GLBT DUers. I need some information for a press conference

[Mikimouse]

I will be speaking at a press conference in my locality next Friday (20th). This is in regards to the movement supporting gay marriage rights in TX, so it is a more than worthwhile effort. Some friends are going to file for marriage licenses at the local courthouse and there will be a rally as well (in front of the courthouse). I would welcome any suggestions about potential points I should try and make prior to opening it up for questions. I am honored to have been asked by the local movement organizers to speak during the press conference and don't want to disappoint them.

[Insider]

1. one thing

don't use the term "gay marriage". IMO there is no such thing. there is single, and there is married. you mentioned "marriage license" (not "gay" marriage license) that's all it's about: one form for all.

good luck, and thanks for your work.

[Mikimouse]

4. I couldn't agree more...

I don't feel, and never have felt, that there should be any barrier preventing two people who love and respect each other from making it offical under the law. I only used the term gay marriage to underscore the aim of the movement, but you are absolutely correct, tehre is no difference. Thanks

[Democrats unite]

2. First things first your in TX get Bullet proof vests!

Try this link, may help you out.

http://www.gaytoday.com/events/021004ev.asp

[Mikimouse]

6. Yep, I know...

but if I don't do this, I will have abandoned the basic tenets fo what I do, and I cannot in good faith do so. I have not informed any of my family about this, as they are often of the opinion that one cannot fight City Hall, so I'm kinda gonna be in this by myself. Were this my fight directly, I would hope that otehrs would come to my aid and give me support. I often think of Father Niemoller when confronted with such things. Thanks for the warning about the Kevlar vest though. As did my grandfather, so will I go.

[dsc]

3. Some suggestions

This is about equality for all, not forcing churches to do anyting. This is about the state refraining from interfering with God given rights, not churches sanctifying gays. This is about people committed to each other visiting each other in the hospital, covering each other under health care, supporting each other at home, and getting benefits upon death. We don't care what aisle we walk down we care what rights we have.

[Mikimouse]

8. The churches are of no concern to me...

I realize that that may sound harsh, but they are constructs of man and not God, just as the Bible is written by man for man, and is currently used as an instrument of division rather than unity. Frankly it makes me ill. I don't consider myself religious by anyone's definition, but do consider myself spiritual. I also have friends who have children and are lesbian. They stand a chance of losing the children altogether if something happens to one of them, and that really bothers me, as they are terrific parents and good people. Thanks

[Duncan Grant]

5. This could be an interesting flyer for the more radical among you...

The following is from: http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp

You're probably looking for something a bit less incendiary but it may be inspiring all the same. Warning: Do not debate scripture with the fundies...just let the "literal" word of God do the talking. :evilgrin: Good Luck Mikimouse! Let us know how it goes! :yourock:




Amendment XXVIII: No state may sanction marriage between people of the same gender.

Amendment XXIX: No state may sanction marriage between a man and a woman who was married previously but has since divorced (Matthew 5:32).

Amendment XXX: No state may sanction marriage involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law - see amendment 34). All women whose husbands have passed away are to refrain from intimacy and pleasure for the remainder of their lives ( 1 Timothy 5:5-15).

Amendment XXXI: No state may sanction marriage between people of different races (Deuteronomy 7:3; Numbers 25:6-8; 36:3-9; 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 12:25-27).

Amendment XXXII: No state may sanction marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian (2 John 1;9-11; 2 Corinthians 6:14-17).

Amendment XXXIII: No state may sanction marriage involving a man who has had sexual thoughts about a woman other than the one he intends to marry (Matthew 5:28).

Amendment XXXIV: No state may sanction marriage between a man whose brother has passed away and any woman other than his brother's widow. Each state must require the brother of a deceased man to marry his brother's widow (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

Amendment XXXIX: No state may sanction marriage between a rapist and any woman other than his victim. States must require a rapist to marry his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) unless the victim failed to cry out, in which case the rapist is relieved of this obligation (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).

Amendment XXXX: No state may sanction marriage between a man and an aggressive or contentious woman (Proverbs 21;9, 21:19, 25:24; 27:15).

[Mikimouse]

10. I have just printed these out...

nothing like fighting fire with fire. Thank you for the posting, and I will most definitely keep everyone posted as to the efforts. Thanks

[tishaLA]

7. "I don't believe, nor do LGBT people believe, in special rights"

and in matters of marrige, special rights are reserved for heterosexuals. It is time to put an end to attaching privilege to people because of their pertner's gender.

I'd also talk about some of the rights (especially federal rights) that marriage confers--of which LGBT citizens have no access.

On edit: Mos importantly, know your shit, be brave, and GOOD LUCK!

[Mikimouse]

9. I plan to do exactly that...

There is no rational reason that two people who wish to do so should not be able to marry legally and enjoy the obvious benefits. The attitude of many in this area really makes me wonder what century we are living in. (sorry for ending with a preposition, couldn't help it).

[Duncan Grant]

11. Kick for the Left Coast (PST)

:kick: