Prospero Blocks

Hot Searches

'American Idol'

Presidential Race

Tax Rebates

Rob Lowe

NASA

Chat Center

We the People
Topic: Anything you want to talk about.

Board Folders

	Congress 8824 msgs in 3471 dscns Latest: Nov-21
	Republicans 68630 msgs in 1802 dscns Latest: 2:54 AM
	Democrats 46070 msgs in 1006 dscns Latest: Nov-20
	American Issues 115144 msgs in 2443 dscns Latest: 8:26 AM
	Gun Rights 53490 msgs in 839 dscns Latest: Nov-21
	The Obama Admi... 113646 msgs in 2200 dscns Latest: 1:05 AM
	International ... 144109 msgs in 2659 dscns Latest: Nov-20
	Marginal Issues 138862 msgs in 8585 dscns Latest: 7:04 AM
	Religion ... 123111 msgs in 1265 dscns Latest: 1:27 AM
	The Economy 31286 msgs in 631 dscns Latest: 4:27 AM
	The Media 55512 msgs in 1263 dscns Latest: 2:49 AM
	The Courts 27086 msgs in 346 dscns Latest: Nov-21
	Campaign 2010 66204 msgs in 1880 dscns Latest: Nov-21
	Bill of Rights 30121 msgs in 356 dscns Latest: Sep-27

Message Area

To list

New

...

American Issues

Gay Rights: 1 loss, and a few big wins

Print Discussion

#1 of 139 Posted Nov-4 7:16 AM

From Michael H. Posts 3319 Last 7:25 AM
To All [Msg # 213500.1 ]

Gay rights supporters are, of course, unhappy about the apparent loss in Maine that voided the law passed by the state legislature earlier this year which would have legalized same-sex marriage in that state, but they are beaming about an entire collection of wins around the rest of the nation.

For example, in a number of cities, openly gay candidates have won or are in the lead for important and prominent positions in city government.

In Detroit it appears that openly gay former news anchor Charles Pugh will be leading the Detroit City Council.

In Houston it appears that openly gay Houston city controller Annise Parker will face Gene Locke in a runoff bid for the mayor's office and goes into that race with an apparent lead.

In Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Mark Kleinschmidt will become the third openly gay man to hold mayoral office in the state.

In St. Petersburg, Florida, Steve Kornell has become the first openly gay official in that city's history by winning a seat on the City Council.

And in Salt Lake City, Utah, Stan Penfold becomes the City Council's first openly gay member. That's right, the home town of the virulently anti-gay Mormon Church is about to have an openly gay City Council member.

In related news the nation's first openly gay U.S. attorney started work last week as the new top federal prosecutor in Seattle, and in Texas Republican U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison has recommended that the Obama administration name Robert Pitman, a highly regarded, openly gay judge and prosecutor as U.S. attorney in San Antonio. Needless to say this has irked portions of the Republican Party establishment.

A bunch of steps forward, one step back...

Despite the loss in Maine, things are looking up for gay rights supporters.

"You have absolutely no reason, none,
to trust our words or our actions at this point."
Michael Steele
Chairman of the
Republican National Committee
Feb 13th, 2009

Free Your Mind.
Free Yourself.
Ferrapontifex Invictus

Options

#2 of 139 Posted Nov-4 7:09 AM

From bwalsh60 Posts 7083 Last 4:48 AM
To All [Msg # 213500.2 213500.1 ]

Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law - More politics- msnbc.com

Damn New England Bigots! it seems the people came out in force to repeal the gay marriage thingy after the Governor signed it into law. The article says that 30 states have voted no on this issue?

How can this be? I guess\ those States up north aren't quite as progressive as some in this forum want people to believe!

What do you think? is this what is going to keep happening all over the country?

Options

#3 of 139 Posted Nov-4 8:03 AM

From Michael H. Posts 3319 Last 7:25 AM
To bwalsh60 [Msg # 213500.3 213500.2 ]

>> What do you think? is this what is going to keep happening all over the country? <<

For a while longer, yes, I think so.

But the tide is turning. The margins of victory being enjoyed by those you call "the bigots" are shrinking and eventually they will suffer a loss. And then another. And then more and more. Intolerance is on the wane.

Here's a bit of the reality you seem to be ignoring.

In Maine the legislature can come back and pass the law again in a year or two, and if the voters reject it again the legislature can do it again a year or two after that. With public support for same-sex marriage growing a little each and every year the attempts to reject that law at the ballot box will eventually fail. Once that happens the law will have changed and it won't change back.

In California the very same provision in the state constitution that allowed Proposition 8 to be placed on the ballot to amend that constitution to prevent same-sex marriage can be used again and again to seek the opposite result. And it will be. And again, with support for same-sex marriage rising a little every year it is only a matter of time before same-sex marriage becomes legal there again.

How about another reality check for you?

At the beginning of 2008, just one US state - Massachusetts - had legalized same-sex marriage. Now five do - Massachusetts, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and Connecticut.

Several more states are close to having it. The District of Columbia is likely to have it within the next 12 months.

Even more states have civil unions or domestic partnerships, including California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin and Washington and so does the District of Columbia. The voters in Washington state appear to have passed the "everything but marriage" provision for their domestic partnerships last night. New York state now recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Want some more reality? Okay, how about this:

Openly gay politicians are winning races for local offices all over the nation, including a city council seat in Salt Lake City, the home of the virulently anti-gay Mormon Church and the mayor's office in Chapel Hill North Carolina.

In related news the nation's first openly gay U.S. attorney started work last week as the new top federal prosecutor in Seattle, and in Texas Republican U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison has recommended that the Obama administration name Robert Pitman, a highly regarded, openly gay judge and prosecutor as U.S. attorney in San Antonio. Needless to say this has irked portions of the Republican Party establishment.

A bunch of steps forward, one step back...

Despite the loss in Maine, things are looking up for gay rights supporters.

"You have absolutely no reason, none,
to trust our words or our actions at this point."
Michael Steele
Chairman of the
Republican National Committee
Feb 13th, 2009

Free Your Mind.
Free Yourself.
Ferrapontifex Invictus

Options

#4 of 139 Posted Nov-4 8:56 AM

From Bob Posts 6136 Last Nov-21
To Michael H. [Msg # 213500.4 213500.3 ]

>But the tide is turning. The margins of victory being enjoyed by those you call "the bigots" are shrinking and eventually they will suffer a loss. And then another. And then more and more. Intolerance is on the wane.<

Dream on Michael H., you may not have any "gay marriage" referendum wins but at least you have your fantasies. Remember Michael H., "gay marriage" has been trounced in every voter referendum it has ever come up in. That's 31 in all Michael H. The score is Sanctity of Marriage 31-Wild Irrational Scheme 0.

Maine voters reject gay-marriage law

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

– Winston Churchill

Options

#5 of 139 Posted Nov-4 9:30 AM

From Michael H. Posts 3319 Last 7:25 AM
To Bob [Msg # 213500.5 213500.4 ]

>> Dream on Michael H., ... <<

It's no dream, Bob. It's reality. The trend seen in the public opinion polls taken over the last few decades is clear and undeniable. Opposition to same-sex marriage declines by a bit less than 2% per year while at the same time support for same-sex marriage rises at about that same rate.

That's why slowly but surely the number of states with civil unions and domestic partnerships and yes, the number of states with same-sex marriage have both been rising over the last decade. Ten years ago not one state had any of those things. Now five states have same-sex marriage and one state and the District of Columbia recognize both same-sex marriages that were legally performed in other jurisdictions.

In addition to that nine states and the District of Columbia have either civil unions or some other form of registered partnership. In one of those states, Washington, the voters evidently just passed a provision that in terms of state laws makes the domestic partnerships in that state equal to marriage in everything but name.

As for Maine, the legislature there can come back and pass the law again in a year or two, and if the voters reject it again the legislature can do it again a year or two after that. With public support for same-sex marriage growing a little each and every year the attempts to reject that law at the ballot box will eventually fail. Once that happens the law will have changed and it won't change back.

In California the very same provision in the state constitution that allowed Proposition 8 to be placed on the ballot to amend that constitution to prevent same-sex marriage can be used again and again to eventually allow it. And it will be allowed eventually. And again, with support for same-sex marriage rising a little every year it is only a matter of time before same-sex marriage becomes legal there again. It is inevitable.

And that's not all.

Openly gay politicians are winning races for local offices all over the nation, including a city council seat in Salt Lake City. The man who was just elected to be the new mayor in Chapel Hill, North Carolina is an openly gay man.

Salt Lake City is the home of the virulently anti-gay Mormon Church.

And Chapel Hill? That's in the Bible Belt, Bob.

Slowing, but surely, state-by-state, city-by-city, opposition to gay rights is fading, Bob.

In related news the nation's first openly gay U.S. attorney started work last week as the new top federal prosecutor in Seattle, and in Texas Republican U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison has recommended that the Obama administration name Robert Pitman, a highly regarded, openly gay judge and prosecutor as U.S. attorney in San Antonio. Needless to say this has irked portions of the Republican Party establishment.

A bunch of steps forward, one step back...

Despite the loss in Maine, things are looking up for gay rights supporters.

"You have absolutely no reason, none,
to trust our words or our actions at this point."
Michael Steele
Chairman of the
Republican National Committee
Feb 13th, 2009

Free Your Mind.
Free Yourself.
Ferrapontifex Invictus

Options

#6 of 139 Posted Nov-4 10:04 AM

From Kevin(Sysop) Posts 10077 Last Nov-21
To bwalsh60 [Msg # 213500.6 213500.2 ]

What do you think? is this what is going to keep happening all over the country?//

So when will you be prepared to except a vote on whether you cnn marry or not?

Kevin

“Hate is not overcome by hate; by love (metta) alone is hate appeased. This is an eternal law.”-Guatama Buddha

Options

#7 of 139 Posted Nov-4 10:05 AM

From Kevin(Sysop) Posts 10077 Last Nov-21
To Bob [Msg # 213500.7 213500.4 ]

Dream on Michael H., you may not have any "gay marriage" referendum wins but at least you have your fantasies.//

Same question for you that I asked Bwalsh. When will you be prepared to except a vote that decides who you can marry?

Kevin

“Hate is not overcome by hate; by love (metta) alone is hate appeased. This is an eternal law.”-Guatama Buddha

Options

#8 of 139 Posted Nov-4 10:17 AM

From John Clifton (Sysop) Posts 23875 Last Nov-21
To bwalsh60 [Msg # 213500.8 213500.2 ]

<bw> What do you think? is this what is going to keep happening all over the country?

For a few more years ... until older voters like thee and me get called home by Big Daddy and Jess. Your legacy? Young people feeling relief we're gone and with it our ignorance about homosexuality.

Options

#9 of 139 Posted Nov-4 2:47 PM

From gordonhofer Posts 31261 Last Nov-21
To Michael H. [Msg # 213500.9 213500.3 ]

At the beginning of 2008, just one US state - Massachusetts - had legalized same-sex marriage. Now five do - Massachusetts, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and Connecticut.

How many of those have done so by a vote of the people?

Then, of course, voters in the state of Washington have just passed the "everything but marriage" act. It's narrow passage may be an expression of the voters' desire to grant rights to same-sex couples, but their unwillingness to go along with homosexual "marriage."

Options

#10 of 139 Posted Nov-4 2:54 PM

From Sysop Jim Dellon Posts 30265 Last Nov-21
To gordonhofer [Msg # 213500.10 213500.9 ]

hofer --

>>How many of those have done so by a vote of the people?<<

And what's the relevance of that? If schoolchildren in 1954 had been waiting for a vote of the people to desegregate the schools, how much longer would they have been waiting.

Civil rights are not subject to the tyranny of the majority - that's why we have a Constitution.

-- jim

Options

#11 of 139 Posted Nov-4 3:06 PM

From gordonhofer Posts 31261 Last Nov-21
To Sysop Jim Dellon [Msg # 213500.11 213500.10 ]

>>How many of those have done so by a vote of the people?<<

And what's the relevance of that? If schoolchildren in 1954 had been waiting for a vote of the people to desegregate the schools,

The relevance in your hackneyed example is that a vote of the people enacted the 14th amendment, the basis for desegregation. Without that vote of the people there would still be segregation.

Options

#12 of 139 Posted Nov-4 3:08 PM

From Michael H. Posts 3319 Last 7:25 AM
To gordonhofer [Msg # 213500.12 213500.9 ]

>> How many of those have done so by a vote of the people? <<

None. And that's perfectly fine by me. There shouldn't be ballot initiatives to decide which groups of Americans get rights and which ones do not.

But having said that, I do think that over the next decade or so you will begin to see states legalizing same-sex marriage by votes of the people. I think, for example, that it will happen in California where the process to amend the state constitution will involve a vote of the people. I think it will happen in Maine, too, using a process identical to the one we've just seen there, but with a different outcome.

Now mind you, it may take several tries in each of those states to accomplish the goal, but I am confident that same-sex marriage will eventually be legalized in each of those states and the path to achieve that goal will likely involve votes of the people in each of those states.

And I expect it will work that way in some other states as well. Will there still be court battles? Yes. Will there be legislative efforts? Yes, those will happen, too.

But suppose there was a Supreme Court decision at some point in the future that declared that all state laws and state constitutional provisions that prohibit same-sex marriages were unconstitutional. Would I be unhappy about that? No, I would not. I would celebrate it. After all, Loving v. Virginia wasn't a "vote of the people." Neither was Lawrence v. Texas nor Brown v. the Board of Education.

So why should I care that civil rights battles are won in the legislatures and courts rather than in "votes of the people?"

"You have absolutely no reason, none,
to trust our words or our actions at this point."
Michael Steele
Chairman of the
Republican National Committee
Feb 13th, 2009

Free Your Mind.
Free Yourself.
Ferrapontifex Invictus

Options

#13 of 139 Posted Nov-4 3:11 PM

From Michael H. Posts 3319 Last 7:25 AM
To gordonhofer [Msg # 213500.13 213500.11 ]

>> The relevance in your hackneyed example is that a vote of the people enacted the 14th amendment, ... <<

Absolute bulls**t.

The US Constitution isn't amended by a "vote of the people," Gordon. It is amended by legislative acts by the elected representatives of the people.

"You have absolutely no reason, none,
to trust our words or our actions at this point."
Michael Steele
Chairman of the
Republican National Committee
Feb 13th, 2009

Free Your Mind.
Free Yourself.
Ferrapontifex Invictus

Options

#14 of 139 Posted Nov-4 3:12 PM

From Sysop Jim Dellon Posts 30265 Last Nov-21
To gordonhofer [Msg # 213500.14 213500.11 ]

hofer --

>>The relevance in your hackneyed example is that a vote of the people enacted the 14th amendment, the basis for desegregation. Without that vote of the people there would still be segregation.<<

And isn't it convenient that that same 14th Amendment applies to other forms of discrimination as well, such as your much beloved discrimination against gay couples.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it protects everyone - even the people that you don't like.

-- jim

Options

#15 of 139 Posted Nov-4 3:16 PM

From Martin Alter Posts 5451 Last Nov-20
To gordonhofer [Msg # 213500.15 213500.9 ]

>> At the beginning of 2008, just one US state - Massachusetts - had legalized same-sex marriage. Now five do - Massachusetts, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and Connecticut.

How many of those have done so by a vote of the people? <<

All of them. The people elect their representatives to do their business. That's how representative democracies work.

Options

#16 of 139 Posted Nov-4 3:53 PM

From gordonhofer Posts 31261 Last Nov-21
To Michael H. [Msg # 213500.16 213500.12 ]

So why should I care that civil rights battles are won in the legislatures and courts rather than in "votes of the people?"

I can think of two reasons, at least. First, it's the way we decide major statewide issues. The courts should be resorted to when the voters can't make a decision or make one that clearly violates the Constitution of the state.

Second, a decision imposed on a majority of the people by 3 judges is likely to result in some level of animosity on the part of that majority toward both the judges and the people who are supposed to benefit from the decision. As in Maine and California, it's also likely to result in angry electoral fights that take away whatever it was that the court tried to do in the first place.

Options

#17 of 139 Posted Nov-4 3:57 PM

From raincitytroll Posts 4748 Last 3:10 AM
To Michael H. [Msg # 213500.17 213500.3 ]

**The voters in Washington state appear to have passed the "everything but marriage" provision for their domestic partnerships last night.**

some random tidbits about that vote ...

in king county, which is the most heavily populated area in the state and includes seattle, residents overwhelming passed the referendum. the rest of the state solidly voted against it. we are essentially two states in one here. king county is very affluent, educated, not religious and liberal. the rest of the state is uneducated, blue collar, fairly poor, religious and conservative. this leads to a lot of conflicts at election time, as you might imagine. whereas king country provides most of the revenue for the state, the hillbillies always vote against funding projects that we need. the same with civil initiatives we desire. almost all of the state's homosexuals live in king county, but it's the rednecks who've never met a gay person who want to deny them rights. and on and on and on. thankfully, though, king county's population is large enough to override whatever the conservatives oppose or want to deny. and rightfully so, IMO, because they couldn't survive without our money. those boobs even oppose chipping in for earthquake protections since "they" don't need it out there, never realizing -- of course -- that any disruption of commerce in western washington screws them too. they resent us and complain about our expenditures yet seem to forget that we carry their sorry as*es. i think we should give all areas east of the cascades to montana and idaho where our bumpkins would feel right at home. "eastern washington: gateway to seattle."

the opponents of referendum 71 spent a ton of money on this issue, just like the catholic church and other opponents in maine did. here, though, it was pretty much just a battle over nomenclature. it's all the the bigots have left at this point: labels. they thought a victory would open the door for future civil rights restrictions, but they got nuthin'. they'll probably just give up now. also of note, the referendum was designed to repeal parts of previous legislation approved by voters and was intentionally deceptively worded for the purpose of "stealing" votes. pretty desperate and bush league stuff. the organizers must have forgotten that they were trying to confuse the educated people, not the idiots they're used to manipulating. oops.

on a humorous note, a candidate -- susan hutchinson -- for king county executive (the previous exec. now works for the obama administration) modeled her campaign and platform after ... wait for it .... sarah palin. she lost in a landslide. imagine that?! i suspect she was inspired by palin because both are failed news readers. (i'm still trying to figure out why she felt qualified for any political or adminstrative position, especially one as important as county exec.) hutchinson was fired from her anchor position at KIRO tv due to horrible and declining ratings, getting caught in lies, and slandering management. she claimed the real reason for her termination was because the GM -- whom i know well -- wanted to have sex with a new, young anchor. she blamed her landslide loss in this election on ... any guesses? ... attack ads. the only ad that could even be considered an "attack" was the one that compared her to sarah palin. (ouch!) another conservative class act. the white, christian-creationist, conservative innocent victim.

what is it about conservatives modeling themselves after wildly unpopular and unsuccessful politicians? during our last gubernatorial race, dino "i named my puppy Dubya!" rossi lost for the second time in a row and to this day (sad to say i know him, too) still blames the loss on misinformed voters and smears. he doesn't understand that he lost because he was a bush clone, who has been persona non grata here since 2000.

here's my theory: bush's election victories inspired and empowered a whole new wave of f***kin' morons. stupidity, empowerment and a twist of validation do not a tasty cocktail make.

**a city council seat in Salt Lake City, the home of the virulently anti-gay Mormon Church **

that may be the most shocking election result i've seen. i can only assume a lot of transplants have moved to salt lake city for business or whatever. i can't imagine he'd get a single vote outside the city. when i think of christian bigotry, the southern baptists and mormons immediately come to mind. i like to think that joseph smith and/or brigham young dabbled in the love that dare not speak thy name. <g>

Options

#18 of 139 Posted Nov-4 3:58 PM

From gordonhofer Posts 31261 Last Nov-21
To Michael H. [Msg # 213500.18 213500.13 ]

Absolute bulls**t.

The US Constitution isn't amended by a "vote of the people," Gordon. It is amended by legislative acts by the elected representatives of the people.

Ohmigawd, a Constitutional scholar! I quake in the face of your exclusive wisdom!

FYI, the purpose of "elected representatives of the people" is to express the will of the people. Now, if you insist on picking nits, the elected representatives of the people were elected by a vote of the people. Therefore, the vote of the people constituted the bodies that voted on the amendment.

Options

#19 of 139 Posted Nov-4 4:02 PM

From gordonhofer Posts 31261 Last Nov-21
To Sysop Jim Dellon [Msg # 213500.19 213500.14 ]

And isn't it convenient that that same 14th Amendment applies to other forms of discrimination as well, such as your much beloved discrimination against gay couples.

I have no discrimination toward homosexuals, beloved or not. But, so far, the 14th amendment has not been applied by the courts to apply to homosexual marriage. In fact, various tests of the subject have shown that it doesn't apply to state marriage laws.

The beauty of the Constitution is that it protects everyone...

That's true, but it doesn't grant all "rights" to all people. Life will be easier for you when you understand that.

Options

#20 of 139 Posted Nov-4 4:07 PM

From Harry Flashman Posts 1189 Last Nov-21
To gordonhofer [Msg # 213500.20 213500.11 ]

>>How many of those have done so by a vote of the people?<<

==And what's the relevance of that? If schoolchildren in 1954 had been waiting for a vote of the people to desegregate the schools,

==The relevance in your hackneyed example is that a vote of the people enacted the 14th amendment, the basis for desegregation. Without that vote of the people there would still be segregation.

Keeping intact your record of civil rights tone deafness. That's the same rationale used by most of the court decisions on gay rights.

You know, the ones you're trying to denigrate because they weren't "votes of the people".

You always, amusingly, offer a heaping helping of humbug.

Keep up the good work.

Edited Nov-4 by Harry Flashman

Options

Print Discussion

American Issues

Gay Rights: 1 loss, and a few big wins

To list

New

...

Adjust text size:

Interest level:

Hot Searches

Chat Center

Board Folders

Gay Rights: 1 loss, and a few big wins

#1 of 139

#2 of 139

#3 of 139

#4 of 139

Maine voters reject gay-marriage law

#5 of 139

#6 of 139

#7 of 139

#8 of 139

#9 of 139

#10 of 139

#11 of 139

#12 of 139

#13 of 139

#14 of 139

#15 of 139

#16 of 139

#17 of 139

#18 of 139

#19 of 139

#20 of 139

Gay Rights: 1 loss, and a few big wins

Sponsored Links of the Day

Are You Safe to Drive?

Looking for Love?

Get A Flat Screen

Welcome, Guest

Find messages

Web Offers

Finding People

Cool Clicks!