I am so SICK of the GD04 debates on MY RIGHTS!

[Bertha Venation]

Some guy in the GD04 thread about Kerry's remarks on gay marriage yesterday was disgustingly condescending while ranting on about how we gays are falling for Rovian tricks -- and he went on to say that there is no anti-gay-marriage amendment in the works!

WHAT KIND OF FUCKING MORAN DOES NOT KNOW THAT THERE IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT?
:grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke: :grr: :nuke:

[Democrats unite]

1. I feel your pain

I am sad to say we have some gay people right here on this board, that are the worst sheeples of all!

[southerngirlwriter]

2. Your rights are very important to me.

I'm sorry some people are so stupid.

"Be angry and sin not." :hug:

[terrya]

3. The FMA is scheduled for a vote in the House in June.

John Aravosis' "The List" mentioned that this VERY real piece of hateful legislation will be scheduled for a vote this summer. And I trust him.

Obviously, the guy in GD2004 is completely ill informed.

Terry

[beyurslf]

4. Not only is there an anti gay marriage ammendment proposed

but it goes even further. As currently proposed it states that marriage is between one man and one woman and the rights of such shall be given to other couples in any other form. Sounds like they are trying to ban civil unions/domestic partnerships too. It affects laws in CA, VT, MA and many cities and localities that give many of the "rights" of marriage without calling it that.

[terrya]

7. The FMA will get rid of everything.

That's the way it's worded. Vermont's CU law, any domestic partnerships laws...gone.

Terry

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. The debate is about everybody's rights

It is about the principle of equality under the law, as opposed to special status for certain groups.

While the "gay marriage" issue may be an emotional hotbutton, the principle involved is relevant to every American.

If you ask people, are you in favor of equal protection under the law, many will say yes.

If you ask them, should gay people have the same rights to marry as straight people, fewer people will say yes.

If I believe that the law should NOT protect everyone equally, would you expect me to get my foot in the door using a popular group?

[elfwitch]

6. Bertha honey, I'll kick their asses for you....

I'm not gay but I sure am a friend of the "Family".
I am just as tired as you guys of this debate.
I have grown bone weary of people butting in to other people's personal lives.
I really don't know what gives Fundies and the anti-gay marriage types the balls to question your choices when they obviously can't make good ones for themselves.
When the revolution comes, I'm marching with you guys.

[LynneSin]

8. At this point I don't think there is an amendment on the floor

or in committee.....officially that is.

However, it is well published that many right-wing nut jobs would support an amendment if it made it to the floor

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-06-29-frist-gay-marriage_x.htm

My 2 cents on the whole issue. I highly doubt we'll see this amendment before the 2004 election. It's too much of a hot topic to bring to the floor. However, if Bush and repukes win in November I'll bet my life savings that they will push the ban since they have control of the White House for another 4 years. They have it all written up and are just waiting for the best time to bring the issue for a vote.

I'm with you Bertha, we need to worry about this. Just cause the bill isn't "out" there right now doesn't mean it's not hidden away until it's unleashing in 2005

[Bertha Venation]

11. It's official, Lynne

S.J. Res. 26 is in the Senate Judiciary Committee, referred there on 11/25/03. It was introduced by Wayne Allard (CO) and currently has six (6) co-sponsors: Brownback (KS), Bunning (KY), Inhofe (OK), Miller (GA), Sessions (AL), and Shelby (AL).

H.J. Res. 56 is in the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, referred there on 06/25/03. It was introduced by Marilyn Musgrave (CO-4) and has 108 co-sponsors.

Both bills are identical:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article--

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'.

[terrya]

13. I'm surprised Santorum isn't co-sponsoring this piece of shit.

I can think of several other certain yes votes in the Senate:

Byrd, Hollings, Frist, McConnell, McCain...

And that's just off the top of my head.

I share your anxiety and worry about this, Bertha. Believe me, I do.

Love,
Terry

[LynneSin]

14. Many of those old farts are up for re-election

Shelby, but no candidate against him so far: http://www.dscc.org/Races/stateinfo/alabama

Brownback: http://www.dscc.org/Races/stateinfo/kansas We have Joan Ruff running against him and we did elect a democratic governor in that state in 2002

Bunning: http://www.dscc.org/Races/stateinfo/kentucky. We have Dan Mongiardo running against him.

And Zell Miller is retiring thank goodness!!

[adriennel]

17. common-law?

the wording of this makes me wonder about "unmarried couples". would this invalidate "common law" status currently available to some long-term cohabitators?

[adriennel]

9. it's not an anti-gay marriage amendment...

it's a pro-heterosexual marriage amendment! nothing about homosexuals in there...just properly defining marriage as male/female. See how well that works out? it's like a page outta the Repug manual :puke:

I am freakin sick and tired of people on DU and in the real world claiming that the gay marriage issue is too divisive so we should let it go, or wait until the time is right, or some other cowardly bs.

Nor does pro-civil union, anti-gay marriage work for me. It's a contradiction that conviniently omits the issue of equal protection under the law. It's a cop-out.

[indigo32]

10. I'm with ya Bertha

it's crazy to see the excuses and denial there.

[roughsatori]

12. I am furious too

I sent a note to the moderators about my belief that they would never permit a discussion where some advocate not giving "equal rights" to Blacks or Jews. Or allow people to call it a "meaningless" issue. It did not go over well, perhaps I was not clear.

On the plus side I must give credit to the true progressive heterosexuals on this board who have no "but" after their demands for equal rights for all.

[MoonAndSun]

15. Unfortunately, the people sayng that there is no anit-gay marriage

amendment are saying this because they do not want this to be an issue for Kerry to have to deal with. Which I think is so wrong, he has to come out and strongly condemn an amendment that will take rights away from Americans. To think that there are people here at DU that will whitewash Kerry's views on this issue is so sad.

[arwalden]

16. I Wonder If My SOTU Rant Can Be Found In The Archives...

I was vile and crude and rude and just plain vulgar. Feel free to cut and paste from it (you don't need to give me credit.)

-- Allen

P.S. You're totally correct... it's maddening!

[terrya]

18. There can't be words strong enough to condemn hate.

And that's exactly what the FMA is: hate. The opponents of gay marriage will never come up with a legitimate reason to be against same-sex marriage. Because there AREN'T any.

And I don't know whether to cry or get sick with rage over the fact that here we are, in 2004, the 21st century...and that there are people in this country who would codify intolerance into the Constitution of the United States. And that there are people who would pretend this doesn't exist.

Terry

[M155Y_A1CH]

19. Missy's opinion

I hope that if they ever truly debate
the "sanctity" of marriage,
common law marriages come under fire
as well as same sex marriages.

If you sign "their" name or live in the same place as "them"
for a year,...
automatic rights of marrriage are extended,...
as long as you are of the opposite sex.

What's up with that?

Folks who have made no actual commitment
to each other are afforded such rights?

It's not like it's hard to qualify for marriage.
Any pair of opposite sex axxholes can get in on the benefits;

Joint taxes with deductions,
family medical insurance discounts,
the right to have your dying will honored,
the right to be in the hospital room with your sick
or dying spouse, and survivorship rights,
the right to the disposition of the body of your loved one upon death,
the right to not be required to testify in court against your spouse,
the right to claim your dependent as a dependent.

What else have I missed?

These "rights" are indeed perks,
granted to the chosen.
(The gender of the persons being of paramount importance).

This is a civil rights issue NOT a gay rights issue. It has to do with the GENDER of the persons involved. Not the commitment level of the relationship.

As a feminist AND a lesbian, I have a hard time distinguishing the difference between oppression of women and oppression of gays. Is there a discernable difference?

Missy

[Fenris]

20. Keep an eye out for nothingshocksmeanymore

I was reading her posts in threads about gay marriage and who said what or did what or didn't do what. She's fighting hard. I tip my hat to her!

:beer: To Teena!

One of the threads last night concerning gay marriage actually got my blood boiling, and I usually take anything in GodDammit 2004 quite lightly.

There are a LOT of fucking morans out there. Some of them aren't worth responding to.

Keep faith, Bertha.

[Moderator]

21. locking this thread

continuing a flamewar .