You are spewing more of your rhetoric. This thread is about gay marriage, not gays in the military. Also, you surely must understand that any gay man or woman who is serving in the military is fighting for YOUR FREEDOM. Many have died for you. With this in mind, how could you still hold such a cold position towards them?
Also, here is a news flash for you. In the last 50 years, there have been 6 republican presidents and only 4 democrats. One of the four was LBJ, who took office due to the death of Kennedy Our country is, according to you, in a moral landslide. So don't blame the democrats when the republicans have had control of the oval office for two thirds of the last 50 years. You claim that the liberals are the blame for everything is wrong!! Take a broom and sweep out your own house before you feel the need to clean other houses.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on June 4, 2004 07:31:23 AM newTo me it's a matter of the activists forcing groups to make changes that are in opposition to what their groups have always stood for - believed in.
Activists are not forcing these groups to change. The issue is groups that accept government tax dollars discriminating. This is the same mischaracterization used about getting religion out of schools and government.
A private group can discriminate in nearly any way imaginable and no "activist" can sue them based on discrimination.
However, when they accept taxpayer funding or support, they can not be allowed to discriminate.
I don't care what the Boy Scouts or Salvation discriminate against, but they can not do it with tax payer funds or other government support.
posted on June 4, 2004 07:56:52 AM newYou are spewing more of your rhetoric.
No, you're incorrect. I didn't post my opinion on gays in the military.....I posted some facts....truths...as things really are. Whether it upsets you or not. The truth is many here say they support kerry for his position on gays, while they blast President Bush. Fine. I'm pointing out that he isn't real forthcoming and direct on what HIS policy would be on this issue. He's skirting the issue. Also pointing out that during clinton's 8 years in office HE did nothing to change it either.
[i]This thread is about gay marriage, not gays in the military[/]. Ahhhhh..but this is still America - where we are each free to speak and no one owns the threads here, except Vendio...so I am free to bring up whatever political issues I wish to. I'm sure we agree on that.
Also, you surely must understand that any gay man or woman who is serving in the military is fighting for YOUR FREEDOM. Of course I am, that's NOT the issue...it's whether kerry is going to change what clinton didn't, since kerry doesn't support gay marriage.
Many have died for you. With this in mind, how could you still hold such a cold position towards them? Again you are assuming things I've never said.
Also, here is a news flash for you. In the last 50 years, there have been 6 republican presidents and only 4 democrats. No kidding.
One of the four was LBJ, who took office due to the death of Kennedy Our country is, according to you, in a moral landslide. So don't blame the democrats when the republicans have had control of the oval office for two thirds of the last 50 years.
Again, since this is American I am free to put the blame wherever I think it belongs. I'm sure you'd agree. And maybe you can find my post where I've put all the blame on a political party. Besides that...how long a party is in control has no bearing on what changes are made during their administration. Much can be done in a short period of time. Just as clinton could have changed the military policy on gays in his eight years had he pushed it. So length of time really isn't relivant.
You claim that the liberals are the blame for everything is wrong!! No...we are each responsible for our own actions but yes, liberal policies have changed a lot of things I don't agree with. Gay marriage being one of them.
Take a broom and sweep out your own house before you feel the need to clean other houses. My house is quite clean, thank you. And I only use my broom for transportation.
posted on June 4, 2004 08:07:41 AM newActivists are not forcing these groups to change. The issue is groups that accept government tax dollars discriminating.
Sure they are....that's what people are so upset about. They're forcing changes - to benefit their own agenda....discounting all these groups do for the benefit of society, forcing religions who are against homosexual behavior to accept it. And in the process taking away all the benefits these agencies provided for our society....while they go off to their next 'project' change. It's destructive and the help that was once provided to society is no longer there.
posted on June 4, 2004 08:42:23 AM new
I guess an activist is anyone that would like things to change and takes legal steps to make that happen. That would include everyone who votes then, or anyone who posts messages in a public forum. So an activist could be either for or against gay marriage, couldn't they?
posted on June 4, 2004 11:44:28 AM newSure they are....that's what people are so upset about.They're forcing changes - to benefit their own agenda....discounting all these groups do for the benefit of society, forcing religions who are against homosexual behavior to accept it.
You couldn't be more wrong. All any of these groups need do is not take government assisstence and the case is over.
Saying these groups are being forced to change their standards is pure spin.
Just leave the tax payer money and/or benefits on the table and no one can sue the group for discrimination.
That is why all the reasonable and common sense religious leaders are dead set against Bush's faith based initiatives.
If you accept the government benefits, then you must abide by our Constitution and public laws.
posted on June 4, 2004 12:43:38 PM new
reamond - what you're not hearing me say is that this ISN'T the way it always has been....this is change...and imo, a negative change for society.
That's why this administration is working to pass legislation that will allow religious groups to continue their helpful ways and still retain tax benefits, while not compromising their belief systems.
And I hope it passes because these organizations have given help and aid to millions of people that wouldn't have been helped otherwise OR would have had to turn to our government [read more taxes for us] in order to get the same help these organization have long provided for free.....out of their belief system that to help others is the thing to do. While those who wish to elimate this tradition from remaining....don't offer any back up support for the needy....they're just off to their next ACLU function.
You didn't have to tell me what you used to get around with, I could easily tell.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on June 5, 2004 05:43:10 AM new
Linda: reamond - what you're not hearing me say is that this ISN'T the way it always has been....this is change...and imo, a negative change for society.
If you look at history great events always defined our country. I am sure there were a lot of people who thought blacks should continue being slaves and women should stay home with the kids and not work.
Look at history and you will see this is no different than any other major event in the US that has dealt with discrimination.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on June 5, 2004 09:43:52 AM new
I've always believed that the real issue involved here is the unfortunate power that clergy have: to make a union legally binding.
True separation between the religious act of marriage (church/white dress/bridesmaids/serious words/Bible) and the LEGAL ACT is necessary.
If one wants a RELIGIOUS "wedding", great! Go for it! But one should also have to stand in front of a judge/justice of the peace and have a "civil union" in order for a couple to have LEGAL rights.
After all, when that 'religious marriage' (and I've been to some fairly expensive weddings that ended in under two years!!) ends, the couple doesn't head back to church to dissolve it...the couple heads to COURT.
Requiring all people to have a 'civil' ceremony certainly would take the religious notions away, and keep it what it should be: a legally binding contract, with rules and regulations...including the right to nullify said contract.
I also get weary of that tired old saw: "If we let gays marry, what next? Some woman who wants to marry her cat! Or some guy wants to marry his daughter!!" Last time I checked, no animal can enter into a legal contract, so Fido can't get hitched. And it is illegal to marry immediate family.
So much for that.
Why do people hate the notion of gays marrying? Wish I could understand that. If two ADULTS (note, children are not part of this!) meet, realize they want to share life together, and just happen to be two women or two men, who am I to say it's wrong or bad?
I would NEVER suggest that any religious organization be required to perform a marriage rite, if that religion views same-sex unions as wrong.
But I do believe that a segment of the population is being denied legal protection under the law, and that legal protection includes the right of survivorship of Social Security benefits, etc.
A dear friend of mine was in a relationship with another man for thirty years. When his partner passed away, the family came in like a bunch or ravenous wolves, and my friend could only stand by and watch...he had NO RIGHTS as a 'spouse'. Does that seem fair? Thirty years, but couldn't go to court to protect the property the two had accumulated between them.
I am Pagan, and the handfasting ritual I participated in was wonderful and bonding to my husband, but it had no more legal binding authority than a 'double dog dare pinky bet.' My husband and I then went to the Justice of the Peace and we married, legally binding. See? Simple. One was my religious 'wedding,' and the other is my 'legal union.'
What's wrong with that?
---Skorpio
Overheard at the mall: "A fish is NOT a pet. It's a decoration that happens to be alive."
posted on June 5, 2004 04:15:11 PM new
Exactly right SG and Helen,
The contract of marriage is a contract and legal agreement between two people and the state. It has nothing to do with a religious ceremony at all, only if you want it to. It is an offering by the state. And since the state SHOULD NOT discriminate against anyone, what is the problem here? Separate but equal, in NOT equal!
SG,
I have also heard of long term same sex couples whereas one dies and the surviving party has no legal rights on anything such as funeral arraignments. That person LOOSES all rights or control the second his/her partner's heart stops beating. Can you imagine someone else taking control of the person that you loved for many years. They have all control, and you have none.
For those people who might have a hard time understanding this, try thinking of it this way. Imagine if you had a dog that was your family pet for 10 years and it died. Now think of how it would feel to you if somebody else, let's say the person you got the dog from came to your house to get your dog's body. How would you feel if they said to you, "we are taking the dog's body to dispose of it." What if you wanted to bury the dog in the back yard with a small maker of some kind, and they wanted to take it to the dumpster of the county dump. Imagine how horrified you would be if this happened? The same thing happens to gay men and women all the time. They have no legal rights.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on June 5, 2004 04:21:29 PM new
Linda says,
Ahhhhh..but this is still America - where we are each free to speak and no one owns the threads here, except Vendio...so I am free to bring up whatever political issues I wish to. I'm sure we agree on that.
You are right! As an American, you have the right to speak whatever words you like. This is the same right as the members of the KKK and the Neo Nazis use. You are all so lucky to have those rights.
I bet the KKK and the Neo Nazis are opposed to the gay marriage issue too.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on June 5, 2004 05:10:38 PM new
Right, yeager.
There are several news reports about American Nazi and KKK members staging rallies and marches throughout the country to denounce gays, Jews and blacks, claiming these groups are all bringing about the ruination of the country.
posted on June 5, 2004 05:21:49 PM new
And, I'll bet the members of the Nazi and KKK groups would be quick to call a liberal political viewpoint anti-American.
posted on June 5, 2004 06:44:19 PM newwhat you're not hearing me say is that this ISN'T the way it always has been....this is change...and imo, a negative change for society.
You're right, these groups taking government money is a relatively new situation. However, forcing groups that take public money to give equal protection is the way it has always been.
That's why this administration is working to pass legislation that will allow religious groups to continue their helpful ways and still retain tax benefits, while not compromising their belief systems.
Bush can work to pass all this he wishes and the USSC with dismantle it all. Even the conservative judges know that this path is wrong and will bring more harm to the religious institutions than the government.
And I hope it passes because these organizations have given help and aid to millions of people that wouldn't have been helped otherwise OR would have had to turn to our government [read more taxes for us]
You seem to be missing something here. We're talking about these religious groups taking our tax dollars. How is it that would be more or less taxes for us ?
Again you are severely confused about the issues here. No one is attempting top stop these groups from using their OWN resources to do their charity work. The problem is giving tax dollars to these groups to perform their services and then allowing these groups to discriminate and deny equal protection.
There is no one suing these groups that are totally using their own resources.
I agree! If they take even one dollar of taxpayer money, then they should be FORCED to include EVERYONE.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on June 6, 2004 08:02:23 AM newORIGINS IN WELFARE REFORM
While religious groups have long been the recipients of government money, there have always been guidelines on how such funding would be spent.
Any church or other sectarian group accepting public subsidies in order to operate a social service like a medical clinic or soup kitchen had to make sure that the activity was secular and did not involve proselytizing.
Religious symbols, icons and other materials could not be conspicuous, and the programs had to shun any overt and pervasive religious overtones. In addition, clients receiving social services could not compelled to participate in faith-based activities.
All of that changed with the passage of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. The legislation, a bipartisan effort between Republicans and the Clinton White House, explicitly set the goal of involving sectarian groups in social service programs by making it easier for them to bid on government contracts without giving up their "religious character."
Faith-based organizations could use religion as a litmus test in hiring employees, and those participating in such programs could be compelled to participate in religious activities.
posted on June 6, 2004 08:19:28 AM new
"I have also heard of long term same sex couples whereas one dies and the surviving party has no legal rights on anything such as funeral arraignments. That person LOOSES all rights or control the second his/her partner's heart stops beating. Can you imagine someone else taking control of the person that you loved for many years. They have all control, and you have none."
This certainly is a wrong statement. There are things partners can do to right this wrong if they would only do them. Power of Attorney is one of them. Instead of sitting back and saying the other partner has no rights is wrong. Check and see what can be done legally and do it.
I can't believe this thread is still going as I said previously. Until something is done permantely it will always be in the forefront of a debate. Why do gays want marriage, why can't they just make a legal contract and be done with it. They will get the same benefits. Why do they need to join the Boy Scouts as their are other organizations they can join. Same with women wanting to join an all men's golf club. Is it because they want attention, I don't know and I for one really don't care. Imagine sitting around a club room with a bunch of men smoking their cigars, yks doesn't appeal to me. It's like the women who wanted to play golf in the men's pro tournaments, she just couldn't compete.
posted on June 6, 2004 08:28:28 AM new
yeager-"Also, you surely must understand that any gay man or woman who is serving in the military is fighting for YOUR FREEDOM. Many have died for you. With this in mind, how could you still hold such a cold position towards them?"
Gay men and women do not have to be in the Military. If they are gay and say that, they can get a discharge within two weeks. This I speak because I worked with a gay male from the Navel base. He hated the Navy because his profession outside of the navy had a very lucrative salary. He went to his commander, told him he was gay and within two weeks was discharged. Of course his discharge says the reason he wanted out, which will be on his record permanently. He stayed in the Military until he got his schooling. He was not gay. So if the gays in the Military don't want to be there they can leave or they don't have to join.
posted on June 6, 2004 09:37:44 AM newWhile religious groups have long been the recipients of government money
It has not been that long. Religious organizations directly receiving tax dollars for traditional government social programs is a new concept.
there have always been guidelines on how such funding would be spent.
And this is the correct interpretation. It is not how you said it is/was. It was never the case the religions accepted tax dollars for social programs and then made no changes to their delivery.
Any church or other sectarian group accepting public subsidies in order to operate a social service like a medical clinic or soup kitchen had to make sure that the activity was secular and did not involve proselytizing.
That is just what I said.
Religious symbols, icons and other materials could not be conspicuous, and the programs had to shun any overt and pervasive religious overtones. In addition, clients receiving social services could not compelled to participate in faith-based activities.
Again, that is what I said.
All of that changed with the passage of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. The legislation, a bipartisan effort between Republicans and the Clinton White House, explicitly set the goal of involving sectarian groups in social service programs by making it easier for them to bid on government contracts without giving up their "religious character."
Nothing changed with the above mentioned legislation. If it did then Bush would not have needed to issue an executive order for funding these groups after Congress refused to pass legislation for the funding.
Faith-based organizations could use religion as a litmus test in hiring employees, and those participating in such programs could be compelled to participate in religious activities.
Above is what Bush issued an executive order for.
As an aethist I should be glad that religions are entagling themselves with government tax dollars. Once dependent on that money, the government will control and ultimately destroy these religions.
posted on June 6, 2004 10:08:36 AM newWhy do gays want marriage, why can't they just make a legal contract and be done with it. They will get the same benefits. Why do they need to join the Boy Scouts as their are other organizations they can join. Same with women wanting to join an all men's golf club.
Yeah! Like why did WOMEN want the VOTE, anyway?? All the pesky decision making...might give women a HEADACHE!! Might make them mess up dinner!!
And they might want to WORK outside the HOME!!
Who knows...next they'll even want to WEAR PANTS!!
Give me a break!
---Skorpio
Overheard at the mall: "A fish is NOT a pet. It's a decoration that happens to be alive."
posted on June 6, 2004 11:08:36 AM new
reamond dear - I knew you would agree with much of what was in the article, since I took it from an atheist website, just for you. No surprise there.
My point was to show you EVEN an atheist website agreed it's been that way for a LONG time.
posted on June 6, 2004 11:37:02 AM newMy point was to show you EVEN an atheist website agreed it's been that way for a LONG time
Again you miss the point. It has not been that way a long time that religious groups have received money and not have to offer equal protection and non-descrimination.
It has been a "long time" that religious groups that accept tax money and must change their beliefs. The fact is that the groups suing are not proposing changes, only an enforcement of the existing Constitutional guarantees.
So in effect the only person proposing change is you.
You are so off track in correct thinking it's not even funny. Here's where.
Why do gays want marriage, why can't they just make a legal contract and be done with it. They will get the same benefits.
You are wrong!!!!!
So, are you saying that a gay couple can make an arraignment the the federal government regarding Social Security. Can Tom and Bill, or Mary and Sue say to the Social Security Administration, "we are gay and we want survivors benefits?" Well, can they???
Are you saying the these same gay couples can demand the employer's health insurance company cover the same sex partner, even though they are not a spousal partner? In the fact they aren't allowed to provide insurance to their partners, many go through tremendous financial burdens when their health fails. Well, are you???
Are you saying that these same gay couples can demand that the IRS allow them to file a joint return to increase their tax refund? Well??
You see, you haven't thought this through very well at all. You also state "They will get the same benefits" The fact is they will never have the same benefits until the law allows and mandates it for them.
You comment on gay in the military is so foolish. My comment was not about whether gays should or shouldn't be in the military. Nor was it about them finding an easy way out. It was about the simple FACT that many of them have died for YOUR freedom.
Try becoming more familiar with an issue before you post. You won't look so foolish!
One more thing, if you don't like how long this thread is, then you shouldn't click on it. If I were you, I would find something more important to worry about.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on June 6, 2004 08:39:33 PM new
Oh Linda and Libra,
I am soooooooo sorry for the pro gay comments that I have made in this thread. I have turned my thinking around to the traditional form of marriage. How foolish I was!
Here is a nice story about a happy, newly married, opposite sex couple.
J-Lo marries Marc Anthony
Actress-singer Jennifer Lopez has married her current boyfriend, salsa singer Marc Anthony, barely five months after breaking her much-publicized engagement to actor Ben Affleck, Us Weekly reported on Saturday.
The magazine said Lopez, 33, married Latin music star Anthony, 34, who was divorced less than a week ago, at her home in Los Angeles on Saturday in front of about 40 guests. US Weekly said it had pictures of a giant tent assembled on the estate and of guests coming and going among tables covered in white table cloths and flower centerpieces.
“She didn't hardly tell anyone. Everyone was surprised,” an unidentified friend told the magazine. Representatives for Lopez and Anthony could not immediately be reached for comment.
It would be the third marriage for Lopez, the sultry star whose previous trips down the aisle have both lasted a little over a year.
Affleck and Lopez officially broke their engagement in January and both have maintained a low profile since then. But by May, Lopez was seen wearing another diamond, reportedly given to her by Anthony.
At least they are straight, right? And by your standards, that's all that seems to count.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on June 6, 2004 11:39:52 PM new
Helen I come in and post what I think and you seem to insult me and I really don't appreciate it. I don't insult you in fact I never answer your posts and I wish you would do the same.
This topic is 11 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new
