We play politics with gay people's lives

By CHRISTIANNE NOBLE WALKER
GUEST COLUMNIST

Are we done yet?

Now that eight more states have gay-marriage bans written into their constitutions -- 45 states ban it through amendment or statute -- are we done playing politics with gay people's lives? Is the public done being duped to vote for those measures because they think two women committing to each other for life before the law somehow threatens their own marriage or commands their churches to reinterpret their Bible?

Because I'm done being a punching bag whose personhood is routinely put up to a public vote so others can feel morally righteous. I've had it with critical decisions about my life being decided by a group of people who don't like the fact that I chose to marry a woman instead of a man.

"One man, one woman: let the people vote!" chant those in Massachusetts who want to reverse the right gays and lesbians have had for more than two years to marry. Yes, yes, our civil rights should always be subject to the personal prejudices of the masses -- that's democracy. But for the decision of some "activist judges," blacks might still be legally considered two-thirds of a person.

I prefer the slogan seen on a marriage supporter's poster in Massachusetts: "Can I vote on your marriage?"

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/294419_firstperson04.html

... should be repugnant to every genuine American.

Our freedoms as citizens -- all of us, gay, straight or anywhere in-between -- should not be held hostage to the whims of a popularity contest.

"Can I vote on your marriage?" Love it! :applause:

These are exactly my sentiments. And I like this "Can I vote on your marriage?" to make the point.
It's true, this is only about politics and some scumbags just abuse the irrational feelings of an uneducated and irrational mass.

How someone chooses to live next door doesn't concern me in the least. I just don't care. I have no right to decide for them and it's not up to me to make judgements about them.

Needless to say, I agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Walker. Very good points.

I still believe that the Democratic party, and the mass of democrats, should stand up and say

"There is no debate. Any two adults can get married if they want to. Stick your nose back into your own marriage and leave other people alone."

And if enough people did this, it wouldn't be a debatable issue.

if you are against gay marriage -- you are unamerican.

I hope more people get the guts to stand up and say that.

Absolutely right.

Sometimes the courts have to step in to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority.

She is totally right on this one. Why do some fundamentalists think that gay marriage would make their churches have to re-think marriage or the Bible? Just because the State says something, that doesn't mean that the Church has to agree.

its shameful that people think other people's civil rights are not really that important.

The same way we look back in disgust at how African Americans were treated 50 years ago, people will look back and ask how the government could have treated gay people this way.

Don't flame me, I know all Religious folks aren't nuts, but many who hold high profile positions are NUTS.

"Two women" is a cool thing...

I honestly believe this is the level of the debate to them.


They equate gay rights with prison sex.

do they equate gay rights with prison sex, they think that because men choose to rape other men in prison then being gay is a choice.
x(

We are very, very confused about sexuality and assault in the this nation...

Fish: A Memoir of a Boy in a Man's Prison. When seventeen-year-old T.J. Parsell held up the local Photo Mat with a toy gun, he was sentenced to four and a half to fifteen years in prison. The first night of his term, four older inmates drugged Parsell and took turns raping him. When they were through, they flipped a coin to decide who would “own” him. Forced to remain silent about his rape by a convict code among inmates (one in which informers are murdered), Parsell’s experience that first night haunted him throughout the rest of his sentence.

It's sad that such an editorial is even necessary.

:applause:

Nominated!

and more gays need to come as far out as they're comfortable because studies keep showing that anti gay marriage voters are significantly less likely to actually know anyone gay. The more we're seen, the less frightened they become.

See more of these these fascinating findings, starting on page 12 of this :

http://media.pfaw.org/pdf/cav/LGBTnotes.pdf

I'm not very well disposed toward religion to begin with except for maybe Buddhism and Wicca, which seem harmless enough. But I figure we're stuck with it and to each his/her own. But in return for their tax breaks and their special dispensation to discriminate in employment against just about anyone they want to and their generally privileged position in society religious folks need to keep their faith to themselves. Neither the Bible nor the Koran nor any other religious text in and of itself provides a basis for law in a secular society.

However, if they do insist on bringing policies grounded in religion into the public square they need to at least pay the same dues the rest of us do and they need to follow the same rules. There is nothing sacred about religion as far as I'm concerned. I have no respect for religion or religious people beyond that which common courtesy requires. They want to play in the secular world, they're not going to have it both ways. No hiding behind a priest's cassock or claiming divine immunity when the going gets tough. They'd better be prepared to play by secular rules period.

on ballots...

most americans support civil rights for everyone.

the "gay marriage" initiatives forces the religious right into the position of having to say yes or no to gay marriage.That's the wrong approach. Have them say yes or no to the consitituion.