Comments for Wait for equal rights? Are you kidding me? »
Posted By klynchsf 6 months, 4 weeks ago in NewsGay rights advocacy groups, including the ACLU , the HRC , the NCLR , and Lambda Legal issued a dictum yesterday criticizing the federal lawsuit filed against Prop 8 by esteemed attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies.
Read Full Story at shar.es »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 76
-
88%
david_nwpa6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If blacks waited to have equal rights, we would still have segregated schools in the South. If blacks waited for equal rights, we would still have Jim Crow laws, and harsher intimidation to keep blacks disenfranchised at the polls. If woman waited to have equal rights, they might not be voting yet. (Historically significant is the fact that the Swiss did not grant the right to vote for women until 1971!)
Reply
Why should gays and lesbians wait one more day as second class citizens hoping for scraps from the massuh?-
-
-
-
-
100%
Will13136 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
and if i were why would that be of you're concern..
Reply
you''re the one with an unnatural attraction to gay things.. not me....
I'm not but I do go to sing karaoke with a gay friend of mine.. we do a killer brooks and dunn .. and big and rich... duet... .. -
-
-
-
-
100%
jordan116 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To put your so called struggle on the same level as blacks or women is laughable.>>>>
Reply
Only to someone who doesn't respect equal rights, which are the foundation which this country was built on. I realize we aren't 'there' yet, but those who fight to bring the realization of the founding vision of our nation are patriots, & those who dismiss them are fools.
-
-
Neutral
bamababy6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Excuse me...all the groups you mention DID have to wait, and wait and wait, in many ways are still waiting... Bigotry comes in many forms, sadly, the gay and lesbian community is ,has and probably will be forced to continue "to wait". One's sexual orientation should be no ones concern but thier own. It should have no bearing on applicable laws pertaining to spouses and property and on and on and on..... Just as one does not choose ones skin,hair or eye color, One doesn't "choose" one's orientation...it is what is is...If you love someone and want to commit, ie, get married who are we to say, wait a minute....you can't do that.... This world needs all the LOVE it can get....don't suppress, support.................................
Reply
-
-
HMMaceComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned14 Replies
-
13%
Endoscopy6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Homosexuals already have equal rights. What homosexuals want is not equal rights but to change what the definition of marriage is and has been for thousands of years. Find a person who before the last 200 years was one of the respected great thinkers who advocated for homosexual marriage.
Reply-
100%
MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They do not have equal insurance rights, visitation rights, property transfer rights,
Reply
or many others afforded to man/women life partners
Do you really believe that if someone deep down in their hearts love someone and wants to spend the rest of their lives with that person that YOU can legislate love???
Who dares think they have the right to make laws that support or deny opportunities for happiness??
Do you really believe that THOSE 2 people in love should have fewer protections in America than THOSE other 2???
I certainly hope not. if you believe that someone else's joy is harmful to you them you are not decent humans.
if you don't like the rterm "marriage" then call it "Matriage"
or "mate-riage" but there are people out there whose personal rights are being withheld from them. Don't you want to allow
them their rights?-
-
100%
jakesguile6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Do you really believe that if someone deep down in their hearts love someone and wants to spend the rest of their lives with that person that YOU can legislate love???"
Reply
Yes, he does
"Who dares think they have the right to make laws that support or deny opportunities for happiness??"
He Does
"Do you really believe that THOSE 2 people in love should have fewer protections in America than THOSE other 2???"
Yes, he does
"I certainly hope not. if you believe that someone else's joy is harmful to you them you are not decent humans."
No, he's not
"if you don't like the rterm "marriage" then call it "Matriage"
or "mate-riage" but there are people out there whose personal rights are being withheld from them. "
Yes, there are
"Don't you want to allow
them their rights?"
No, he doesn't
-----------
Simple-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Whoever the "'he" you're referring to qualifies to be
Reply
" The most rotten bastard in the world".
If you're talking about bible loons, they can't be credible when they avoid the parts where it's permissible to sell your daughter and stone your wife, or have sex with the wife of a conquered soldier, but use that same book to make morality claims about gays...
They are stuck up rotten bastards themselves.
If the "he" you refer to is God, then he's either an
invisible man, or a very cruel almighty.
I vote for invisible man!-
-
100%
MRCOFFEECAKE6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh..you're actually stating that endo "thinks" at all??
Reply
Why think, when selfishness, feelings of superiority, self-righteousness and no tolerance for others comes so easily??
After all, how much do you believe anyone who takes the nickname
of a painful and rather distasteful medical exam ever bothers to think?
I guess Pap smear was taken!
-
-
-
-
-
89%
bubba26 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo doesn't want anyone that threatens his way of "thinking" to have any sort of equality.
Reply
The "definition" of marriage that Endo and his ilk so LOVE to refer to is in the BIBLE, so it is as old as the Bible and MUCH older than this country.
There is NO "definition" of marriage in CIVIL law (except for what some religious zealots have forced on a few states in RECENT years). The only criteria is a minimum AGE, and THAT is NOT even IN the Bible.
When 2 people love each other and are faithful to each other, there is nothing "threatening" or "dangerous" or "catastrophic" about it!
And the argument about raising children in gay families being 'dangerous' is erroneous.
How many millions of children - in this country alone - have problems and end up in juvenile hall or in jail because they only have ONE parent?
How many heterosexual marriages end up in divorce? At LEAST 50% in this country. So millions of children watch their parents fight and argue and split up - is that "healthy"? I think not.
Christians can't even help people deal with heterosexual marriage issues! Yet they spend so much energy trying to fight something that has NO place in civil law, and their actions are totally CONTRARY to how Jesus taught us to treat people.
Such Christians are narrow-minded, self-righteous hypocrites.
Re-read the New Testament and look at the life of Jesus, and also look at who he criticized and condemned. It was NOT any 'sinners' - it was the RELIGIOUS LEADERS of his day. He called them "white washed tombs full of dead men's bones" because they made a mockery of God's law and used it only to further their own agendas. (Sound familiar?) -
88%
jakesguile6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This tired old argument again Endo? Sorry but your special rights argument is dead. Quit trying to revive it, it's dead.
Reply
As to your second question: Plato, Socrates, Shakespeare was from the 1500s-1600s sooo that's 500 years ago, he counts. There's countless proof that he had a lil' fling with an Earl (Rochester, was it?)
All of Rome before it became hyper-Christianized? -
-
-
-
-
83%
bubba26 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As usual, another rant with baseless accusations and innuendo about everyone you hate or everyone that "threatens" your thought processes and your brainwashed agenda.
Reply
Try reading some truths about La Raza instead of repeating the ridiculous bullsh!t that you hear from Rush or Glenn or Shawn.
http://www.nclr.org/content/viewpoints/detail/4250... -
89%
bluetexasvalley6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As I explained in another thread, La Raza does not mean "the race"; it means "the people".
Reply
And I'll bet you think "mano-a-mano" means man-to-man. LOL In Spanish the word for man is "hombre" (Remember the Paul Newman movie?) Mano-a-mano means hand-to-hand [combat].-
-
75%
bubba26 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
La Raza does NOT mean "race" in English.
Reply
La Raza is a term often mistakenly translated into English as meaning "the race", The true meaning of la raza is much closer to "the people". This term cannot be properly defined in English by a simple one word answer due to language differences.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=la%...
La Ra·za (lä räsä)
n.
Mexicans or Mexican Americans considered as a group, sometimes extending to all Spanish-speaking people of the Americas.
[American Spanish, the people.]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/La+Raza
While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. As noted in several online dictionaries, “La Raza” means “the people” or “the community.” Translating La Raza as “the race” is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_di...-
-
100%
bubba26 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Do you think that the NAACP is "racist"? The concept and the principles are the same for both groups.
Reply
Since you are so sure of the 'correct' meaning of "raza", maybe you should contact all of the online dictionaries and let them know that you are correcting them since you are apparently the expert and they are not.
-
-
-
100%
bluetexasvalley6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tanglang, here is a reply I made to one of your comments on another thread:
Reply
bluetexasvalley
24 minutes ago
"(You're arguing with a guy who spent several *months* south of the border last year because he doesn't like the cold.)" [Emphasis is mine]
To quote one of your heroes: So?
You're arguing with someone who has been speaking English and Spanish fluently for over 65 years. I also majored in Spanish in college; except for one week of a sophomore-year class that I took my freshman year (the professor insisted I take advanced-standing exams which I did, earning 12 hours in two days thus), all my Spanish classes were fourth-year classes.
La Raza, in this context, means the race, as in the human race. El pueblo means the public or a town; yeah, a large group of people. There are Spanish and Mexican cities which incorporate "pueblo" in their names, just as we use "town" in some of ours.
Hispanics are not a race. The recognized races are Caucasian (white), Negroid (black), Mongolian (yellow, Asian) and red (native Americans).
Hispanics are smart enough to know they are NOT a "race". Why aren't you?
-
-
-
-
-
-
85%
scott42616 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understand the argument put forth by these groups (quite frankly, I'm surprised by Lambda Legal's involvement). After all, what they are really saying is, "The first Latina woman is up for confirmation to the Supreme Court. Could we please bury this issue until after she's confirmed?"
Reply
Then it will be, "Can we wait until the 2010 elections are behind us? The Republicans a sure to use this as a wedge issue."
Well guess what? They already are! If Prop 8 had failed (as some had taken for granted that it would), the right wing would be screaming to the top of their lungs that President Obama "brought gay marriage to America!" But wait....no that was on May 17, 2004.... the day gay marriage began in Massachusetts. And who was president then? Oh, yeah....it was George W. Bush! But they'll find a way to blame President Clinton (you know, it's like an itch they have to scratch every once in a while....), because it was on his watch that civil unions took effect on July 1, 2000....
But what about state's rights! Throw that away! Forget it! QUEEEERS ARE GETTIN' MARRIED!!!! IN AMERICA!!!
Those narrow-minded bigots just make me sick! -
93%
scott42616 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is a REASON most people under 30 (and I would argue...under 40, really) have no objection to gay marriage. We are their co-workers and neighbors. We are in their families. We are their friends. They like us. Many love us. They cannot see ANY logical reason we should not be afforded the same rights as any heterosexual couple... These are are the rights every married person expects.... rights that we - the gays and lesbians in committed long term relationships - have to draw up living wills and other legal contracts ....JUST to obtain what we can of the rights legally obtained through heterosexual marriage.
Reply
Unfortunately, the vast majority never draw up these documents, leaving those surviving vulnerable to unapproving and preying relatives. This is especially true when the dead gay relative is RICH. They might not approve of our lifestyle, but they sure as F*** want our money and our property, don't they?
Now, this doesn't always happen. Some of us actually come from families who will respect our wishes. Many more DO NOT.
AND THAT is why gay marriage is inevitable. I can remember discussions with many of my liberal straight friends in the '90s who could not, unfortunately, separate out the difference in definitions between civil marriage from religious marriage....Thus, civil unions came along....
Many of the same people - including the many in HRC, unfortunately (and they're gay! Go figure!) - are STILL having trouble with it. Why deny any two consenting adults the rights afforded by marriage? Sexual orientation should be irrelevant. I say that everyone that wishes to enter such a contract - regardless of sexuality - be awarded civil unions and let the individual churches bless those unions that they see fit as marriages. In other words, the church ceremony and who they choose to acknowledge would not change, but everyone who enters in the LEGAL CONTRACT - which has NOTHING to do with religion, BTW (nor should it) - would be granted the same rights. ...That seems fair to me.... -
-
94%
Will13136 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Scott .. i hope that sometime before i pass on.. that everyone is treated equal.. and not looked down on simply because of what they are..
Reply
one thing has happened that i never thought i'd see.. we have a man of color in the White House..
there's hope.. -
94%
frctm56 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you really believe that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, then you don't have much faith in your institution. I guess marriage between straight couples will be null and void if we allow gay people to get married. Eighteen thousand gay couples got married before prop 8 passed in California and the law is not retroactive so their marriages will be recognized. So, I guess now all the straight marriages in America are not longer valid. I mean if this is a true threat, than you either have to acknowledge the truth of that assertion or dispense with your argument that gay marriage is a threat. No one who is secure in their sexuality would be threatened by gays.
Reply-
100%
jakesguile6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Questions about Johnny Depp, Richard Gere or Chace Crawford can be very intimidating to some people who can't appreciate natural beauty.
Reply
.... Although to be fair, I'm gay and it'd be harder for me to choose between Depp, Zac Efron and Chace Crawford. Unfortunately only Efron seems like he might swing that way. Crawford was raised in an antigay school and Depp plays too many straight guys (well he played that bi dude in that one movie... whose name escapes me. He played the Earl of Rochester hehe).
-
-
-
93%
Bkumm6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This whole gay marriage/equal rights issue is ludicrous. Those opposed to "granting" (you can't grant something to someone that is that person's inalienable right you can only recognize legally the rights of that person) equal rights to homosexuals simply don't have a legal leg to stand on, under the Constitution.
Reply
There is NO basis for denying the rights of two (or more) individuals to marry (that is, enter into a legally binding contract sanctioned and recognized by the State) other than some ancient and questionably moral imperatives. Of course it is true that the two (or more) individuals must be legally able to enter into that contract (of age and metal faculties intact), but other than that restriction there is no justifiable reason for denying a sizable minority of our population their inalienable rights as human beings to self-determination.
It ASTOUNDS me that the same people screaming, whining and wailing about government intervention into the "private affairs of companies" and "socialism" are the same exact people suggesting that the government interfere in the private affairs of individuals. Do they not see the inherent hypocrisy?
EQUALITY FOR ALL UNDER THE LAW!!!-
prophyporcritesComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
92%
Poulenc6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The struggle for marriage equality is every bit analogous to battles fought to gain equal rights for women and blacks.
Reply
In all cases, a group has been systematically marginalized or at least deprived of rights that a part of the population enjoyed.
And as with those struggles, it will take some time for the idea of that inequality to be seen by all (or most) for what it is.
This means that the "but it's always been this way" cadre, as personified by Endoscopy, will need, bit by bit, to be deprived of their power to discriminate.
Homophobes--those who hate gays for feelings they've judged themselves harshly for harboring, or victims of obtuse morality--will always be with us. But the world will no longer be a safe place for them to express their irrational hatred. -
100%
TimALoftis6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My Father taught me a long time ago that those standing on the opposite side of EQUALITY is standing on the WRONG side and they will always be defeated in time.
Reply
Being on the opposite side of 'Marriage Equality' is no different. Sooner or later, you will be defeated...I am increasingly optimistic that it will indeed be sooner. -
100%
truthiness6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't understand how the 14th amendment doesnt cover this.
Reply
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
so, how can CA, or any state, refuse a pair of citizens the right to join in marriage and receive the benefits that other couples of citizens receive?
also, as a straight man, I don't understand why other straight people care what homosexuals do. what possible difference will it make in my life, or my family's life, if the gay couple down the street gets married?
can anyone answer these questions directly, without insult or invective?-
100%
Will13136 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i'll second your post..
Reply
there is no RATIONAL explaination against gay marriage..
would be nice to get a court case appealed to the supreme court.. that COULD.. end all discussion.. and COULD eliminated all descriminating laws and state constitutional amendments.. -
100%
smithichie6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't understand how the 14th amendment doesnt cover this.
Reply
Truthi, I think gay marriage IS covered under the Constitution. That is why CONS are all for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. If gay marriage wasn't protected under the Constitution there would be no reason for such an amendment.
All it's going to take is the right case before the Supreme Court.-
100%
jakesguile6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not with Scalia on there, he'll f*ck everything over. Right now our SCOTUS is comprised of a number of people who will lie and distort our constitution to fit their own right-wing agenda. It doesn't matter if it's covered under the Constitution or not, it doesn't matter if it's inherrantly legal and rightful. They're in bed with the right wing and will not allow it to pass.
Reply
-
-
100%
kobzikov6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"so, how can CA, or any state, refuse a pair of citizens the right to join in marriage and receive the benefits that other couples of citizens receive?"
Reply
It's an intentional narrow interpretation of 14th Amendment to justify the discrimination.
Plessy v Ferguson was after 14th Amendment was passed. And women didn't have a right to vote until the passage of 19th Amendment. Not to mention that it took almost a 100 years for the courts to figure out that anti-miscegenation laws violated Fourteenth Amendment.
A twisted interpretation of Constitution can be used to justify illegal behavior and to deny rights without due process, it still happens as has happened even in not too distant past.
"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."
--Martin Luther King Jr-
100%
klynchsf6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is exactly the argument Olson and Boies will use in the federal suit. Creating two classes of citizens (which the CA Supreme Court did this week) spits smack on the face of the U.S. Constitution. The CASC simply opened the door for the federal courts to deal with the problem, because their hands are tied by the unconscionable runaway ballot initiative process in California.
Reply
No federal judge can justify such a narrow interpretation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the US Constitution by a state. It's a no-brainer. If they do allow this to stand, they risk being removed from the bench as incompetent.
-
-
-
100%
Bkumm6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It does. Is that direct enough? LOL>>>
Reply
Parts of the fourteenth have been used to demand that the several States apply the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) to their own constitutions. Further the "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth is pretty clear.
However, as of this writing, no person has yet brought a case before the Supreme Court to enforce the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth upon the rest of the states. The real kicker here is that any of the several states could ban same sex marriage in their borders, but be forced to recognize it legally if the marriage was legally done in another state. Basically, a ruling by the SCOTUS enforcing the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth will gut the opposition to same sex marriage. -
-
0%
Icantwait6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My Fellow Outcast Americans: We really don't care if you marry another same sex partner. We just want you to do it in another Country and stay there and I have a few suggestions to help you different people out. I was thinking Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, maybe even France. I honestly think you will fit right in with their cultures. America is trying to become more like the Communist Countries these days and this type of behavior is somewhat out of line with our new values. As it is we now have in this Country your type of people hanging off the porches of downtown New Orleans in drag, walking the tender loin district of San Francisco all dragged up, and yes, even P town at the Cape in Massachusetts is clutter with all sorts of unusual characters roaming the streets. It seems like that is a lot of freedom for this Country, especially in this day and age. Obama wants to do away with this type of behavior and I must say I kind of agree with him this time. The President is against gayness, the normal well adjusted people are against gayness, and I dare say the Religions (all of them) are against gayness. So, my gay friends, your days are over. Straighten Up. The Real American
Reply-
-
-
100%
klynchsf6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay, I have to say something here because your remark about San Francisco drag queens is WAY over the top. (BTW, Tenderloin is capitalized and it's one word, not two). Everybody knows not to mess with San Francisco drag queens. Do you realize what you've done? You better get yourself to North Korea, because that's the only place they can't reach. I'm just sayin'.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Natureboy6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Won't wait for your rights?
Reply
If you depend on the judicial process, you will be waiting for a long time.
So here's what you do.
Find sympathetic clergy to marry you and complete the paperwork. Go down to the Secretary of State's office and demand that they register your marriage. Refuse to leave. Come back the next day, and the next.
If you could have even a few couples do this at each of the SoS offices in California, you would be throwing sand in the gears of the government machine, bureaucrats would be fit to be tied. Something would have to be done. Initially, that something would likely be arresting and maybe beating you. But you're willing to risk that, I am sure.
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.