Well...sorry to bore some people here, but a comment about the next President and GLBT issues.

In 2003, we gay and lesbian people watching the State of the Union address heard the President of the United States call for an amendment to the Constitution that would permanently define marriage as between a man and a woman. The President of the United States was framing it in terms of reining in "activist judges" but the intent (unless you were tragically clueless) was this: to enshrine, permanently, bigotry between a group of Americans into the Constitution of the United States. Never before, in the history of this country, was an amendment proposed that would TAKE AWAY the rights of law abiding Americans. I was white hot with anger that night watching that. It was one of the shameful moments ever in a State of the Union address. Apparently, full equality was a serious problem enough to amend the Constitution.

The current occupant of the White House has been nothing less than public enemy #1 of the GLBT community. From peddling shameful consitutional amendments to putting in homophobic judges in the Federal judiciary to appointing homophobes in the administration to threatening to veto any kind of legislation that would confer equal rights to GLBT people...George W. Bush has been consistently opposed to GLBT equality.

And that's why it's important, to me, that the next President (and yes, I absolutely think it will be a Democrat) "gets it" as far as GLBT issues are concerned. When ENDA (a fully inclusive ENDA) is introduced in the next Democratic Congress, I want the President to actively lobby for it and to sign it. When Don't Ask Don't Tell is up for review, I want the President to strongly take on the Pentagon and to be committed to its repeal, so that gay and lesbian soldiers can serve their country openly. When the next Congress passes a federal hate crimes bill, I want the President to lobby for its passage.

I want the next President to begin respecting us. To stop treating us as second class citizens. I've had 7 years of that and enough's enough.

community to be treated like American citizens with equal rights.

But that isn't goint to happen with Hillary or Obama. Our only chance with that was with Kucinich but people wouldn't vote for him, sadly.

is finally in a position of power might just make this an issue. Sadly, after the current admin leaves, there's going to have to be a lot of fixing of so many things going on.

be involved in religion? I don't think that'll fly with the constitution, and I'm not an adherent to any religion.

... does it mean they aren't married?

It has nothing to do with religion. Which is why you can't get "married" by clergy unless you already have that marriage license, and that clergy member has to be legally able to act as a LEGAL CIVIL REPRESENTATIVE or they can't sign your license.

DU's own Pacifist Patriot married me and Haruka in September, and she said none of us had to even say a word, all she had to do was sign the license, because it's a CONTRACT.

Maybe I'm a bit stupid but are you saying you got married on DU? I guess I'm not following your train of thought.

It was officiated by Pacifist Patriot, a DUer and a Unitarian minister.

That's great. I love hearing things like this. :)

religious ceremony?

I feel like throwing my hardback copy of the official gay agenda through the window every time I read that shit.

At the rehearsal the night before the wedding, everyone signed the contract. So technically we were married the day before our wedding ceremony.

But wait! The marriage does not legally take affect until the contract is registered with the state. So it may have been several days after the wedding ceremony that we were technically married.

Actually, we were going to have a Catholic priest (a family friend of my wife) do a reading at our gay wedding. At the last minute, his father ended up in ICU, though. He wishes the Church would let him perform same-sex marriages.

I think it's pretty naive to suggest that marriage is a religious ceremony.

:thumbsup:

ceremony or something? :(

I have to be misunderstanding your point, because I know you're not like this.

I'm only responding because you're giving a thumbs up to that one post... :)

I'm sick of seeing that ridiculous, garbage meme still spouted here on DU as if it means something. And c'mon Cboy, you should know by now that the majority of my thumbsups are made derogatory jest.

It helps keep my deleted posts down when I approach it this way. ;)

And how dare you raise your vocabulary at me and call me by my first name!?

Of course I know you're an a-hole, errrrrr, a sarcastic guy.

But don't you usually choose the "welcome to my ignore list" response, rather than the :thumbsup:?? (Rhetorical question)

So I was just checking whether I needed to come over and have it out with you.

And in my defense, you have ingested a massive amount of Kool Aid. moo-hahahahahhaha

I never ever say, "welcome to my ignore list" - I say something clever, or just bye. Oh wait, that rhetorical.

But the Kool-Aid tastes good. :P

get me all flustered..........errrr something

Even midlo has me confused.

She said she was puting me on ignore because I rolled my smiley eyes at her. x(

What's happening to my friends? :cry:

What do you expect from her? shrug:

Many people have tried to claim Marriage in the name of religion, but Marriage is not owned by religion. Atheists get married all the time as do other people who have no interest in a church wedding. The only reason people are pulling the "marriage is a religious institution" is to try to prevent gay people from getting married. Before that nobody even made a peep about it.

What it does say is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Amending the Constitution to promote one religion's idea of marriage and invalidate all others in a pre-emptive strike against one group's civil rights is decidedly un-Constitutional.

They have identical (albeit not perfect) voting records according to Human Rights Campaign.

They both have made mistakes

in terms of policy- Clinton with her unwillingness to completely overturn DOMA and both with their unwillingness to endorse marriage rather than civil unions.

and in terms of association- Obama with the McClurkin incident and both of them with their frequent campaigning in homophobic churches and with homophobic pastors.

I think in terms of policy, we're looking at nearly identical plans. The big difference will be effectiveness in implementing said policy, which involves getting both congress and, implicitly, public opinion behind it.

Go TERRY!

I'm straight and single but I have the choice to get married *if* I could actually come across a woman who would deal with me. :)

But we both would have that choice, and it blows my mind that there are so many people in the 21st century that can't get their heads out of their asses.

There is so much hate in this world and it is disheartening to see people doing what they can to suppress others from publicly declaring their love for another person. Yes, marriage is a legal contract of sorts, but it is also a declaration, and should be a right for everyone.

take on the pentagon on DAY ONE.

Versus Hillary who doesn't bring up the subject in front of anti-gay crowds, and changes the subject if questioned.

This second class citizen crap has got to stop. We're talking basic socio-economic rights: renting apartments, keeping jobs, getting health insurance coverage, childcare and adoption, income taxes. We're talking about Americans being denied these civil rights. Are we going to have a president with the political and moral courage to address these issues, head on?

The right wing can gently, gently go fuck itself on GLBT rights. I don't care what they think, say, pray or believe about it; there should be no belief or prayer able to deny civil rights in this country. This is not a "special interest." This is the basics. Enough is enough.

Which is what worries, scares and saddens me about this whole race, more than anything.

the GLBT issue is one of the main reasons I turned away from Obama, not that HRC is so much better, but BHO's inclusion of McClurkin (or whatever his name was) was a total turnoff for me, old, married and hetro.

PS

I gotta tell you about my hubby, mr. raised on a farm in the middle of nowhere in a red state guy....

I tape GayUSA every week off FSTV and love their news and comments. I watch them in the bedroom when we're settling in for the night, hubby usually is asleep before 'headlines' are done on Democracy Now! every night and one night he woke up while I was watching GayUSA and mumbled "Why are they talking about lunch all the time?" "Lunch?" says I, "Yeah" he said "they're always talking about BLT issues, why so much interest in a sandwich??"

:rofl:

now he loves the show too, he thinks Andy Humm is a hoot and Ann is smart as a whip and he's actually gotten informed on GLBT issues too :rofl:

terrya you are never a bore.

Never before, in the history of this country, was an amendment proposed that would TAKE AWAY the rights of law abiding Americans.

I can name 3 amendments which deprived citizens of their rights: the 14th (exclusion of Confederate officials from office), 18th, and 22nd.

I agree with you on most of your issues, but I think that our current candidates wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole. The only thing I disagree with is the so-called "hate-crime" legislation; those actions are already illegal, you're just punishing people for what they believe. While I find their beliefs odious, they have every right to think whatever they want, so long as they do not break the law, and making thinking something illegal is just asking for trouble.

including those laws that include race and religion.

Do I think discrimination (in jobs, services, etc), on any irrelevant grounds, should be illegal? Absolutely, and these laws need to be expanded and strengthened.

Do I think that someone who kills a person for being (insert term here: black, gay, muslim, etc) should get a longer sentence than someone who killed a person for no reason at all? No, and these laws should be abolished.

I understand the concept, but we are crossing a line between holding people accountable for their actions, and holding them accountable for their beliefs or thoughts, and I don't think we need to take even the smallest step down that road.

even though I don't agree. :thumbsup: So many people think it's okay to have hate-crimes laws that include race and religion, but when you want to extend them to sexual orientation or gender identity, that's when they have a problem.

The intent of a hate crime is to let a segment of the population know that they were threatened also--that the crime was committed against someone else simply because of dumb luck. To me, that's worth a slightly harsher penalty. It's not about legislating thought, but how one acts on the thought.

Like it or not, you are discriminating against someone because of their beliefs; injecting arguments like this into the penal system will simply further inflame animosity. The strongest argument for hate crime legislation is that retaliation is more likely (most sources cite the LA riots after Rodney King), but I believe that a small amount of civil unrest drives the point home more effectively than any law possibly could. How many LA cops do you think want to live through that again?

Someone that deliberately kills someone should or should not be given a harsher sentence than someone that accidentally kills someone?

Although your example is a little flawed; accidental killing is a different crime than intentional murder.

Let's look at a closer example: should someone who killed a person for being gay (just to stay on topic) get a harsher sentence than someone who killed a person for walking down the wrong alley? The best argument I can see is that the person had a choice not to walk down that alley, but that's still pretty thin.

I have three major issues with hate-crime laws: First, they are targeting attitudes, thoughts, and beliefs, which I think are none of our business; Second, they emphasize our differences, when the best thing we could do for all minority groups is to emphasize our similarities; Third, the same reasoning could be applied to just about any group or person, and with good reason.

Is it unthinkable that a gay person could kill someone for being straight? Highly unlikely, I'll grant, but what if I were killed for being white? For that matter, it is a matter of contention as to whether my religious beliefs (none at all!) are protected, but if someone killed me for it, I wouldn't expect them to receive a harsher penalty for it, and in fact they would probably get a lighter sentence.

Honestly, if the penal system just worked properly in the first place, I don't think it would even be an issue.

And then go on to repeat the tired thought crime meme about hate crimes legislation.

I sympathize with all groups who are discriminated against for specious reasons, but the compelling logic of equal rights goes both ways: your right to marry, get insurance, etc doesn't materially affect me, positively or negatively. Ergo, these are not my issues. Moreover, your thinly veiled implication that I am some sort of crypto-bigot is as poorly-thought-out as it is wrong, especially since that wasn't even what I was talking about!

To be more specific, I was referring to Terrya's issues, not any general set of issues; and again, I support equal rights for LGBT!

As for "tired thought crime meme", I could say the same thing to you about playing the bigotry card. Is that "telling" as well?

My advice: Since every step you take is going to be hounded by right-wing nutjobs, be extra careful about what those steps are; hate crime laws are stepping into dangerous territory, for a very small net gain. Work on marriage (I think eliminating legal recognition of marriage entirely is the way to go; us breeders can have "civil unions", too) and insurance.

I've had it with false morality and hatred in the name of "deeply held religious beliefs" and other BS excuses. Bigotry is bigotry and it's high time it be laid to rest. No more second-class citizens. Equal-rights now.

k&r

We deserve nothing less. K&R.