupid country in the world but its stupidity is not greater than the rest of the world taken in whole or even in the greater part
56.
Felyx | February 4, 2010 at 10:01 pm
For the record, this comment is clearly based on an emotional arguement.
But considering that the US is founded on industry through slavery, once physical now economic, is home the the Great Defenders of all Faiths……Jesus based, home to child stealing Baptists and root of all things Mormon…..well, my only dignified recourse is to defer.
I concede.
(‘Cuz secretly I kinda agree with you! ;`)
57.
Felyx | February 4, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Wow Ronnie!
I thoroughly enjoyed reading that! That is perspective I never would have known without you making this comment.
I just got to see a side of you that makes me feel wonderful just to have known you. Thank-you. Thank-you for sharing that with all of us!
(I can honestly say that now I have a better understanding of why you interacted the way to did with Ken. So much more of the context of your comments make sense to me now. Again Thank-you!)
So sincerely,
Felyx
58.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 11:13 pm
umm Your welcome…Is that a good thing or a bad thing? What exactly do you now understand about me?
59.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | February 5, 2010 at 10:19 am
2 kay #45. Actually, Kay, if they truly understood the separation of church and state, they would never have functioned as a PAC, and Californians would not have been force-fed the lies and the fear that led to the passage of Prop h8!
60.
george | February 5, 2010 at 7:57 am
That’s why Nepal is, well, Nepal, and the United States is the most powerful nation in the world.
61.
fiona64 | February 5, 2010 at 8:57 am
Let me fix that sentence for you, George …
” … the United States is the most powerful nation in the world if you are a straight, white male.”
Love,
Fiona (who has no patience with MCPs)
62.
Felyx | February 5, 2010 at 10:07 am
To George,
Power certainly isn’t inner beauty….one never hears of a Nepalese Embassy being bombed. If Jesus does exist in the manner in which so many USians believe, and if there were to be a rapture, and assuming that YOU were even raptured for some technical reason, you would not see Nepalese people in the line….you would be too far behind towards the back of the line….behind Hitler, who got in because he was a vegetarian and encouraged people to quit smoking!
To Ronnie,
Yes, a very good thing. I have a greater appreciation for your writing style. I have a better understanding of your comments now htat I have a context within which to put them.
You ‘opened my eyes’…again, Thank-you.
63.
Ronnie | February 5, 2010 at 10:52 am
Your Welcome, David
i admit that I can get pretty harsh sometimes but I speak from the heart and not my @$$ like some people. I don’t post anything to provoke someone. I posted it because I was provoked.
1. I hate when people assume to know that they know what it’s like to be Gay.
2. I really hate when people use pretentious words to underhandedly insult you….Just do insulting like I do direct and to the point.
3. Don’t be a hypocrite. Don’t post things that are disrespectful and then get P.Oed when I do the same to you.
4. This is an LGBT advocacy site for people to learn about what resources they have and what is going on in the community. Don’t tell LGBT people that you have gay friends but you don’t want equality for them and that it is Ok what the religious reich is doing to oppress LGBT people…with friends like that who needs enemies….LGBT people are not friends with people like that… we tolerate you…we don’t like you.
5. Don’t throw the lies of prop ha8te and the rest, because we have a rational debunking for all of it and all you do is repeat it over again…its a bit annoying and abundantly redundant.
I can’t say that I am fully American because I don’t feel like one….I can’t get married in most states, I can’t serve in the army openly so If i wanted too I would have to lie and omit while breaking the honor code. Although I am not afraid of anything other then snakes, spiders, sharks and clowns in most places in America I’m not safe even in the cities that are heavily LGBT populated. But little do they know. that I was a boxer in high school and I even though I support gun control I also support the right to bare arms as long as you know the proper way to store and control one.
Humans are truly a disgusting species because we have all this knowledge and we use it to control others and force our superiority over each other and the other species that we share this planet with.
I call American attitude and Ego “atom supercilious” because we hold the fear that we can end it with just the drop of bomb over the rest of the world…and in some cases the stab of a knife, and the trigger of a gun. But guess what with proof of 9-11 and everything else..SO CAN THEY!…and you can quote me on that!
64.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 11:02 am
Ok this Guy is now another one of my Heros! and I don’t know who he even is…LMAO!!!..Does anybody know this guy?
65.
Straight Ally #3008 | February 4, 2010 at 11:23 am
That’s Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks.
66.
slsmith66 | February 4, 2010 at 11:25 am
Just that he is part of the young turks, a pod cast on youtube.
67.
slsmith66 | February 4, 2010 at 11:26 am
Straight ally got the name and beat me to the post! LOL TY Ally
68.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 11:27 am
LOL…thanks guys
69.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | February 5, 2010 at 10:28 am
Ronnie, you just added to MY list of heroes. Way to go!
70.
waxr | February 4, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Currently the tide is in favor of gay and lesbian equal rights. For the first time, other countries are recognizing same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has been adopted in several states. Court decisions have generally been favorable. Congress and the president appear friendly. But we cannot count on this continuing. The opposition has powerful weapon: Hate and fear.
Love has a nice sound to it. People like hearing about it. But love does not move people to action. A typical attitude about ssm is, “Go ahead and get married, it doesn’t bother me.” Then that person does no more because it will never affect his or her life.
But when people believe that something can injure them, they unite in self protection and fear. The are a hard enemy to defeat.
Groups against same sex marriage have resorted to instilling hate and fear into voters. This can be seen in the adds they ran in the Prop 8 campaign, and in adds they are running in several states which have not taken a position. They claim that they are the victims. They could turn the tide.
71.
David Kimble | February 4, 2010 at 12:55 pm
I sent an e-mail to this website, when they asked what they would like to see this website transform into after the trial is complete and the verdict is given – I sent a message to them, I would like to see this site become a place for each of us to tell our stories, as to why gay marriage is so important to us personally.
Just in case, this doesn’t happen, I wanted to take a few minutes and tell why this case is so important to me, personally. In the mid 1970’s, my partner and I had been together for nearly 5 years, when he was diagnosed with Leukemia. He would only live another year and a half. He had a will, and his will was ignored by the courts and his family, claiming that there was bias on his behalf, caused by me. I had contributed to the house in many ways. The house was our together and it was taken away from me, when I lost Peter (that was his name) to his disease. For me, this was a double loss, since not only did I lose him, but I also lost everything we had built together, there are still times, when I dream about him and the great times we shared, so not all is lost, they can never take away my dreams and memories of him and I together. By the way, I am 56 years old and I am hoping I live to see gay marriage legal in all the states.
Love,
David
72.
fiona64 | February 4, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Dear David:
Thank you for sharing your story. I am so grateful that you are here.
Love,
Fiona
73.
David Kimble | February 4, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Thank you Fiona,
Love,
David
BTW, I have beat cancer twice in my life and I am currently again undergoing chemotherapy for malignant tubular cancer in my stomach.
74.
David Kimble | February 4, 2010 at 1:07 pm
oops, not tubular cancer, testicular cancer, so sorry!
Love,
David
75.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 1:19 pm
To David….maybe what you meant was that testicular cancer is not tubular….like for sure….I’m sorry I couldn’t help me self.
My aunt died from breast cancer in 1991 when I was 7(just about) So I know how you feel….my deepest condolences.
76.
fiona64 | February 4, 2010 at 1:19 pm
My prayers and thoughts are with you, David.
Love,
Fiona
77.
Mr.HCI | February 4, 2010 at 1:15 pm
How awful for you, David! And how not uncommon, sadly.
I’ve pointed things like this out on many occasions to people opposed to ssm. Standard answer: poor planning, too bad, no sympathy.
It makes my blood boil.
78.
Ozymandias ('cause it's cooler than 'Elbert') | February 4, 2010 at 1:17 pm
You’re right Mr. HCI – and a big part of it is, unfortunately, that these people have no idea what it’s like to go through what David described… and the worst of them don’t even care when the legal nightmare is spelled out to them. It’s ridiculous.
Love,
Ozy
79.
Richard W. Fitch | February 4, 2010 at 1:44 pm
The part that makes it even more infuriating is that no matter how carefully partners may plan, there are underhanded family members and money hungry lawyers who are able to circumvent the plans. One account indicates that it costs about $25,000 to create the legal paperwork an opposite sex couple gets for $100 or less with a standard marriage license. The incident last year of the family about to embark on a cruise when one became ill, and subsequently died, again shows how easy it is for authorities to ignore sound legal papers.
80.
Marlene Bomer | February 4, 2010 at 2:23 pm
This another example of the ban on SSM forcing couples to get Durable Power of Attorney, Living Wills, etc. which violates the “separate but equal” bans, set by the SCOTUS!
81.
Ozymandias ('cause it's cooler than 'Elbert') | February 4, 2010 at 1:18 pm
David, thanks so much for sharing your story with us! It’s just terrible that you had to go through that.
Love,
Ozy
82.
Sheryl | February 4, 2010 at 1:41 pm
I’m so sorry that you not only went thru the loss of your partner but also went thru the way his family treated you after his death. I know those families exist but cannot imagine, and they probably consider themselves a good Christian family. Of course there was bias on his behalf because of you, the same bias that would have existed were you a hetero couple and married. That is a no brainer. I get so upset at stories like yours, actually at any story that portrays injustice.
83.
rpx | February 4, 2010 at 2:11 pm
David, I am very sorry for your loss it is obvious you still feel your loss today 3 decades later. If you were married to Peter this never would have happened. Thank you for enlightning us even if it caused you pain to share it.
Love
rpx
84.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | February 4, 2010 at 9:38 pm
David, I know whereof you speak, and I want you to know that you are my hero, not only for standing up for the truth and what is right, but also for the fact that, as a former Relay for Life Team Captain, you are a hero to me becaue you fought the cancer and won. ANd you will win against this one also. Keep up th good fight, and let’s all go out and celebrate once we have full equality for ALL Americans, not just the ones who think they are the only ones “going to Heaven.” And if we don’t get to meet down here, when we meet up there, I want to meet Peter and also to introduce you to Joe (my first husband, even though we were not allowed to legalize it) and BZ (my current husband, who is going to make “an honest little Jewish boy ” out of me in April. These two men have accounted for the happiest times I have ever had as an adult, and I want to tell everyone how special and honorable they are.
85.
David Kimble | February 4, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Thank you all for your caring and loving of each of us in a manner that is befitting our community.
Love,
David
86.
Sheryl | February 4, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Are you on the facebook page, scolled thru the members but didn’t see your name (of course may have missed it). If not, do join us there.
87.
rpx | February 4, 2010 at 2:16 pm
I have learned a LOT here on Prop8TT and was pleased to be able to use some of these facts in a comment which was published at the Los Angeles Times under Grandmother.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/comments_blog/2010/02/la-filmmakers-produce-video-of-same-sex-marriage-trial.html
I thought I did pretty good coming up with the headscarves corollary. Being that I’m in France it was an easy one for me to think of as this is an issue here with so many arab immigrants.
88.
David Kimble | February 4, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Thanx, rpx. I just went to the LA Times website and posted a comment – by the way – they are screening all comments, so I guess it is safe to say, just be patient. This issue needs to be in front of everyone and I am happy the LA Times has this story. They have had several other good pieces too. However, I think this one is one of their best!
Love,
David
89.
nightshayde | February 5, 2010 at 6:05 pm
I’ve now posted, too.
90.
Felyx | February 5, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Poignant commentary. I noticed the longer comments in general are better thought out and more down to earth. It was a nice contrast to some of the other comments being posted.
Most of all, you stood up not only for minority views, but I noticed you stood up for conscientious application of faith. I personally look at non-historical non-philosophical parts of faith as being mythological stories or morality tales to promote or to espouse a particular view. Regardless of this though, I feel that there are those that need this in there lived to grow and develop into fuller more spiritual beings. Using religion in the manner you described does not truly do this. Quite the opposite, it turns people off to ignorance and religious study and application; it turns people off to the better parts of what faith and religion have to offer.
Thank you for being a voice of reason. Thank you for being a voice of love.
Sincerely,
Felyx
91.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Ok you know what I need to bring this up, I just remembered that the Mormons release a calendar called “Men on a Mission”…now they half to know that the majority of people who buy that calendar are Gay Men right?
Come on LDS? What the hull?
92.
Richard W. Fitch | February 4, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Ronnie, you’e partially right. The calendar had hunky former Mormon missionaries, but was not a LDS publication. Also the photographer who WAS a Mormon was ousted. Have you seen any of the pics? Some of them are indeed awesome!
93.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Yeah I saw them…..drool drool drool…..um ok…yeah but still..
94.
Felyx | February 5, 2010 at 7:34 pm
I’m waiting for the video version….’Men on a Missionary’!
LOLOLOL
95.
Tim | February 4, 2010 at 2:25 pm
How can people not see ua as loving caring human beings. I love you all! David I agree with your Idea.
there was a thread attatched to this one called “Introduce your self” It brought tears to my eyes and warmth to my heart. lets keep up the good work people.
With love Tim…
96.
fiona64 | February 4, 2010 at 3:26 pm
You know, I just went back and re-read every single story on that thread. I am humbled by the courage shown by all of you.
Love,
Fiona
97.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Now, Fiona64, If we could only change the basic trait of bigotry, Which is that they only see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear, They would read the same thing and be converted…you know into humans.
98.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | February 4, 2010 at 9:42 pm
And I for one, fiona, am honored to have this chance to get to know you and to get to know all of these courageos people on the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. All of you increase my courage and my conviction to keep on fighting until justice is served. This is my family and my community here. ALL OF YOU ROCK!! EQUALITY FOR ALL RULES!!!
99.
Tim | February 4, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Sorry fiona you should have been comment #64. damn. LOL I like 65 better…..
100.
Andrew | February 4, 2010 at 2:53 pm
This is really interesting. We are watching this case from all around the world. I am in Sydney and while we don’t have campaigns from the extreme conservative right trying to undermine political and legal reform surrounding gay and lesbian rights in Australia, we do have significant issues.
We still can’t get Married. Our government recognises homosexual partnerships in terms of Tax, and Welfare and Immigration. But our Human Rights legislation does not protect GLBT people, so when issues arrise, we have no federal action of recourse.
How many times have you heard “Gay Marriage will be legal in the next 10 years for sure”
I’ve been hearing it since 1990. 20 years ago :(
Best,
Andrew
@engayment
101.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Andrew, I have posted about Australia being near to legalizing SSM on another thread because I have a friend that lives in Melbourne. he said that even though the bill was tabled last summer that there is still some progress can you elaborate on that.? I tried to find info online but couldn’t find strong facts.
102.
Andrew | February 4, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Hi Ronnie,
We are no where near getting SSM. Recently a law was passed allowing civil unions in one of our territories (The Australian Capital Territory) and it will probably be overturned by our Prime Minister who is actually meant to be left wing (He is very christian)
You will get SSM before we do. Long before we do.
103.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 3:09 pm
That sucks,,,,but do you think if it was put up to a vote by the people would it be legalized?…I don’t know how the gov there is, but I did read that over 60% of the people are for SSM. (not that polls can be trusted)
104.
Andrew | February 4, 2010 at 3:12 pm
I have polling data that says it is largely supported by the people as most Australians are very easy going, and not at all terrified by the prospect of going to a Hell over something like Gay Equality.
However, we are in the unfortunate position that our left wing government is quite conservative, and our right wing opposition party is even more conservative. We are screwed either way.
105.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 3:25 pm
First I’m going to tell my friend that he’s full of BS, but in his defense I think he trying to get me to move there.
2nd True but maybe you should try to push a public vote, if you haven’t already. He said that the last protest brought over 8000 people..I looked that up and found facts to back that up.
I mean I wonder what these dingbats need to leave us alone and treat us the equal. It’s not respect or they wouldn’t say half the words they do.
106.
Andrew | February 4, 2010 at 3:29 pm
It’s religion, and ignorance. You can’t teach people unfortunately. You just have to wait until they die and hope they were too lazy to pass on their ignorance to their children.
Australians go about it the wrong way. Any chance for a ‘rally’ and they are all for it. But none of them seem to care that our own Human Rights Commission (the very body tasked with protecting us) doesn’t protect gay people at all from discrimination. They specifically will not handle matters of discrimination if they are motivated by issues of sexual preference. I mean. Ask a gay person in Australia “Are you protected by your government because you’re gay?” and they will not know the answer, but invite them to a Gay Marriage rally, and they will be there! It’s a chance to meet hot boys.
107.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Geeze, what you guys needs is a bunch of American Humans (thats what I call us American LGBT’s and straight allies) to move there and really push the issue.
Thats what we should do people, lets make this a global issue. Let’s get loud everywhere and Dominate!!!!!!!!!!!
108.
Andrew | February 4, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Read the comments on my blog. The earlier entries. You’ll be horrified by the homophobia in Australia. You’d never know it existed.
engaymenet.org
109.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I can’t find it?
110.
Andrew | February 4, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Um. http://www.Engayment.org
http://www.engayment.org/rant/thanks-joe-youre-my-ray-of-sunshine/
111.
Andrew | February 4, 2010 at 4:09 pm
My comment is awaiting moderation cause of the link.
Just google gay activist andrew james
It’s all there.
112.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Sadly the same things you talk about go on here too
1. If anybody says “I support gay rights or SSM”, then you are Gay….. : /
2. On most MBs and DBs I have come across hypos(even a few on here) that get P.O.ed when I throw their hate words back at them, reversing the words…. >[
3. It’s ok for the churches and relig-nuts to call us derogatory names, but when we do it we are wrong…..keyboard meet face BOAW! BOAW! BOAW!
4. They clearly do not take any threats from the pro-gay side seriously, what so ever- I sent a letter, email, video, text, and 10 phone calls to the new governor of NJ stating that I will not pay taxes until SSM is legal….still waiting on the audit IRS…come on FBI arrest me!
5. They really under estimate, and that is always what bites you in the ass.
113.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 4:36 pm
and P.S. Love your blog
114.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Have you guys ever heard of “The Resident”? This chick is awesome:
115.
Ronnie | February 4, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Granted much has changed since she made this video Like Portugal legalizing Same Sex Marriage (SWEET!!)
116.
David Kimble | February 4, 2010 at 4:33 pm
What a great video – it is good to laugh! Love, David
117.
Casey | February 4, 2010 at 6:24 pm
@Andrew: I’m interested in your comments about Australia. I had a shocking surprise during my time there (I did a master’s at UNSW a few years ago). I couldn’t believe the homophobia and racism in Sydney. I lived in Yagoona for a time, and also lived in Maroubra and Coogee. It seemed that there was a lot of tension between different cultural groups. Some cultures view LGBT folks quite negatively, although certainly not all people in those cultures do. Many of the people I met were first generation immigrants from Lebanon, China, India….lots of places. They didn’t seem to understand each other, which is to be expected when different cultures all end up on one island. A few people actually said they *hated* this person or that person because thay were from a certain country – I heard that from Lebanese people I knew, white Aussies, and a girl I knew from Sri Lanka. That kind of tension and fear is a pretty strong force. From your perspective as an Aussie person, do you think the growing diversity contributes to homophobia?
118.
Andrew | February 4, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Hi Casey,
Thanks for your message. I definitely think that ignorance, be it general ignorance, or cultural ignorance will contribute to discrimination and bigotry.
You are right, and your experience here is not unique. Australia is (as much as the tourism commercials make out otherwise) very racist, and very homophobic.
In the big cities, it’s not as bad, because people have no choice but to get on with it. But in the smaller suburban areas (and there are many) it is terrible.
Where I grew up, I was bashed and beaten for being gay, even before I knew I was gay. If you were of Asian appearance in my home town, your parents must be the owners of the local Chinese food store, or you got lost on holiday.
The saddest part about all of this, is it is so secret. It’s so hidden from public view.
John Pilger gave an amazing speech about it, and called it the Australian Silence: you can read it here: http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/818/42033
I’m sorry you had a bad time here, but it was good you saw the place for what it really was. Are you on twitter?
119.
Andrew | February 4, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Here is a link to the speech in mp3 and video format
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/11/20/2749050.htm
120.
dieter | February 4, 2010 at 7:22 pm
hello you all
121.
dieter | February 4, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Hi everyone…please watch my video as a reminder what we are fighting for
122.
fiona64 | February 5, 2010 at 6:57 am
I loved this video from the moment I first saw it.
Love,
Fiona
123.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | February 5, 2010 at 10:40 am
That is so right! Nobody deserves to have a divorce shoved down their throat simply because of who they are. Two people who are over the age of consent should be allowed to have their legal wedding, and to be allowed the choice as to where they get married. And I remember some of the couples in these pictures from my time in California (the Sandy Eggo area) back in 1981 and 1982. Nobody has the right to force them to get divorced simply because they are same sex couples. Dieter, thank you for posting this!
124.
David Kimble | February 5, 2010 at 10:49 am
Great video – thanks for sharing it with us! It made me cry!
Love,
David
125.
Ronnie | February 5, 2010 at 11:04 am
See this is what I want….A Marriage…If I wanted to be committed, I would check into a hospital….If I wanted to be a Domestic Partner I would buy into a American beer company…. I try to be civil but by emotions take control sometimes…but if I wanted to be in a Union, I would join a union.
This video is perfect!
Thank you Dieter
126.
Casey | February 4, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Andrew,
I am so sorry to hear of your experiences growing up. No one should face that kind of pain, physical and emotional, because of who they are. My heart goes out to you, and to other people around you who faced homophobia and racism. To answer your question, I am on Twitter.
Thank you for the speech. Pilger both inspired and shamed me – he is very, very observant in his assessment of fear, ignorance, and social classes that result directly from prejudice. Many of the symptoms of these things are epidemic in America, which everyone seems to know except the Americans – excluding those of us who pay attention and work to change what needs to change. It was particularly fascinating to hear Pilger’s comments on “worthy” versus “unworthy” victims. His discussion on civilian deaths during conflict was very poignant indeed. I hope his speech had good viewership in Australia. He is using a cultural context that easily translates to other contexts – it seems clear to me that LGBT people are considered unworthy victims: inherently less valuable than other types of folks. As propaganda-monger Edward Bernays said, “What matters is the illusion.”
Thank you for the validation of my experiences in Sydney. My friends in America don’t believe me! For the record, there are many wonderful things about your country, among them, the bizarre names for various coffees :) I loved the wonderful arts scene, green spaces, and the beautiful queens on Oxford Street! Also, wallabies. Those are cool.
127.
Andrew | February 4, 2010 at 8:41 pm
I’m so glad to read that you saw the speech. It was amazing. He is an amazing man.
I was in Wisconsin for Christmas for 4 weeks. There are many great things about your country too, sadly, I couldn’t find any of them in Chicago.
How long ago were you in Sydney?
What is your twitter? you forgot to put it in.
128.
Casey | February 5, 2010 at 6:43 am
Apologies, Andew. My twitter is mundaetraversa.
129.
ace | February 4, 2010 at 8:50 pm
i have a quick question why did people even vote if a minority can trune around and get rid of something the majority voted on. kinda makes voting stupid, if the voice everyone says we have with voting, doesn’t even matter.
130.
Felyx | February 4, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Really good question. If you are interested in US history I recommend you research the Federalist Papers.
The US is a democracy in the sense that every individual can vote on representation and on legislation…politicians and laws. For most things it is accepted that a majority rule is acceptable in that it is the simplist voting method to ensure that the most persons are being served. The majority vote, as a rule, is tolerated if the minority voters are not significantly harmed in the process. Ex. The minority vote may not like the political candidate that won, but that candidate is not a significant direct threat and can be replace in the next voting cycle.
In reality, the US is more akin to a Republic in that the populace votes for those individuals that would represent it and its best interests. At the time of the founding of the US of A, this was perhaps the best means of organizing and policing (in the sense that it shares the same root word policy and politics) the vast population. To have everyone voting would be too cumbersome and to have rule by a single individual was considered intolerable (and still is.)
However, on occasions, there arises situations where the majority will not be fair to the minority and those who are elected will not keep everyone’s best interests at heart.
Hence, the system of redress, the judiciary. If the minority population cannot find relief either by direct democracy nor by representation then it will appeal to the system of last resort. The redress itself is not a guarantee. It is up to a judge (and depending on the circumstances a jury) to weight the facts of the complaint and to make a decision as to how to proceed.
In the case of the CA SSM dispute I believe a minority population (GLBT individuals) appealed to a particular representative (if I have my facts straight,) in this case an elected mayor, and were granted the right to marry. A vote in that particular city was taken and the marriages overturned (and the money refunded.) A civil suit went to a higher level (I am guess a State court) and received a favorable ruling. Prop 22 was then balloted and voted on overturning the judicial ruling as it trumped the courts by virtue of direct democratic legislation. The minority individuals then again, being unable to convince elected representation to ammend the law, again pursued redress in court and won a favorable ruling. Marriages license were again issued to SS couples. Prop 8 was then balloted as an amendment not to the statutes as Prop 22 was, but to the CA constitution and again was passed but by a narrower margin. Appeals to representation once again were not effect and so the plaintiffs again sought redress in the CA Supreme Court, the only court permitted to deal with CA constitutional issues. This is where we stand now.
As you can see, it is not exactly easy for a minority to overturn a majority vote. The time and expense are so considerable that the particular minority have got to really want what they are asking for to continue arguing for a law or right for so long.
The voting process is essential so that we can be assured that the views have been heard regardless of whether they are in keeping with the appropriate legislation.
The right to seek judicial review is essential so that no one is left without the rights due them due to majority rule.
131.
Casey | February 5, 2010 at 6:51 am
I have heard some Californians express a distaste for the initiative system in general, because of situations like he one we are currently in. I would guess the state intends for initiatives to give a greater voice to the people, but I don’t really understand why they continue to do it that way. It seems very complex put a system in place that allows direct democracy, when our other systems allow for representative democracy, as Felyx has explained. I am learning a lot about state governments and how different thay are from these conversations!
132.
fiona64 | February 5, 2010 at 9:57 am
Casey, the initiative system was implemented at the turn of the 20th century to help break the monopoly that Southern Pacific Railway had in the state. It has been abused woefully ever since, with the CA Constitution amended by initiative some 500 times in the 100 intervening years.
Compare to 28 amendments to the US Constitution.
Honestly, I think that trying to insert direct democracy into a constitutional republic is nothing but problematic. Any yutz with a clipboard and a grudge can get something on the ballot. I am so glad that a CA state Constitutional Convention is being called, and hopefully this stupid initiative thing will go away.
Love,
Fiona
133.
fiona64 | February 5, 2010 at 6:50 am
Oh, dear me. It seems we have another homeschooling casualty on our hands.
Ace, we do not live in a direct democracy where “majority rules.” We live in a constitutional republic, with checks and balances to make sure that the rights of the minority are not abused by a tyrannical majority.
I would recommend that you read Federalist Paper No. 10, which explains this in great detail.
http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3130feder10.html
Enjoy.
Love,
Fiona (who is astonished at the number of people who do not understand how our government works)
134.
Andrea | February 5, 2010 at 7:40 am
I’m getting a 404 from Fiona’s link.
Here’s another link to Federalist #10:
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
135.
David Kimble | February 5, 2010 at 8:39 am
“The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations.”
Thank you Fiona for posting this, here is a quote from those documents.
Love,
David
136.
ace | February 5, 2010 at 11:39 am
First off I was never home schooled, and brobably have more higher education then most here, along with speaking more than 2 languages so i would suggest that you don’t judge and assume i am a fing idiot and didn’t bring this up for any other reason than my stupidity. The US is a constitutional republic based of the Roman republic, this i already know. It was never a democracy which by the way means rule by the people in Greek. so even in a democracy majority rules. read your history. I suggest Plutarch or Cassius Dio there are others. California does not use the same system as the rest of the states, so basically i was asking why did the people vote if it didn’t matter. why give the people a voice and ignore it. how many people live in califortnia? how many of them voted. sorry guys, look it up, the minority already rules over the majority. Also it is the legislative body that creates laws not the judiciary. when and why does the judiciary have the power to make laws now. We no longer live in a society of right and wrong it seems more like what i want. Now lets get into some philosophy what makes this gay agenda right and the poeple against it wrong. and who are you to say it is so. not getting married does not affect people especially when they could get the civil unions, which was the same thing. there is no such thing as equality. trust me i v experienced it. i come from two different worlds almost and i have never had equality i think too differently. so why the fight for something that is unattainable, why not compromise with each side this one thing i have never understood. and before anyone answers take a good hard look at the meaning of equal
137.
Ronnie | February 5, 2010 at 11:46 am
actually if you read the transcripts the majority was people of age who did not vote…..If we really want to go based on majority vote for civil rights then we need to 2 things.
1. Lower the voting age to 16 since the large demographic of the LGBT community and supporters are under the age of 18.
2. Everyone who is an American citizen must be forced to vote and then an only then will we know what the majority vote is.
138.
Felyx | February 5, 2010 at 12:34 pm
To Ace,
What two or more languages do you speak? I am curious to know as I am rather fond of linguistics. (English is not one of my first languages but I am most fluent in it due my need to be so.)
To (seriously) address some of your concerns I will repond (neutrally) on some of your comments.
‘why did the people vote if it didn’t matter.’
It seems the contrary is true, people voted (on either side of the issue) because it must have mattered to them very much….enough at least to go out and vote.
(Kay will attest to this as any of the No on 8 will.)
‘why give the people a voice and ignore it.’
It was the belief of our founding fathers as it is the current belief that the people should have a voice to ensure freedom for all. (The judiciary is in place to ensure justice for all.)
how many people live in califortnia? how many of them voted. sorry guys, look it up, the minority already rules over the majority.
Neither actually rules over the other. Some individuals, say a devout AA who truly believes universal marriage is not appropriate, would find themselves in either catagory depending on the issue.
Also it is the legislative body that creates laws not the judiciary.
Tricking point of fact here. The populace can in many instances vote in laws. The executive catagory of the body politic, mayors govenors the president, can create orders (executive orders) within a strict perview. The representative catagory can vote *as the voice of the people* and create legislation. This is by far the broadest catagory of created laws it is true. Finally the judiciary, in a limited fashion, can only redefine or judge the appropriateness of current laws. Judiciaries do not in essence ‘create’ laws. The role of the SC of a state or the SCOTUS can go a step farther, however, and interpret the constitution over which it has authority. Legalistically speaking, this is not a creation of a law or an ammendment, but rather an interpretation that can expand or narrow the exact meaning of a law.
As for rightness or wrongness of any law, policy or issue, it would depend on to whom you talked. This is not the role of the judiciary, their mandate is to uphold (or interpret) the law as it is written. Pro-civil rights laws are not the only laws upheld, just ask Ronnie, the ‘Jim Crow’ laws were upheld for decades and were struck down by the courts as well. Many people were not happy and had the same frustration you are expressing now.
As to why there is a fight for equality and the right to marry as opposed to just giving in to compromise?…
Well some things are just worth fighting for.
139.
fiona64 | February 5, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Dear Ace:
You seem to be labeling under the misconception that civil unions (which we do not have in CA) and domestic partnerships are the same as marriage.
They aren’t.
Please read up.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
Love,
Fiona
140.
Bill | February 5, 2010 at 7:39 am
Your right to vote does not include a right to cause damage to the lives of the people you hate via the ballot box.
You’d have to be an ignorant tool to think it does.
But that wouldn’t be you, would it?
141.
ace | February 5, 2010 at 11:43 am
wow you people label more than most i know who said i hate, how come if someone disagrees they are hate mongers and afraid of you. what gives you such power?
it is simply what other people believe as right and wrong that is it. what makes you right and them wrong. common people think
142.
Ronnie | February 5, 2010 at 11:55 am
What gave AA’s power? What gave women power? The support of those who are not, that’s who….. The Religious Reich(Right) and heterosexual people who do not support equality do not have the support of those who are not.
What exactly is your feelings toward LGBT people, Ace? I don’t want to hear about unions and DP’s because they are not equal to marriage and it was pointed out in the transcripts by several experts and prop ha8te could not supply one that said otherwise.
So gain I ask you what are your exact feelings towards LGBT people?
143.
Felyx | February 5, 2010 at 1:05 pm
To Bill,
Unfortunately one’s right to vote does actually include ‘a right to cause damage to the lives of the people you hate via the ballot box.’
This in no way makes it right or fair or even desireable but it is possible and it is a right (although not explicitly as such.) It is PRECISELY because of this right that representation and judicial intervention was built in to our system of governance.
Re: Ace,
Ace is asking questions. This is not indicative of ignorance rather he is, in a sense, saying he does not understand something and wants more information.
The manner in which he writes seems to indicate he is antagonistic towards the subject matter but it is not proof of ‘hate’. He has alluded to the fact that English is not his first language and by extension, US culture is not his native culture. This clearly affects his ability to communitcate and should be taken into consideration when responding. I have seen nothing in his posts to show he ‘hates’ gay people. Likewise, I would say to Ace, no one has called you a hatemonger either.
Perhaps what is needed on both sides is a bit more respect for each other. I would hardly classify Ace as pro-gay but he is clearly NOT the enemy. I personally enjoy his questions and look forward to some of his responses.
Sincerely,
Felyx
144.
ace | February 5, 2010 at 1:05 pm
First Italian fluent, american Fluent, and latin not much purpose to it but i like it. but i guess you don’t really speak it though.
sorry what i meant by didn’t matter was that the act of voting is not important if you can just go to court and get what you want.
Second. i don’t have any problem with gays. transsexuals i do but that’s a different thing altogether. what i have a problem with gay’s feel wronged because they feel that other people don’t think that their values are important or correct. but at the same time they don’t stop and think of the other side of the argument, logically and with compassion. why are my values any less important to yours. Also the whole equal rights thing is a farce. the civil unions had equal rights to any marriage but that is not what was wanted. gays just wanted the name, if this was really about rights the civil union would have been enough. So tell me why am i wrong.
145.
fiona64 | February 5, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Dear Ace:
The point is simple: in the US, majorities do not have the right to take away rights from minority groups whom they find personally distasteful, okay?
I’m a straight, married woman. Why should my law-abiding gay and lesbian friends NOT be afforded the same right to marry that I have, just because they are not hetero? There is no sense in it — especially when you take into account that felons in prison are permitted to marry. (That certainly eliminates the “it’s for procreation” argument, since felons don’t get conjugal visits.) And that’s really what it gets down to in this country. There has to be a compelling state interest under the law to deny equal protection, and “my church says they are icky” is not a compelling state interest.
I wish my Latin was better, by the way. I can ask someone if they have a wrist watch, hail the emperor or tell someone to go to Hell … none of which is very useful outside the Vatican.
Love,
Fiona
146.
fiona64 | February 5, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Dear Ace:
You also asked why civil unions were not enough.
In the US, there is a concept called “full faith and credit,” which means that contracts like marriage are binding across state lines.
Civil unions/domestic partnerships do not have full faith and credit. They disappear if the couple moves to another jurisdiction. They disappear if half of the couple is in the military and has to deploy, since civil unions/domestic partnerships require that you be co-habitating (marriage has no such requirement). Those are just two examples. I posted a link to a rather extensive list of the differences.
Love,
Fiona
147.
Ronnie | February 5, 2010 at 1:13 pm
again if you read the reports and the transcripts they are not equal and less you are an LGBT person you will never understand..unless the gov says you don’t have to accept it,,,,but you have to tolerate it
Any problem you have against one is a problem against all.
148.
ace | February 5, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Latin is useful but more in ancient history, and english roots, anyway…. my question is does a minority have a right to say that a majority’s values are wrong, just because they are a minority. does the minority have the right to take away something that some see as sacred or something they value in a particular way. by saying gays can marry, other peoples values of marriage are deemed inconsequential and unimportant. The same for the voting issue i brought up, which is why i didn’t vote. I don’t have a voice, their is too much bull**** fore anyone to hear it. Another question. What if civil unions or what ever you choose to call it had the same rights as marriage across the board. would there still be a push for marriage? this is hypothetical i know. I think other people should respect other people’s opinions and not force them on another group which is how some people see gay marriage, I know it can be argued the other way which is what i wanted to point out. so again my question what makes your values more important to mine.
149.
Felyx | February 5, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Ace,
Gratzi per la riposta. Io amo italiano ma la mia capacita di parlare e scrivere in italiano e limitato. Per favore, scusami.
‘The act of voting is not important if you can just go to court and get what you want.’
One cannot go to the courts until the legislation has first been put into place. The vote in this case had to be taken before it could be challenged in court. Remember too, universal marriage was granted and licenses issued before the vote was taken to revoke them.
One might challenge you back, why can a law be passed if people can just go vote it away?! The reason is because that is how the US system was designed and it was designed that way for a reason. (As opposed to rule by monarchy, etc.)
‘Why are my values any less important to yours.’
Plain and simple, they are not any less important.
‘The civil unions had equal rights to any marriage but that is not what was wanted. gays just wanted the name, if this was really about rights the civil union would have been enough. So tell me why am i wrong.’
You are not wrong for feeling the way you do, you are not wrong for believing the way you do you are not wrong any more than anyone else is.
Where you will get people telling you are wrong is in the statement that you claim that ‘civil unions had equal rights to any marriage’. Gays don’t want something equal to (civil) marriage, this is evident. they want (civil)marriage itself. CA civil unions are not identical to civil marriage. The most important legal (tax) distinction is in the disparity regarding federal tax law. This affects federal social benefits and most prominently social security benefits.
I have not made a comprehensive case as to the fact that civil unions and civil marriages are not identical, someone else can do that and you can research it on your own. What I have made is a basic case to show you that you will be challenged on this issue until your understanding of it is closer to the reality of it.
You do have a core premise to your argument with which you would do well to stay. That being that the word marriage has a particular meaning for specific circumstances. If you advocated that the government should desist in regulating marriage, and provide only civil unions for any two individuals while leaving the word ‘marriage’ to the religiously inclined, I dare to say the reactions you will receive will be far more favorable.
150.
Felyx | February 5, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Post Scriptus:
Felix qui cum Felyx felix est! LOL
151.
ace | February 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Bravo Grazie a te. dia chi ne fregga se scrivi male. Italiano e troppo bello, ma anche italia. California, opure sanfrasico e molto simile da italia. Si scrivi risposta* pero.
e stato molto bello a parlare con te, e grazie per la aiuto.
Allora you didn’t say anything about reading Italian.
thank you. who cares if your limited in a language just go for it best way to learn. Italian is very beautiful and so is italy. the bay area if a lot like Italy. by the way reply is risposta forgot the s. don’t learn if no one corrects you the biggest problem i found.
I was very nice talking (writing) to you and thank you for the help.
lol like the joke
Valete felix
152.
Felyx | February 5, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Molto amichevole. Mi e piaciuto parlare con ti. En risposto, io posso leggere meglio di me scrivi.
I am glad you think I was a help. Good questions need good answers. We can always disagree but that is no reason not to talk.
Saluti,
Felyx
153.
fiona64 | February 5, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Dear Ace:
Just a quick PS. It was a *huge* help to me to know that you are not in the US and that English is not your first language. It helps me to understand where you are coming from in your questions, and provide more informative responses.
Best,
Fiona
154.
Felyx | February 5, 2010 at 6:10 pm
For anyone still reading this thread I thought I would make fun of myself and point out a funny coincidence….
Ace said I left out an ‘s’ in ‘risposto’ which means response.
If you look at an earlier post in this thread I said I would ‘repond’ to his questions.
Stheemsth I have a problem with Ethsesth! He he he!
Thinstherly,
Felyksth
155.
nightshayde | February 5, 2010 at 6:31 pm
@Ace
We who support marriage equality don’t think our morals are any more important as a whole than the morals of those who don’t support marriage equality. The difference is that the anti-equality folks want everyone’s behavior to go along with the anti-equality folks’ morals.
In other words, anti-equality people want to limit what GLBT people can and can’t do because they find homosexuality immoral. They think their beliefs are more important than anyone else’s and that their beliefs should be put into law.
Pro-equality people think that people should be able to live according to their own codes of morality as long as other people aren’t harmed. It’s not that our morality is more important — it’s that our morality is more important to us. If someone doesn’t believe in same-sex marriage, he/she can avoid the problem simply by not marrying someone with matching reproductive organs. They should not have the right, however, to limit what other people can do with their romantic relationships.
156.
Wayne | February 4, 2010 at 9:34 pm
@ ace. If by voting you mean voting to strip equal rights away from a minority, you are absolutely right – it does kinda make voting stupid! These sorts of votes should never happen. But when they do, we are lucky that we have a system of checks in balances that were envisioned by the founding fathers. (3 separate but equal branches of government was an awesome idea!)
and can we please stop saying “gay marriage” and “SSM”…I want equal access to marriage, I don’t want a separate kind of marriage for gay people. Marriage equality is what we are fighting for, not gay marriage.
157.
Sheryl | February 4, 2010 at 10:09 pm
While I hear where you are coming from with marriage equality, I think it is important that the distinction is made. After all, heteros have marriage equality, the races have marriage equality, but the LGBT community does not and we are fighting for that community to have equality.
158.
Bill | February 5, 2010 at 7:41 am
But we aren’t fighting for gay marriage.
It’s simply marriage.
159.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | February 5, 2010 at 7:38 am
@#37. Actually, Kay, the very fact that she gathered a coalition to stop ERA and deny women their rights to equal protection under the law makes Shlafly even worse than you are, not better. Especially when you consider how long and hard women have had to fight for their basic human rights. I have a total of six older sisters between my biological and adoptive families, and it sickes me to know that if I entered the same field of work that any of them is in, my wages would be higher than theirs for the same job, simply because I have a penis. And you are proud to be part of that bigotry. You are a traitor, not only to your fellow women, but to the human race in toto.
160.
Bill | February 5, 2010 at 7:49 am
Kay is just George with a vagina.
161.
fiona64 | February 5, 2010 at 11:36 am
Maybe we should set them up on a date …
Love,
Fiona
162.
Ronnie | February 5, 2010 at 11:38 am
I hear an idea for a new reality TV show…”The Bigotry Matchmaker”….LOL
163.
george | February 5, 2010 at 8:16 am
Richard Walter said: “and it sickes me to know that if I entered the same field of work that any of them is in, my wages would be higher than theirs for the same job, simply because I have a penis”
That’s such a bunch of baloney. I’ve had many jobs in several fields over the years and the women were always compensated equally with men. The stats you seem to be referring to fail to account for the fact that many women elect to take lesser-paying jobs for various reasons.
In my experience at all levels, men and women are compensated equally – with variations in both directions based on performance – in equal positions.
My bet is you would be compensated less than your sisters in the same job; they’re probably better performers and less whiney.
164.
fiona64 | February 5, 2010 at 8:55 am
George wrote: The stats you seem to be referring to fail to account for the fact that many women elect to take lesser-paying jobs for various reasons.
George, that’s hogwash. No one thinks, “Oh, gosh … I’ll just take a lesser paying job because I’m a woman.”
Part of the reason that salaries are kept confidential in so many companies is so that people will not know whether people in the same job category are making less or more than they are. Women make 70 cents on the dollar *in the same jobs as men.* That’s why the Lilly Ledbetter Act is such a big deal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009
Your personal attack on Richard is duly noted, though. I continue to be unimpressed by you, despite your best efforts to the contrary.
Love,
Fiona
165.
Mr. HCI | February 5, 2010 at 9:26 am
C’mon, Fiona! George’s personal experiences with a handful of people are certainly a better predictor of the full scope than a bunch of studies and research and statistics and stuff.
166.
Ronnie | February 5, 2010 at 9:29 am
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!…. Right on the nose…..hehehe
Mr. HCI…you’re my Hero!!!!
167.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | February 5, 2010 at 10:46 am
Actually that is where you are wrong, Team George. I have a sister who is a respiratory testing and treatment techician for a lung specialist who travels around the country to take care of the mesothelioma patients. She has been there over 20 years, and when a man was hired only five years ago, his starting salary was 25% higher than what my sister was making. As for someone being whiney, you are the whiniest one on here other than your drag persona Kay Moore. If you call it whining because I refuse to let you run over me the way John Riggs did while I was growing up in a house that was nothing but a torture chamber anytime I was left alone with him, then go ahead, consider it whining. However, be careful what you say because your words will come back to haunt you.
168.
Ronnie | February 5, 2010 at 8:35 am
Regardless of what A bigot says that over the blah blah A bigot on sees what he wants to see and hear what he wants to hear and the rest is fiction.
In a release from Rasmussen Reports Feb 4,2009
“78% of Women Say No Equal Pay For Equal Work”
1.Seventy-eight percent (78%) of American women say men and women do not receive equal pay for equal work in the United States. A majority of men (53%) agree, but 37% do not.
2.Overall, 66% say men and women are not paid equally, 24% disagree, and 10% are not sure, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey
3.Nearly half of women (49%) attribute the unequal pay to discrimination. Seventeen percent (17%) say it’s due to different levels of experience, 10% to differing levels of ability, and 14% to something else. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.
Nobody elects to take lesser paying jobs
169.
george | February 5, 2010 at 8:56 am
Ronnie –
These are opinion surveys, influenced in part by feminist propaganda.
My experience with women who were paid less than men is that they were less devoted to their jobs than their co-workers; lots of personal time off, keeping regular hours, not taking work home, etc…. That’s not discrimination; that’s making different choices.
170.
fiona64 | February 5, 2010 at 9:01 am
George wrote: These are opinion surveys, influenced in part by feminist propaganda.
Excuse me for just a moment.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
George, I don’t think you know any women in the workplace; your second paragraph is almost as laughable as your opinion that facts about salary are influenced by feminist propaganda.
Oh. My. God. I don’t think I’ve laughed this hard in a long while.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I’ll be sure to let all of my feminist friends know that we are not as devoted to our jobs as men, that we take more time off than men, and that we do not take work home like men. I’m sure they’ll all be fascinated to learn that, since it flies in the face of reality.
Love,
Fiona
171.
Ronnie | February 5, 2010 at 9:08 am
The facts back up the argument, your’s all all opinions with no substantial evidence to back up your argument….That is speculation and propaganda that bigots are so good at doing but always gets debunked by actual evidence.
My mother has been working for the same hospital for nearly 35 years and without overtime, time and a half, and holiday pay she is only making $4000 more then what she was making 35 years ago but the guy she trained last summer who is Filipino (not born in America) and he is paid just $1000 less then she is.
Equal?…I think not.
172.
fiona64 | February 5, 2010 at 9:12 am
Ronnie, I have a comment in moderation (as there are two links in it) that debunk George’s opinion with data based on salary surveys. He hates women, that is blatantly obvious. He thinks that we are nothing but life support systems for a uterus and that we should not work outside the home. While he would (maybe) never physically abuse a woman, I have no doubt that he finds psychological and emotional abuse perfectly acceptable. After all, you may remember that I am the “knuckleheaded bitch who is out of her depth” because I dared to challenge him.
George is a pathetic little loser who hates strong women in *particular* among all women because we are unimpressed.
Love,
Fiona
173.
Ronnie | February 5, 2010 at 9:21 am
I concur….. <3
I may not have sex women, but I respect you none the less. And I luvs the ladies in every way a gay boy can…as Girlfriends…Snap!…Snap!
I mean not all of you can reproduce but I saw that video in high school of the exorcism you have to go though…That is strength. And dealing with the icky parts of that time of the month…I tip my tiara to you.
However we Gay boys have all the emotions of that time of the most as we also sync up with our girlfriends..LOL
as Margaret Cho says, "And if Gay men had a period?…What do you mean if?"
174.
Mr. HCI | February 5, 2010 at 9:29 am
I wonder if one of the cavemen in those intensely annoying Geico commercials is named George . . .
175.
dieter | February 5, 2010 at 11:25 am
George…YOU are PROOF that evolution is real, and that it doesn’t always work right.
176.
fiona64 | February 5, 2010 at 9:04 am
For those in the reality-based community (unlike George), you might find data from the National Committee on Pay Equity useful.
http://www.pay-equity.org/info.html
In fact, there is a sheet there that debunks George’s premise that women choose to be paid less. http://www.pay-equity.org/info-choices.html
Here’s a quote, showing just one of the many examples:
a survey of public relations professionals, showing that women with less than 5 years of experience make $29,726 while men with the same amount of experience make $48,162. For P.R. professionals in the 5-10 year category, women earn $41,141 while men earn $47,888. In the 10-15 year category, women earn $44,941 and men earn $54,457. In the 15-20 year range, women earn $49,270 and men earn $69,120.
Love,
Fiona
177.
Ronnie | February 5, 2010 at 9:12 am
Curious George…where are you right now?…I’m just wondering…Work?….Home?….an Internet Cafe?…. Your cell phone?
(I love that we have access to the internet Everywhere!)
178. The Awakening of the GOP? « Prop 8 Trial Tracker | February 5, 2010 at 2:01 pm
[…] I was perusing Reason Magazine, writing my previous post, I recalled something I had read at the website a few years back. In fact, during the 2008 election […]
179.
Ray in MA | February 5, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Am I missing something?
After attaching to a l ot of our good “efforts” on the “web”, I got an email regarding “Gays Denied SS Benefits” (SS benefits not offered to sex couples)
If this makes it thru the Suprene Court in our favor, won’t thi sbe a moot point?
Is this a last ditch effort for someone to make some $$ ?
Is this a scam?
http://rockforequality.org/?page_id=3