Unfortunately, police will have to be sent to the Maine petition gathering sites to assure there is no physical interference with the rights of citizens to sign or intimidation of petitioners. At least the gay groups are letting people know ahead of time that they are planning this harassment so law enforcement can arrange to have some officers scheduled to work some overtime.
What TTF has made clear is that, like many socials radicals before them, they don't believe in democracy. Gays generally don't. Take California, where gays had legislatively won special rights long ago to make civil unions the de facto equivalent of marriage, a religious institution. Not content with what they achieve through democratic means they also had to sue to have the court also rule on, basically, changing the English language. Think if the money wasted on legal fees had been spent on AIDS research. Well, anyway, it sets up nicely for a backlash in an election year.
If anyone has just been surfing the web and come here for the first time, beware. The moderaters and most of the commenters are liars. Not long ago, they were saying there was proof that abstinence education leads to oral sexual activity. The Guttmacher Institute responded to this wild lie yesterday by releasing a study showing that this was not true, in spite of what the promoters of teen promiscuity say.
May 20, 2008 8:10 AM
Anonymous said...
Hey, AnonFreak-
What CRG/C and PFOX have made clear is that they don't value the quality of a person's life.
BTW- I am still waiting for my "transgender gang" t-shit to arrive in the mail!
;-)
May 20, 2008 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...
Andrea- not anon Yawn, MN Anon telling his crazed lies again. I feel for you, mn Anon. We know you come here for attention- and the good people we are- we give it to you. It's sad but I feel like paying attention to you is like my work with Martha's Table or Luther Place- although those people are much more deserving, honest and not hateful.
May 20, 2008 9:36 AM
Anonymous said...
Hey Jim! I’m glad you’re back… the crickets were getting annoying. ;)
Anon-Deluxe said: “What TTF has made clear is that, like many socials radicals before them, they don't believe in democracy. Gays generally don't. Take California, where gays had legislatively won special rights long ago to make civil unions the de facto equivalent of marriage, a religious institution. Not content with what they achieve through democratic means they also had to sue to have the court also rule on, basically, changing the English language.”
The “anti-democracy” or “radical judges” argument is one often brought up by people who don’t agree with the outcome of a judicial decision. This completely ignores the fact that our democracy is constitutionally based on a three-part system involving separate executive, legislative, and judicial branches, each having their own powers designed to operate in a system of checks and balances. It’s not always perfect, but I think most Americans believe it works at least as well as (if not better than) other political systems around the world.
One of the things this system has done over time is to help overcome the “tyranny of the majority” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority the “See Also” section on this page has a lot of useful links as well) and protect the rights of minorities. At one time, the minority was women, and they were not allowed to vote, at another time the minority was people of color, and the issues involved everything from eating, education, where they had to sit on the bus, and even which water fountain they could use. I personally believe our country is a far better place for having managed to find a way try and treat most of its citizens in manner that is consistent with the American dream, and the radical notion that all men (and women) are created equal.
If I remember correctly, (I think from an article I read at Time.com) there are 7 judges on the California supreme court, one of them is a Democrat, and 6 of them are Republican. The decision was 4-3 in favor of gay marriage. Do the math.
Peace,
Cynthia
May 20, 2008 9:45 AM
Anonymous said...
Cynthia
There is no issue of voting, eating, education, public accomodations. There was no hardship at all. Gay sex partners had been granted all the same privileges as married people. There only denial was to use a word of religious origin, marriage.
You may not be aware of this but Republican and Democrat don't have much meaning in California. There have been candidates for governor in the past who have received the nomination of both parties. I remember when I lived there in the late 70s, for example, Evelle Younger was running for governor as a Republican and favored legalization of marijuana while his opponent, Democrat Jerry Brown, opposed it. Even, Ahnold, in-law of the most notorious Democrat dynasty, is hardly a Republican in the national sense.
A word of "religious origin"? Really? How do you know that? Do you honestly believe marriage does not predate religion?
But, as usual, you make the point you keep trying to disparage. If marriage is a religious institution, which I believe is what you're trying to say, then the government has no business being in it at all. If it is not, and it isn't -- it is a secular institution in which religions participate in their own ways -- then it should be open to all couples.
Also, your comments about democracy are again dead wrong. The California Assembly has twice passed marriage, only to have it vetoed by the Governor who himself said he wanted the Court to rule. Well, now they have.
So in CA you have the will of the people as manifest by their representatives, the will of the Court, and shortly, I imagine the will of the Executive. But I guess even that won't be enough for you.
It should be interesting to see what happens with the referendum, if the people actually vote in an unconstitutional amendment. Amazing the degree to which people will go to manifest their ignorance and hatred.
May 20, 2008 1:55 PM
Anonymous said...
"A word of "religious origin"? Really? How do you know that?"
I'm the deluxe version
"Do you honestly believe marriage does not predate religion?"
It was mandated by God.
"But, as usual, you make the point you keep trying to disparage. If marriage is a religious institution, which I believe is what you're trying to say, then the government has no business being in it at all."
It's in the best interest of society which is why society endorses it. Just like the tax deduction for putting money in the plate.
"If it is not, and it isn't -- it is a secular institution in which religions participate in their own ways -- then it should be open to all couples."
Nah. If so why not any group of senitent beings? There are obviously things so outrageous, society shouldn't endorse them: incest, bestiality, homosexuality, et al
"Also, your comments about democracy are again dead wrong. The California Assembly has twice passed marriage, only to have it vetoed by the Governor who himself"
He took his action because he thought it reflected the will of the people. He's elected.
"It should be interesting to see what happens with the referendum, if the people actually vote in an unconstitutional amendment."
All amendments can be said to be unconstitutional. The constitution is precisely what the amendments are trying to change. In this case, though, it's just a matter of clearing up a misinterpretation by a judiciary disrespectful of democracy.
"Amazing the degree to which people will go to manifest their ignorance and hatred."
Shocking the lengths to which some will go to fulfill demented fantasies!
May 20, 2008 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...
Give it up, "Anon-deluxe" (now that one evokes a good belly laugh). No one cares what you say...you are such a pathetic TROLL. Get your own blog site so that you can become the hero of a horde of deluded and uneducated folks!
May 20, 2008 7:21 PM
Anonymous said...
yes, I can tell how little you care
we don't have to keep up the exchange
here's the only point:
TTF lies
gays hate democracy
don't throw out any pseudo-arguments in a vain attempt to obscure this and I won't post anything else about it
push the easy button
May 20, 2008 8:14 PM
Anonymous said...
Andrea-not anon IGNORE
May 20, 2008 8:39 PM
Anonymous said...
Anon-Deluxe said:
“There is no issue of voting, eating, education, public accomodations. There was no hardship at all. Gay sex partners had been granted all the same privileges as married people. There only denial was to use a word of religious origin, marriage.”
True, this isn’t an issue of voting, eating, education, or public accommodations. However, that doesn’t mean there hasn’t been hardship. I’m glad you bring up the use of the word “marriage,” because that seems to be the crux of the problem.
LGBT folks naively assumed that once they had a “civil union,” they would be granted “all the same privileges as married people.” Unfortunately that hasn’t turned out to be the case.
Just because you’ve been granted a “civil union,” it doesn’t mean you’ll be able to get health insurance for your partner the way a married couple would: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902201.html
It seems no one bothered to put the term “civil union” or “domestic partnership” on the same legal footing that the term “marriage” has. This has left a semantic loophole that many companies and institutions are using to deny same-sex couples rights they mistakenly thought they’d have once they had a legally recognized “civil union.” It turns out that in many cases, this “civil union” makes a nice decoration for your wall or mantle, but doesn’t necessarily provide you any legal rights, like the ability to visit your partner in the hospital when they are ill or dying.
“When the Cote-Whitacres leave the state, they do so armed with decades-old legal documents, which they drafted years before Vermont passed its civil unions law. If one were to fall ill or suffer an injury outside of Vermont, she would want the other to make medical decisions on her behalf. Most states don't recognize their civil union, so they need legal documents that spell out how their medical decisions should be made.
"We used to say, once we drive over the bridge from White River Junction to West Lebanon, all of our rights cease," Harrigan said. "It's sort of daunting to think that you'd have to carry a set of legal papers with you in your car."
That is why many gay activist groups are now fighting for the individual laws that are affect to specifically include a domestic partner, whether or not that partnership is a “marriage” or a “civil union.” One such example can be found here: http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/bills/sb/sb0566t.pdf It allows domestic partners here in Maryland to make medical decisions for each other and the ability to share a room in a nursing home if medical conditions permit. There are THOUSANDS of laws like this that would need to be passed in order to put domestic partnerships or civil unions on the same legal footing as “marriage.”
Obviously, some groups have started trying to get these laws passed, and others are trying to make the whole thing a lot easier by simply getting these civil unions called marriages.
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/fashion/weddings/18FIELD.html “Semantics aside, there are more than 1,100 federal benefits related to marriage, including the right to inherit a deceased partner’s Social Security, according to the Government Accountability Office.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act specifically prohibits same-sex couples from receiving any of them. So full equality will not be possible unless that act is overturned. And right now that appears to be unlikely, given that 27 states have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage, and 44 states have laws defining marriage as exclusively heterosexual.”
This act actually prohibits a federal employee from signing up their civil spouse for health benefits.
“Large gifts and transfers from a civil union partner are subject to federal tax, where married couples may make unlimited tax-free transfers.
While civil union partners' inheritance would not be taxed at a state level in New Hampshire, it may be in another state and is fully taxed at the federal level.
Civil partners' right to visitation and medical decision-making may not be recognized out of the state.
Federal income tax returns must be filed individually in civil unions.
Civil union couples do not receive Social Security or veteran benefit payments upon the death of their partner.
Retirement savings benefits — if the savings plan allows a non-spouse to be named as a beneficiary — are immediately taxed, while married couples receive payment upon the death of a spouse and can roll over savings for continued tax deferment.
There are no guaranteed rights upon the dissolution of civil unions outside the state.
Outside the state or another granting state, partners have no legal obligation to support their partner or partner's children.
There are no immigration benefits.”
Yes, gay couples aren’t being denied the right to vote, but if one’s domestic partner dies, and you can’t afford the estate and inheritance tax on his or her estate, it can certainly be a hardship when you have to sell it to pay the taxes and move out of your own home, instead of continuing to live in it like the spouse of a hetero couple.
Peace,
Cynthia
May 21, 2008 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...
Hey, Cynthia. As part of the Bush tax cuts, estate taxes are going to disappear in 2010. This will expire in the next year. Why don't you work to get John McCain elected so we can make this permanent and let all those gay folks stay in their house when their partner dies of one of the gay diseases?
Sound like a plan?
May 21, 2008 9:04 AM
Anonymous said...
I do like the idea of eliminating estate taxes. However, as a voting block, dead people are one of the favorite sources of tax income our politicians have – they tend to complain the least. I do not think it realistic that any tax on dead people will stay out of the IRS’ hands and the politician’s pockets for long.
As for myself, I have recently gotten wind of various legal ways to minimize taxes on one’s estate; I think one of them is called a “living trust.” I’ll be researching this more as I get older to try and maximize how much I can pass on to my nieces and nephews, and any children I may adopt should I be lucky enough to find a husband.
I have a lot of respect for John McCain, but I can’t see myself voting for him this fall, especially after he reiterated Bush’s misguided sentiments about handling things in the Middle East.
If Obama ends up being the Democratic nominee, I will likely vote for him, unless further research indicates otherwise. If Clinton somehow ends up as the nominee, I will likely vote for Ralph Nader or some other candidate.
As for “gay diseases,” I’d be careful what you say about that, especially near hospitals. I have a number of friends in the LGBT community who have, who do now, or will soon work in the medical field with direct exposure to patients. Should you find yourself in a hospital emergency room, you may want to keep your sentiments to yourself – you probably don’t want to piss one of them off.
Peace,
Cynthia
May 21, 2008 9:45 AM
Anonymous said...
"I do like the idea of eliminating estate taxes."
You're in the zone, C.
"As for “gay diseases,” I’d be careful what you say about that, especially near hospitals. I have a number of friends in the LGBT community who have, who do now, or will soon work in the medical field with direct exposure to patients. Should you find yourself in a hospital emergency room, you may want to keep your sentiments to yourself – you probably don’t want to piss one of them off."
Interesting. Dana said at one point that Duchy didn't want a religious exemption to the transgender assimilation bill because she wanted to fill hospitals run by churches with gays. Sounds like you're saying that unless people from a traditional religious background keep their opinions to themselves, they'll be in danger if the bill is not overturned.
Wow! Thought you radicals were keeping your cards close to your chest until the election was over. Thanks for giving us a threat we can show the voters. They need to see your intentions!
May 21, 2008 9:59 AM
Anonymous said...
"Anon-deluxe" (burp):
"TTF lies
gays hate democracy" ??
Such an infantile remark...you remind me of the 2nd graders on the play ground. Nanh, nanh..your pants are on fire!! Get a life!!
May 21, 2008 10:44 AM
Anonymous said...
far from infantile, these are important truths that voters will need to keep in mind about the gay agenda
-it's leaders feel deceit is a legitimate strategy to achieve their goals
-it's leaders feel deceit is a legitimate strategy to achieve their goals" -- Just out of curiosity, do the leaders of the lesbian agenda also feel the same way?
May 21, 2008 4:39 PM
Anonymous said...
No, emslob. The lesbians usually live and let live. They aren't generally aggressive about interfering with the peace and trying to impose on others.
Anon, you have a real name, Dana has a real name. You hide behind the Anonymous commenting feature that Blogger provides, Dana uses her real name. I don't have a problem with somebody calling you by your real name, I don't think it's especially courteous though I understand it; but you will not call her by an insulting incorrect name, got it?
JimK
May 21, 2008 10:58 PM
Comment deleted
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
May 22, 2008 8:32 AM
Anonymous said...
Anon mentioned important truths that voters will need to keep in mind
The important truth most voters have in mind is the lousy job the Bush Administration has done running this country. Bush's touch is just as good as it was when he ran Harkin Oil out of business -- he cashed out and left the stockholders fuming. With his 82% disapproval rating and all his rich cronies richer than ever, Bush is leaving American voters fuming.
Anyone who thinks flip flopping (When the most important pro-growth tax cuts in a generation were proposed by President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, Sen. McCain vigorously opposed them. While he has more recently supported the extension of the Bush tax cuts and has previously proposed requiring a supermajority vote in Congress to raise taxes, the extent of his opposition in 2001 and 2003 supersedes any potentially redeeming votes. WallStreetJournalOnLine) Bush-light McCain will win in 2008 is a fool. This country is chomping at the bit for change, a real change, a change we can believe in.
We'll be coining a new term this election: Obama Republicans.
May 22, 2008 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...
So rather than telling us how you became an expert on lesbian politcal activism, you've decided to throw another hissy fit. Not very masculine of you, I must say. But thanks for the demonstration of your yellow bellied cowardice. Lobbing insults from Anonymity while Dana discusses issues honestly and rationally says it all.
Pat
May 22, 2008 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...
How would you know what the content of the comments were, Pat?
In the first comment deleted, I noted, in three words, that Dana appears upset. What caused Jim to delete it was that I used the name Dana's parent had given Dana. You see, every time I say something Dana doesn't like, Dana tries to breach the anonymity feature of the blog, thinking I suppose that it intimidates me. For the record, I've never met Dana in person and told Dana nothing about myself. Anyway, if Dana doesn't respect someone's wishes about what to be called, why should anyone respect Dana's wishes?
In the second comment, I simply explained this to Jim and told him to make clear whether he still supports the anonymity feature of the blog. Until he does, I won't be posting any more comments.
Sounds like a "hissy fit"? Perhaps in the gay agenda fantasy world where abstinence programs lead to oral sex among teens.
In other words, the Kingdom of Lies.
May 22, 2008 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...
Information alert:
The word "marriage" comes, through middle English and French, from the Latin "maritus", which means "husband."
Marriage was not mandated by God, but by the Gods. I doubt marriage predates religion, but it most certainly predates Christianity and Islam.
Actually, Wyatt, I believe we met once at the Board of Ed.
"Anonymous" is not a name, last I checked the dictionary. Not even in Conservepedia. My breach of your anonymity -- and it's only a guess, btw, since I have no access to the server, and never have -- is not the same as your willful insulting of me by using my long ceased birth name.
May 22, 2008 9:22 PM
Anonymous said...
"Anonymous" - can we really believe you when you say: " I won't be posting any more comments."? We have never been able to believe anything else you have had to say...why should we believe you now? I'd love to believe you...saying "goodbye" to trolls like you would give just about everybody who patronizes this web blog unequivocal joy and unsurpassed satisfaction. Because you would never want that to occur...my thinking is you will continue to spout your nonsense...your ego can't take anything else.
May 22, 2008 10:20 PM
Anonymous said...
Why is it that so-called Christians very often seem to seethe with hatred? And why is it that those individuals who squeal the loudest about freedom are so quick to deny it to others? And why is it that those who use the word "truth" the most are often the most outrageous liars? May God forgive them. Unfortunately, they know EXACTLY what they do.
Red Baron said "I simply explained this to Jim and told him to make clear whether he still supports the anonymity feature of the blog. Until he does, I won't be posting any more comments.".
This guy's hilarious, he actually thinks people here are going to be disappointed if he goes away. Could he have any more overblown a sense of self-importance? Could he possibly be any more deluded? I think not.
May 23, 2008 4:23 PM
You know that here in Montgomery County, Maryland, there is a bit of a controversy over a new law that prevents discrimination on the basis of gender identity. It's a pretty standard law, lots of places have this sort of thing, but a certain small group of people in our community decided it violated their moral standards or something, and they have worked hard to bring back the right to discriminate against transgender people. Besides several publicity stunts that mostly backfired, they put a lot of effort into getting petition signatures for a referendum to repeal the law.
Gathering the signatures, they would stand outside grocery stores and other public places and tell people just about anything. They said the law would let perverted men lurk in ladies locker-rooms. They said that cross-dressers would expose their genitals to children. Predators would have access to women's bathrooms and shower-rooms and there would be nothing you could do about it. We heard them say these things, even the President of the County Council that passed the law got into an argument with one of them, who was trying to tell him what was in it.
On a couple of weekends, a small group of us went around to where they were gathering petition signatures. Sometimes we would talk to store managers and explain what was going on. Sometimes we'd stand there and explain the facts to people who had just been told something fictional. Generally this worked. People understood that the law was being misrepresented, they understood what the issue was, and when they understood they realized they did not want to sign. Of course they're against perverted predators in the ladies room, but they are in favor of equal rights for transgender people, and that is what the law is about.
Some members of our group were transgender, and so the other side tried to portray us as "transgender gangs" harassing their poor signature gatherers. Maybe it's me, but I get a kick out of the idea of transgender gangs. The images that are called to mind ... whatever, there is potential humor in it, let's say.
Now up in Maine it looks like they're going through a similar thing. The Christian Civic League up there has decided they're going to get petition signatures to recall the state's gay-rights law in the November 2009 election. Here's the Morning Sentinel: The proposal, which could appear on the ballot in November 2009, would lift the state's ban against discrimination based on sexual orientation and prevent unmarried couples from adopting children. It also would eliminate funding for the civil rights teams that the state sends into Maine schools, prevent the state from recognizing civil unions and prohibit city and town clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The state already has a law on the books that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Group takes aim at safeguards for gays So the nuts are declaring all-out war on gay folks up there in that state. The group is planning to collect signatures at polling places during the Maine June 10th primary elections. And so the battle shapes up.
Skipping ... [Betsy Smith of Equality Maine, the state's leading advocacy group for gays and lesbians, ] said the referendum is about "taking away (other) protections" that already exist. Hoping to discourage voters from signing the petitions, Equality Maine plans to send volunteers to the polls on June 10 to talk to voters. Heath refers to that as a "petition-blocking operation."
Smith says her group's "truth squads" will assure that voters are fully informed. Smith said her group sent a few volunteers to a few polling places during an anti gay-rights petition drive in 2005, but "our goal is to make this a broader effort -- more people, more polls." So one person is standing there trying to get signatures while someone else is explaining to people why they shouldn't sign. Signers can hear both arguments and decide if they really want to sign or not.
"Truth squads," I don't know, is that a little too much? Ah, I guess I like it: truth squads.
You will be shocked to know that the fine folks at World Net Daily don't like this. In a report in the New England Blade this week, Betsy Smith, executive director of the Equality Maine activist organization, outlined "a plan that asks volunteers to stand with the people the [Christian Civic] League recruits to collect signatures for the petition."
"I think it is disgusting that so-called 'gay' groups plan on harassing dear Christian grandmothers who simply want to gather signatures on Primary Election Day. Shame on Equality Maine," said Michael Heath, chief of the CCL.
And can you see any way that this referendum is even vaguely "pro-family?"
In the New England Blade, the leader of Equality Maine added something interesting. But Smith outlined for the Blade on Wednesday a plan that asks volunteers to stand with the people the League recruits to collect signatures for the petition. This way, said Smith, signers will not misinterpret the petition’s purpose and understand before they sign that the so-caled “equality” the League wants is really equality for straight couples, not equality for all. A complete copy of the legislation must be made available to anyone from whom the League solicits a signature.
“There is a belief in Maine that people have the right to vote on things. That’s why we’re not running a decline-to-sign campaign,” said Smith. “At the same time, we will offer a pledge for equality, so that people who are opposed to this can take action that day.”
Her group has also encouraged members to write letters to the editor criticizing the measure. Dozens of such letters have appeared in the state’s major daily papers, all of which have written editorials against the initiative. Anti-Gay Maine Referendum Language Certified: EqualityMaine Plans Voter-Education Efforts In our county, the idea was to ask people to "decline to sign." You can stop a referendum at two main points. If they can't get enough signatures, the referendum dies. But if they do and the referendum goes to a vote, the voters can reject it. It seems that it is a lot cheaper and easier to keep it off the ballot in the first place. For instance, in our county, if the relegalization of discrimination is put on the ballot, somebody will have to launch a major educational campaign to teach the public about gender identity. What is a transgender person, and why are they like that? Are they dangerous? Are they weird? Most people don't know anything about it, and so for our law to come to a vote it will be necessary to spend a lot of money and effort making sure the voters are qualified to address such a question.
At this moment, lawyers in our county are preparing the case for a court date in June. Thousands of signatures on the Montgomery County petitions had problems and should have been invalidated, and there is a lawsuit to throw them out. If that argument prevails, there will be no referendum in MoCo this year.
In Maine, even though the majority of citizens clearly support gay rights, these nutty people have muddied the water with their struggle for "equal rights" for straight couples only, they're going to start up the same thing we saw here. And people who support gay rights are going to do what we did, stand out there with them and tell people what the petition is really about. I mean, gay gangs will be harassing Christian grandmothers, that's the ticket.
"Gay Gangs Plan To Harass Christian Grandmothers"
30 Comments -
Unfortunately, police will have to be sent to the Maine petition gathering sites to assure there is no physical interference with the rights of citizens to sign or intimidation of petitioners. At least the gay groups are letting people know ahead of time that they are planning this harassment so law enforcement can arrange to have some officers scheduled to work some overtime.
What TTF has made clear is that, like many socials radicals before them, they don't believe in democracy. Gays generally don't. Take California, where gays had legislatively won special rights long ago to make civil unions the de facto equivalent of marriage, a religious institution. Not content with what they achieve through democratic means they also had to sue to have the court also rule on, basically, changing the English language. Think if the money wasted on legal fees had been spent on AIDS research. Well, anyway, it sets up nicely for a backlash in an election year.
If anyone has just been surfing the web and come here for the first time, beware. The moderaters and most of the commenters are liars. Not long ago, they were saying there was proof that abstinence education leads to oral sexual activity. The Guttmacher Institute responded to this wild lie yesterday by releasing a study showing that this was not true, in spite of what the promoters of teen promiscuity say.
May 20, 2008 8:10 AM
Hey, AnonFreak-
What CRG/C and PFOX have made clear is that they don't value the quality of a person's life.
BTW- I am still waiting for my "transgender gang" t-shit to arrive in the mail!
;-)
May 20, 2008 8:49 AM
Andrea- not anon
Yawn, MN Anon telling his crazed lies again. I feel for you, mn Anon. We know you come here for attention- and the good people we are- we give it to you. It's sad but I feel like paying attention to you is like my work with Martha's Table or Luther Place- although those people are much more deserving, honest and not hateful.
May 20, 2008 9:36 AM
Hey Jim! I’m glad you’re back… the crickets were getting annoying. ;)
Anon-Deluxe said:
“What TTF has made clear is that, like many socials radicals before them, they don't believe in democracy. Gays generally don't. Take California, where gays had legislatively won special rights long ago to make civil unions the de facto equivalent of marriage, a religious institution. Not content with what they achieve through democratic means they also had to sue to have the court also rule on, basically, changing the English language.”
The “anti-democracy” or “radical judges” argument is one often brought up by people who don’t agree with the outcome of a judicial decision. This completely ignores the fact that our democracy is constitutionally based on a three-part system involving separate executive, legislative, and judicial branches, each having their own powers designed to operate in a system of checks and balances. It’s not always perfect, but I think most Americans believe it works at least as well as (if not better than) other political systems around the world.
One of the things this system has done over time is to help overcome the “tyranny of the majority” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority the “See Also” section on this page has a lot of useful links as well) and protect the rights of minorities. At one time, the minority was women, and they were not allowed to vote, at another time the minority was people of color, and the issues involved everything from eating, education, where they had to sit on the bus, and even which water fountain they could use. I personally believe our country is a far better place for having managed to find a way try and treat most of its citizens in manner that is consistent with the American dream, and the radical notion that all men (and women) are created equal.
If I remember correctly, (I think from an article I read at Time.com) there are 7 judges on the California supreme court, one of them is a Democrat, and 6 of them are Republican. The decision was 4-3 in favor of gay marriage. Do the math.
Peace,
Cynthia
May 20, 2008 9:45 AM
Cynthia
There is no issue of voting, eating, education, public accomodations. There was no hardship at all. Gay sex partners had been granted all the same privileges as married people. There only denial was to use a word of religious origin, marriage.
You may not be aware of this but Republican and Democrat don't have much meaning in California. There have been candidates for governor in the past who have received the nomination of both parties. I remember when I lived there in the late 70s, for example, Evelle Younger was running for governor as a Republican and favored legalization of marijuana while his opponent, Democrat Jerry Brown, opposed it. Even, Ahnold, in-law of the most notorious Democrat dynasty, is hardly a Republican in the national sense.
May 20, 2008 1:42 PM
A word of "religious origin"? Really? How do you know that? Do you honestly believe marriage does not predate religion?
But, as usual, you make the point you keep trying to disparage. If marriage is a religious institution, which I believe is what you're trying to say, then the government has no business being in it at all. If it is not, and it isn't -- it is a secular institution in which religions participate in their own ways -- then it should be open to all couples.
Also, your comments about democracy are again dead wrong. The California Assembly has twice passed marriage, only to have it vetoed by the Governor who himself said he wanted the Court to rule. Well, now they have.
So in CA you have the will of the people as manifest by their representatives, the will of the Court, and shortly, I imagine the will of the Executive. But I guess even that won't be enough for you.
It should be interesting to see what happens with the referendum, if the people actually vote in an unconstitutional amendment. Amazing the degree to which people will go to manifest their ignorance and hatred.
May 20, 2008 1:55 PM
"A word of "religious origin"? Really? How do you know that?"
I'm the deluxe version
"Do you honestly believe marriage does not predate religion?"
It was mandated by God.
"But, as usual, you make the point you keep trying to disparage. If marriage is a religious institution, which I believe is what you're trying to say, then the government has no business being in it at all."
It's in the best interest of society which is why society endorses it. Just like the tax deduction for putting money in the plate.
"If it is not, and it isn't -- it is a secular institution in which religions participate in their own ways -- then it should be open to all couples."
Nah. If so why not any group of senitent beings? There are obviously things so outrageous, society shouldn't endorse them: incest, bestiality, homosexuality, et al
"Also, your comments about democracy are again dead wrong. The California Assembly has twice passed marriage, only to have it vetoed by the Governor who himself"
He took his action because he thought it reflected the will of the people. He's elected.
"It should be interesting to see what happens with the referendum, if the people actually vote in an unconstitutional amendment."
All amendments can be said to be unconstitutional. The constitution is precisely what the amendments are trying to change. In this case, though, it's just a matter of clearing up a misinterpretation by a judiciary disrespectful of democracy.
"Amazing the degree to which people will go to manifest their ignorance and hatred."
Shocking the lengths to which some will go to fulfill demented fantasies!
May 20, 2008 3:39 PM
Give it up, "Anon-deluxe" (now that one evokes a good belly laugh). No one cares what you say...you are such a pathetic TROLL. Get your own blog site so that you can become the hero of a horde of deluded and uneducated folks!
May 20, 2008 7:21 PM
yes, I can tell how little you care
we don't have to keep up the exchange
here's the only point:
TTF lies
gays hate democracy
don't throw out any pseudo-arguments in a vain attempt to obscure this and I won't post anything else about it
push the easy button
May 20, 2008 8:14 PM
Andrea-not anon
IGNORE
May 20, 2008 8:39 PM
Anon-Deluxe said:
“There is no issue of voting, eating, education, public accomodations. There was no hardship at all. Gay sex partners had been granted all the same privileges as married people. There only denial was to use a word of religious origin, marriage.”
True, this isn’t an issue of voting, eating, education, or public accommodations. However, that doesn’t mean there hasn’t been hardship. I’m glad you bring up the use of the word “marriage,” because that seems to be the crux of the problem.
LGBT folks naively assumed that once they had a “civil union,” they would be granted “all the same privileges as married people.” Unfortunately that hasn’t turned out to be the case.
Just because you’ve been granted a “civil union,” it doesn’t mean you’ll be able to get health insurance for your partner the way a married couple would:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902201.html
It seems no one bothered to put the term “civil union” or “domestic partnership” on the same legal footing that the term “marriage” has. This has left a semantic loophole that many companies and institutions are using to deny same-sex couples rights they mistakenly thought they’d have once they had a legally recognized “civil union.” It turns out that in many cases, this “civil union” makes a nice decoration for your wall or mantle, but doesn’t necessarily provide you any legal rights, like the ability to visit your partner in the hospital when they are ill or dying.
From: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070506/REPOSITORY/705060311/1002/NEWS02
“When the Cote-Whitacres leave the state, they do so armed with decades-old legal documents, which they drafted years before Vermont passed its civil unions law. If one were to fall ill or suffer an injury outside of Vermont, she would want the other to make medical decisions on her behalf. Most states don't recognize their civil union, so they need legal documents that spell out how their medical decisions should be made.
"We used to say, once we drive over the bridge from White River Junction to West Lebanon, all of our rights cease," Harrigan said. "It's sort of daunting to think that you'd have to carry a set of legal papers with you in your car."
That is why many gay activist groups are now fighting for the individual laws that are affect to specifically include a domestic partner, whether or not that partnership is a “marriage” or a “civil union.” One such example can be found here: http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/bills/sb/sb0566t.pdf
It allows domestic partners here in Maryland to make medical decisions for each other and the ability to share a room in a nursing home if medical conditions permit. There are THOUSANDS of laws like this that would need to be passed in order to put domestic partnerships or civil unions on the same legal footing as “marriage.”
Obviously, some groups have started trying to get these laws passed, and others are trying to make the whole thing a lot easier by simply getting these civil unions called marriages.
From: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/fashion/weddings/18FIELD.html
“Semantics aside, there are more than 1,100 federal benefits related to marriage, including the right to inherit a deceased partner’s Social Security, according to the Government Accountability Office.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act specifically prohibits same-sex couples from receiving any of them. So full equality will not be possible unless that act is overturned. And right now that appears to be unlikely, given that 27 states have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage, and 44 states have laws defining marriage as exclusively heterosexual.”
This act actually prohibits a federal employee from signing up their civil spouse for health benefits.
From: http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070502/NEWS/705020381/-1/PUBLICRECORDS07
“Large gifts and transfers from a civil union partner are subject to federal tax, where married couples may make unlimited tax-free transfers.
While civil union partners' inheritance would not be taxed at a state level in New Hampshire, it may be in another state and is fully taxed at the federal level.
Civil partners' right to visitation and medical decision-making may not be recognized out of the state.
Federal income tax returns must be filed individually in civil unions.
Civil union couples do not receive Social Security or veteran benefit payments upon the death of their partner.
Retirement savings benefits — if the savings plan allows a non-spouse to be named as a beneficiary — are immediately taxed, while married couples receive payment upon the death of a spouse and can roll over savings for continued tax deferment.
There are no guaranteed rights upon the dissolution of civil unions outside the state.
Outside the state or another granting state, partners have no legal obligation to support their partner or partner's children.
There are no immigration benefits.”
Yes, gay couples aren’t being denied the right to vote, but if one’s domestic partner dies, and you can’t afford the estate and inheritance tax on his or her estate, it can certainly be a hardship when you have to sell it to pay the taxes and move out of your own home, instead of continuing to live in it like the spouse of a hetero couple.
Peace,
Cynthia
May 21, 2008 8:49 AM
Hey, Cynthia. As part of the Bush tax cuts, estate taxes are going to disappear in 2010. This will expire in the next year. Why don't you work to get John McCain elected so we can make this permanent and let all those gay folks stay in their house when their partner dies of one of the gay diseases?
Sound like a plan?
May 21, 2008 9:04 AM
I do like the idea of eliminating estate taxes. However, as a voting block, dead people are one of the favorite sources of tax income our politicians have – they tend to complain the least. I do not think it realistic that any tax on dead people will stay out of the IRS’ hands and the politician’s pockets for long.
As for myself, I have recently gotten wind of various legal ways to minimize taxes on one’s estate; I think one of them is called a “living trust.” I’ll be researching this more as I get older to try and maximize how much I can pass on to my nieces and nephews, and any children I may adopt should I be lucky enough to find a husband.
I have a lot of respect for John McCain, but I can’t see myself voting for him this fall, especially after he reiterated Bush’s misguided sentiments about handling things in the Middle East.
If Obama ends up being the Democratic nominee, I will likely vote for him, unless further research indicates otherwise. If Clinton somehow ends up as the nominee, I will likely vote for Ralph Nader or some other candidate.
As for “gay diseases,” I’d be careful what you say about that, especially near hospitals. I have a number of friends in the LGBT community who have, who do now, or will soon work in the medical field with direct exposure to patients. Should you find yourself in a hospital emergency room, you may want to keep your sentiments to yourself – you probably don’t want to piss one of them off.
Peace,
Cynthia
May 21, 2008 9:45 AM
"I do like the idea of eliminating estate taxes."
You're in the zone, C.
"As for “gay diseases,” I’d be careful what you say about that, especially near hospitals. I have a number of friends in the LGBT community who have, who do now, or will soon work in the medical field with direct exposure to patients. Should you find yourself in a hospital emergency room, you may want to keep your sentiments to yourself – you probably don’t want to piss one of them off."
Interesting. Dana said at one point that Duchy didn't want a religious exemption to the transgender assimilation bill because she wanted to fill hospitals run by churches with gays. Sounds like you're saying that unless people from a traditional religious background keep their opinions to themselves, they'll be in danger if the bill is not overturned.
Wow! Thought you radicals were keeping your cards close to your chest until the election was over. Thanks for giving us a threat we can show the voters. They need to see your intentions!
May 21, 2008 9:59 AM
"Anon-deluxe" (burp):
"TTF lies
gays hate democracy" ??
Such an infantile remark...you remind me of the 2nd graders on the play ground. Nanh, nanh..your pants are on fire!!
Get a life!!
May 21, 2008 10:44 AM
far from infantile, these are important truths that voters will need to keep in mind about the gay agenda
-it's leaders feel deceit is a legitimate strategy to achieve their goals
-they hate democracy
May 21, 2008 11:03 AM
"the gay agenda
-it's leaders feel deceit is a legitimate strategy to achieve their goals"
--
Just out of curiosity, do the leaders of the lesbian agenda also feel the same way?
May 21, 2008 4:39 PM
No, emslob. The lesbians usually live and let live. They aren't generally aggressive about interfering with the peace and trying to impose on others.
May 21, 2008 6:35 PM
Love this -- Wyatt is an expert on lesbians now!
May 21, 2008 10:37 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
May 21, 2008 10:48 PM
Anon, you have a real name, Dana has a real name. You hide behind the Anonymous commenting feature that Blogger provides, Dana uses her real name. I don't have a problem with somebody calling you by your real name, I don't think it's especially courteous though I understand it; but you will not call her by an insulting incorrect name, got it?
JimK
May 21, 2008 10:58 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
May 22, 2008 8:32 AM
Anon mentioned important truths that voters will need to keep in mind
The important truth most voters have in mind is the lousy job the Bush Administration has done running this country. Bush's touch is just as good as it was when he ran Harkin Oil out of business -- he cashed out and left the stockholders fuming. With his 82% disapproval rating and all his rich cronies richer than ever, Bush is leaving American voters fuming.
Anyone who thinks flip flopping (When the most important pro-growth tax cuts in a generation were proposed by President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, Sen. McCain vigorously opposed them. While he has more recently supported the extension of the Bush tax cuts and has previously proposed requiring a supermajority vote in Congress to raise taxes, the extent of his opposition in 2001 and 2003 supersedes any potentially redeeming votes.
WallStreetJournalOnLine) Bush-light McCain will win in 2008 is a fool. This country is chomping at the bit for change, a real change, a change we can believe in.
We'll be coining a new term this election: Obama Republicans.
May 22, 2008 8:34 AM
So rather than telling us how you became an expert on lesbian politcal activism, you've decided to throw another hissy fit. Not very masculine of you, I must say. But thanks for the demonstration of your yellow bellied cowardice. Lobbing insults from Anonymity while Dana discusses issues honestly and rationally says it all.
Pat
May 22, 2008 8:49 AM
How would you know what the content of the comments were, Pat?
In the first comment deleted, I noted, in three words, that Dana appears upset. What caused Jim to delete it was that I used the name Dana's parent had given Dana. You see, every time I say something Dana doesn't like, Dana tries to breach the anonymity feature of the blog, thinking I suppose that it intimidates me. For the record, I've never met Dana in person and told Dana nothing about myself. Anyway, if Dana doesn't respect someone's wishes about what to be called, why should anyone respect Dana's wishes?
In the second comment, I simply explained this to Jim and told him to make clear whether he still supports the anonymity feature of the blog. Until he does, I won't be posting any more comments.
Sounds like a "hissy fit"? Perhaps in the gay agenda fantasy world where abstinence programs lead to oral sex among teens.
In other words, the Kingdom of Lies.
May 22, 2008 9:34 AM
Information alert:
The word "marriage" comes, through middle English and French, from the Latin "maritus", which means "husband."
Marriage was not mandated by God, but by the Gods. I doubt marriage predates religion, but it most certainly predates Christianity and Islam.
Silly anon. Stumped again.
May 22, 2008 1:21 PM
Actually, Wyatt, I believe we met once at the Board of Ed.
"Anonymous" is not a name, last I checked the dictionary. Not even in Conservepedia. My breach of your anonymity -- and it's only a guess, btw, since I have no access to the server, and never have -- is not the same as your willful insulting of me by using my long ceased birth name.
May 22, 2008 9:22 PM
"Anonymous" - can we really believe you when you say: " I won't be posting any more comments."? We have never been able to believe anything else you have had to say...why should we believe you now? I'd love to believe you...saying "goodbye" to trolls like you would give just about everybody who patronizes this web blog unequivocal joy and unsurpassed satisfaction. Because you would never want that to occur...my thinking is you will continue to spout your nonsense...your ego can't take anything else.
May 22, 2008 10:20 PM
Why is it that so-called Christians very often seem to seethe with hatred? And why is it that those individuals who squeal the loudest about freedom are so quick to deny it to others? And why is it that those who use the word "truth" the most are often the most outrageous liars? May God forgive them. Unfortunately, they know EXACTLY what they do.
May 23, 2008 1:47 AM
Red Baron said "I simply explained this to Jim and told him to make clear whether he still supports the anonymity feature of the blog. Until he does, I won't be posting any more comments.".
This guy's hilarious, he actually thinks people here are going to be disappointed if he goes away. Could he have any more overblown a sense of self-importance? Could he possibly be any more deluded? I think not.
May 23, 2008 4:23 PM