How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights...?

[DiamondSkin]

OMG! This was one of the first threads I read on here back in February.

Yes, the country is as divided as ever.

Oh, I agree. It's abundantly clear.

 

[KTheLibra]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

For those of you thinking this is just an argument over semantics, that if we would just settle for Civil Unions the Republicans would be on board, this is what the newly elected Chairman of the Republican National Committee recently had to say when asked if he supported Civil Unions:

"No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you crazy?"
RNC Chairman Michael Steele Politico

There you go. If we give in and allow them to subjugate us with civil unions, then they'll think we can be run over and next thing you know, they'll be fighting to take away even more of our rights, make homosexual behavior in general illegal, put us all on an island somewhere, whatever. Because thats what Jesus wants.

 

[KTheLibra]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

Amen.

Well put, Ewan.

Why should we settle for second-class status?

I completely agree. It's like they're saying, "Well, you can sit over there, just not here with us normal folk."

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

There you go. If we give in and allow them to subjugate us with civil unions, then they'll think we can be run over and next thing you know, they'll be fighting to take away even more of our rights, make homosexual behavior in general illegal, put us all on an island somewhere, whatever. Because thats what Jesus wants.

See, here's why I think we should subjugate them with civil unions: throw marriage out of the law, and have civil unions for everyone!

Though I'd call them "registered unions", because the government's only task would be to register the union of whoever showed up and said, "We're in a union -- write that down".


Heh -- what Jesus wants is for us to follow the Constitution His Dad 'ordained' for us, and it says we're all s'posed t'be equal b'fore the law.

 

[bankside]

Holy Zombie Thread.

Anyway, the fact that governments would have to enact legislation to turn marriage over to religious groups should be a big clue that marriage does not belong to religious groups. It belongs to the people. It belongs equally to all of us, gay or straight, religious or not, to celebrate as they see fit in a church or a hall or an office or their front steps, under a law that treats them all equally. The only acceptable outcome to this debate is equal marriage for gay or straight couples.

 

[opinterph]

It is fair to observe that a portion of the gay community may have no interest in establishing monogamous relationships. That observation does not preclude the fact that many do have such an interest. Taken collectively, I don’t think the straight community lives up to its own perception of treasured values either, as infidelity is a common problem associated with heterosexual relationships. Regardless of what husbands are taught, many of them engage in activities that can realistically be characterized as treating women as “unfeeling sex objects.” If all that is required to advance gay marriage is to see homosexual relationships in the same light as heterosexual relationships, then perhaps the mission is already accomplished.

Realistically, wonderful stories and pics that chronicle long, prosperous, and monogamous marriages are insufficient evidence to tell the whole story.

 

[opinterph]

Re: How Do Gay Republicans Feel About Gay Rights..

There also is no special class of protected people. There is a protected definition that works both ways. A White man attacked by a Black man for being White is protected under hate crimes laws. A straight man attacked by a gay man for being straight, is a hate crime... You see?

I agree wholeheartedly with your concept, but it is my impression that hate crime laws, as they are generally written, do not afford equal protection for members of a majority class.

 

[Kulindahr]

Holy Zombie Thread.

Anyway, the fact that governments would have to enact legislation to turn marriage over to religious groups should be a big clue that marriage does not belong to religious groups. It belongs to the people. It belongs equally to all of us, gay or straight, religious or not, to celebrate as they see fit in a church or a hall or an office or their front steps, under a law that treats them all equally. The only acceptable outcome to this debate is equal marriage for gay or straight couples.

The problem here is that over two-thirds of Americans agree with George Bush that marriage is "sacred". That throws it into the realm of religion sufficiently that my solution would be to remove the word "marriage" from the law altogether, along with any definitions thereof, and replaced it with "registered union", or perhaps "declared union" -- unions recognized by the government not on the basis of any law saying who can or can't get 'hitched', but on the basis of consenting individuals declaring to the government that they're united -- and the government duly registers the fact. The government is thus made servant, not master, and we the people can enter into whatever committed relationships we please.

And the religious fascists can go cry in their own corner -- or grow up and do their own thing without demanding everyone else play their game.

 

[HenryReardon]

" -- unions recognized by the government not on the basis of any law saying who can or can't get 'hitched', but on the basis of consenting individuals declaring to the government that they're united -- and the government duly registers the fact. The government is thus made servant, not master,

Which is as it should be.

And the religious fascists can go cry in their own corner -- or grow up and do their own thing without demanding everyone else play their game.

Ditto the gay marriage activist crowd.

 

[Kulindahr]

I would be all for the government doing away with the term marriage and replacing it with a term like civil union, but I don't think that will ever happen. It would cause more hell than trying to get gay marriage passed.

That's because it would force a lot more people to face the fact that they don't believe in religious freedom.

 

[opinterph]

Hate crimes are generally not a problem for groups not intended to be protected by including such charactaristics as sexual orientation, e.g. straight individuals, in civil rights laws. It doesn't mean they aren't protected under that definition. Sexual orientation is not a synonym for homosexual anymore than "race" is a synonym for Blacks, or "gender" for female. The groups intended to be protected come to mind when you mention the catagory, but it is not exclusive to some groups under those definitions. In the same vein, I have seen discrimination cases against White employees and male employees in the news before.

My impression was incorrect.

Thank you. I stand corrected.