| Something I Thought Got the Point Across |
[29 Apr 2004|06:29pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 Sarcastic |
] |
Hi. I'm Samantha. I'm new to this community and found this on a site. I modified it with my friends just a little to fit our personality. I decided to join this community after a heated debate in my English class. My boyfriend and I constantly say "It's us against the school." I created a GSA at my new High School, because of some really annoying slang and hate crimes on campus. Everything seems to be going great, but very slow.
- "Homosexuality is not natural." much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
- "Heterosexual marriages aren't valid because they produce children."Umm, so... Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the world needs more children.
- "Obviously gay parents will raise gay children." Yea, since straight parents only raise straight children.
- "Straight marriage will be less meaningful" Since Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful. Let us not forget that well over half (56 per cent) of the couples who divorced in 1999 had children under the age of 18.
- "Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time." Because times haven't changed at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
- "Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts." Because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
- "Gay marriage is not supported by religion." In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
- "Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay." In the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
- "Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior." Yes...SOON THEY'LL BE DANCING!
- "Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home." That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
- "Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time." Yes, because could never adapt to new social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
- "Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better." Because a “seperate but equal” institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
|
|
|
[29 Apr 2004|10:28am] |
Untruth: Traditionally, all cultures have recognized heterosexual monogamy as the most important type of adult relationship.
Truth: Follow the link.
|
|
| California Domestic Partnerships? |
[26 Apr 2004|03:02pm] |
(Cross-posted to several communities, apologies if you see this more than once.)
Is anyone here registered as California Domestic Partners? My partner and I are potentially facing a situation where being registered could be very helpful, possibly crucial. However, I don't know what the downsides are to registering. Does anyone have any advice on what the downsides are and how they might be avoided?
Thanks mucho,
JOhn.
|
|
| Romney: Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage |
[25 Apr 2004|06:42am] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
angry |
] |
I have been wondering what the stubborn bigot would try to do.
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/042504romneyMarr.htm
Mass. Gov. Vows Showdown Over Gay Weddings
by Margo Williams
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
Posted: April 25, 2004 12:01 a.m. ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is directing town clerks across the state that they will be charged if they marrying any same-sex couples from outside the commonwealth.
( ... )"Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage," Romney tells the New York Times. "We do not intend to export our marriage confusion to the entire nation."
( ... )The governor said that beginning this week he will send letters to the governors and attorneys general of every state in the union to "indicate to them that it's our understanding that same-sex marriage is prohibited in their state, but if that's wrong, please inform us."
( ... )Several communities, including Provincetown and Worcester had previously said they would not ask couples where they resided (story) but, the new forms will do that for them. ( ... )
"From our perspective, Massachusetts has no legal justification at all for catering to discriminatory laws of other states, particularly where it has itself already declared that barring same-sex marriages is unconstitutional," said gay rights advocate Mary Bonauto.( ... )
|
|
| prolife prochoice gay marriage activist and if you have a problem you can suck on my... |
[24 Apr 2004|11:45pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
aggravated |
] |
| [ |
music |
| |
iron chef |
] |
it's about time for a new icon. what's next on the docket?
penis pen!!
so all the prochoicers are departed for d.c...and the march is tomorrow. i wish i were there!! ack! i wish it would've worked out. when they all get back i'll be looking forward to reading their posts. i'm sure it's going to be an excellent experience.
what most don't realize, is that prochoice does not equal pro abortion...as me, i could not ever have an abortion for any reason. that's just me and my opinion towards my body and mind and heart. but never in a million years would i want abortion to be illegal. DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS THEN?? people will do it anyway. they will do it on their own with knives. with drugs. by throwing themselves down the stairs hoping they killed it. that's horrible, and no one should have to feel that THAT is their last option. i know so many people who cannot have children and would love to adopt. why not make that a possibility? that's what i'd do, but i could never and would never...and have never!! judged anyone or thought lowly of them because of an abortion. if it's what was best for you, then that's no problem, and, isn't it awesome that you had the opportunity!? rock on! keep abortion legal! go to hell bush!
and then there's the gay marriage issue.
i will first repeat that bush can go to hell, and then inforce the fact that love knows no bounderies. i'm telling you right now, i have never ever felt that my love was sectioned and secluded to being only towards males. horseshit. you find someone beautiful, their eyes and smile wow you, their hand sends chills up your spine, their naked body brings a smile and heavily beating heart...what about any of those have anything to do with the opposite gender. no one can convince me that anyone is 100% straight. call me stubborn. but i'm right. so? so our president has nothing better to do that try to make it unconstitutional for one to marry their love? funny...irony really...i thought there was a mother fucking war going on!? who the hell cares if eric wants to marry scott and lisa wants to marry traci? fuck you george. really.
ok. i'm going to insanely post this on both the choice community and my own LJ...and a gay marriage community if i find a good one. cross posting...i do...sorry if it pisses anyone off. this is important.
|
|
| I HATE LIVING IN VIRGINIA!!!! |
[23 Apr 2004|10:57am] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
pissed off |
] |
In a special, one-day session called to address the changes Warner made to 53 bills, lawmakers kept the original version of Del. Robert Marshall’s “Marriage Affirmation Act,” intact with a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate. Virginia now has the nation’s most restrictive laws against same-sex partnerships.
“The legislature just codified second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians, and set the state back years.”
The new law will abolish the rights of same-sex couples to execute a will, sign medical directives or craft custodial agreements, Mason warned.
This is all from The Washington Blade http://www.washingtonblade.com/2004/4-23/news/localnews/override.cfm
X-posted all over
|
|
| The "gay marriage" argument: |
[23 Apr 2004|03:45am] |
...from both sides, as appearing in my local paper!
(x-posted here and there)
When i read the editorial column below in my local paper (printed on March 14st), it got my blood boiling to the point where B had to calm me down, because she could see the steam coming out of my ears, almost literally...
but then, last week, the rebuttal i had been working up in my head for weeks afterward (but had yet to have time to pen) appeared in that same space, tho it was physically written by someone a bit more eloquent than i.
I present here...
for your reading pleasure...
both the original column, and then the rebuttal.
( Future depends on sanctity of marriage - by Rev. Terry Hagedorn )
Unshockingly, according his bio at his church's website, Rev. Terry Hagedorn is a graduate of Bob Jones University, an uber-conservative Baptist college in South Carolina that, up until the early '80's, did not even allow interracial dating...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
( the rebuttal, by Tim Smith )
Bravo, Tim... couldn't have said it better myself.
|
|
| San Jose, California |
[21 Apr 2004|07:48pm] |
|
For those unfamiliar with my area, San Jose is metropolitan city 60 miles south of San Francisco, has a larger population than SF, and is home to the big names in Silicon Valley. A few weeks ago I shared that a big church in my city had published a full page ad in our local paper denouncing same-sex marriage and asking readers to respond to an online poll. Well, it has come to light why they were so interested in public opinion in San Jose. They've now threatened our mayor and city council with a recall petition if they do not reverse a decision made last month to offer marriage benefits to same-sex couples who got married in other jurisdictions and who work for the city.
That's a bad trend. The recall of California's gay-friendly governor was bad enough, now they are going after our like-minded mayors and city councils too. *sigh*
I'm taking a personal stand against it and sent this letter below to our Mayor.
I am interested to know if there are any other recall efforts underway in other communities regarding this issue. Please post a comment if you have any info about that.
( Dear Mayor Gonzales, )
|
|
| I need lots of info -- hope you can help! |
[21 Apr 2004|03:05pm] |
For a research paper, I need sources that talk about the history of gay rights/activism since Stonewall. Any ideas, suggestions, or websites you think might be helpful would be great.
Thanks <3
|
|
|
[21 Apr 2004|01:55pm] |
Hey everybody;
I'm giving a pro same sex marriage speech next week and I just wanted to get some feed back on the topic. Please feel free to be honest.
Do you support gay marriage? Why or why not?
If you support it how do you show your support? What actions do you take?
If you don't support it, how do you show this? What actions do you take?
What rights do you think should be available to a same sex couple?
Why do you think people protest equal rights for same sex couples? Please be specific...
If you support gay marriage...
-how do you debunk the myths and stereotypes of gay relationships?
-What are the most insulting myths and stereotypes?
-which of these are false and which ones are based in truth?
How does this topic effect you? How does it make you feel?
I want to move people to take action to support gay marriage, what sort of action do you think I should try to get them to take?
Thank you!
|
|
| If it walks like a duck... |
[21 Apr 2004|12:20pm] |
|
I'm not sure whether to be heartened or discouraged; even though we're battering at legal walls, in so many ordinary ways our relationships are accepted ...
I ran across this at realage.com, a site that analyzes various factors in determining biological vs chronological age:
***
Which best describes your CURRENT marital status?
If you consider yourself in a LIFELONG, cohabitating relationship even though you are not legally married, please choose "married."
and then
YOUR HAPPY MARRIAGE HELPS YOUR REAL AGE.
A healthy marriage relationship can improve social interaction and lower stress. In general, married people have a younger RealAge. 0.9
***
Unfortunately they don't factor in the stress caused by having that status invalidated by twits who feel threatened by it.
|
|
| California! |
[20 Apr 2004|11:33am] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 ecstatic |
] |
IN AN HISTORIC VOTE, CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE VOTES, 8 TO 3, IN FAVOR OF EQUALITY CALIFORNIA'S GROUNDBREAKING MARRIAGE LICENSE NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT (AB 1967 - LENO)
I got this in my email box today and wanted to know what you all think. I'm very happy. :-)
Rest of the email is behing the cut.
( Read more... )
|
|
| God hates what? |
[20 Apr 2004|01:53pm] |
| [ |
music |
| |
Beethoven's Symphony #9, 2nd Movement |
] |
Everyone knows that God hates shrimp. After all, it says so right there in Leviticus, right? What happens when someone goes into a Christian chat-room and brings this topic up? Thought you might get a kick out of this.
(updated to correct God Hates Shrimp url...)
|
|
| Day of Silence |
[20 Apr 2004|09:33am] |
|
Tomorrow is Day of Silence. I won't be speaking to anyone, for any reason tomorrow. I will be wearing a red t-shirt and jeans, our "uniform" for the day. I will be carrying around cards that say "April 21, 2004 - Day of Silence. Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies. My desliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices. Think about the voice you are not hearing today. What are you going to do to end the silence? Day of Silence Project." I have been participating in this grassroots movment for 5 years now, and never ever has it felt more important than this year, when I'm coming to the realization that I will be leaving the safety of this liberal campus, where I can be out and not worry about losing my job or my friends or anything like that, and moving into a world where my sexuality jeopardizes my career possibilities, my friendships, and any family I may potentially have. It's a scary thought.
|
|
| Massachusetts Gay Rights Crucial Info |
[20 Apr 2004|11:27am] |
THIS THURSDAY, APRIL 22ND, Starting at NOON. The Anti Gay Marriage
supporters are coming from all over the nation to rally at the state house
in Boston. we need more support here than ever! If no one knows about this
we have to get the message out ASAP. they are trying to remove the judges
and cancel the ruling FOR gay marriage. if we want freedom and rights for ourselves and fellow humans, this
CANT be allowed to happen! Please come, a large turn out is essential!
you can get to the state house by taking the Green Line train [B, C, or D trains] to Park Street.
for more info on directions and so forth, please email bhs_glbtqsa@hotmail.com
|
|
| http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/041504massMarry.htm |
[19 Apr 2004|08:55pm] |
Mass Gov. Vows To Stop Gay Weddings
by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
Posted: April 15, 2004 2:14 pm. ET
(Boston, Massachusetts) Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney announced Thursday he will seek emergency legislation to stall gay marriages from taking place. Same-sex marriage is scheduled to become legal in Massachusetts on May 17 under a ruling by the state's highest court. (story)
Romney said that the bill is being drafted in his office and would allow him to appoint a special counsel to ask the court stay its ruling on gay marriage until after a constitutional referendum can be held.
The legislature in a joint session last month voted in favor of putting a proposed amendment to the state Constitution that would outlaw same-sex marriage to voters. (story) The measure requires a second vote in the next session. If it passes again, it would go to the voters in 2006.
"Fundamentally, I believe this is a decision which is so important it should be made by the people," Romney told reporters.
"I would like the right to be able to represent the people and my own office before the courts in Massachusetts."
The Republican governor's position failed to garner much support from the legislators Thursday.
While many Republicans support Romney's move, Democrats who control both houses showed little interest.
Senate President Robert Travaglini, who endorsed the amendment, said it is unlikely the upper chamber would pass the governor's bill. Twenty-two of the Senate's 40 members last month voted against the constitutional amendment. It passed anyway because there were enough votes among House members.
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran has already said he does not intend to stop gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts next month.
Not even Attorney General Thomas Reilly will take Romney's case to the court. Last month he rejected a plea governor's request to seek a stay from the Supreme Judicial Court until November 2006. (story)
Romney said Thursday the legislation being drafted by his office would be argued before the court by a special counsel, retired state Supreme Judicial Court Justice Joseph R. Nolan, who has called the court's November ruling legalizing gay marriage an "abomination."
The attorney general who is elected is the state's chief legal officer and determines legal policy for the state. Even if Romney were to get his bill through the State House, the high court may decide not to hear arguments from anyone other than Reilly.
The governor maintained Thursday that his opposition to same-sex marriage is not based on homophobia, but is an attempt to avoid the legal confusion caused if gay marriages are allowed to occur this spring and then banned in 2006.
|
|
| http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/041504kerryRc.htm |
[19 Apr 2004|08:54pm] |
Spain To Legalize Gay Marriage
by Malcolm Thornberry
365Gay.com Newscenter
European Bureau Chief
Posted: April 15, 2004 5:20 p.m. ET
(Madrid) Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told Parliament Thursday that he intends to move forward with plans to legalize gay marriage and grant equal rights to gay couples.
"The moment has finally arrived to end once and for all the intolerable discrimination which many Spaniards suffer because of their sexual preferences," Zapatero said during a debate which will end with a vote to confirm him in office.
"Homosexuals and transsexuals deserve the same public consideration as heterosexuals," he said. "As a result we will modify the Civil Code to recognize their equal right to marriage with the resulting effects over inheritance, labor rights and social security protection."
The move follows a pledge Zapatero's Socialist party made to woo gay voters in the last election. Last month, immediately following the election, he repeated the pledge in a television interview. (story) But, this is the first time, he has announced his intentions in Parliament.
The remarks immediately drew the ire of the Catholic Church. The Vatican condemns same-sex unions and adoption by gay couples.
Nine other European Union countries already have some provision for recognizing those in committed same-sex relationships. Last month, Britain said it would give legal recognition to gay partnerships. (story) Only Holland and Belgium allow same-sex couples to marry in Europe.
Three Canadian provinces, Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia also permit gays to marry. Next month, same-sex marriage will be legal in Massachusetts.
Homosexuality was banned during Franco's 1939-1975 dictatorship. Spain's liberal 1978 constitution outlawed sexual discrimination and homosexuality was decriminalized shortly afterwards.
Zapatero did not say when legislation on gay marriage would be presented in Parliament.
|
|
| http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/041604oreCourt.htm |
[19 Apr 2004|08:53pm] |
Decision Next Week In Oregon Gay Weddings
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 16, 2004 8:23 p.m.. ET
(Portland, Oregon) A judge in Portland, Oregon Friday said he would rule next week on the legality of same-sex marriage.
Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses March 3 (story). A the California Supreme Court ordered San Francisco to stop allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, Multnomah is the only place in the court where same-sex couples can get marriage licenses.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski and state Attorney General Hardy Myers both appealed to Multnomah County to stop issuing the licenses until the matter is decided by a court.
The county has refused and under an agreement with opponents to gay marriage began a fast-track case to the state Supreme Court.
Today, lawyers for the county and nine same-sex couples squared off in Multnomah Circuit Court against attorneys for a group opposed to gay marriage.
"The Oregon Constitution guarantees equal treatment for everyone. This means that the state must grant equal marriage rights to all couples, whether they are lesbian, gay, or straight," said Ken Choe, a staff attorney for the national ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, who argued the case in court.
"The state offers straight couples and their children hundreds of protections to help them through hard times. The families of the 3,000 same-sex couples who have already married in Oregon, and those of the countless others who want to do so, need and deserve these safeguards too."
Opponents of marriage for same-sex couples were represented by the Defense of Marriage Coalition.
"You don't protect marriage by destroying families," said Roey Thorpe, Executive Director of Basic Rights Oregon.
"What we know is that healthy children are raised by all kinds of families. What matters most is love and the ability to put children first."
Attorneys for the state did not dispute that the current law is likely in violation of the Oregon Constitution but argued that the court should give the legislature the opportunity to remedy the discrimination by setting up a separate system of "civil unions" that would apply only to same-sex couples.
The ACLU countered by arguing separate but equal is every bit as unconstitutional.
After just over two hours of arguments Judge Frank Bearden said he would deliver a ruling in the case next week, acknowledging that his ruling is just one step on the road to the Oregon Supreme Court. Bearden said he is "very grateful I'll just be an asterisk in some other decision along the line."
|
|