Your limited but witty response merely proves that you are mentally unable to digest the consequences of pursuing certain paths to achieving certain political aims. Watch us continue to rack up success after success in the very difficult and challenging Middle East (despite frequent setbacks) while you fail to even gain a minor point on an issue that most could be convinced or shamed into supporting quite easily in a nation which greatly respects individual liberty, human rights and democracy as opposed to what we are having to fight against in the Middle East. After all, most of these Bible bangers backed down about the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court easily enough. Sure there were a few protests but hey, what are the realities on the ground. Given a more reasoned approach rather than the putsch that your supporters pulled in San Francisco, you might have been able to get your case on Oprah Winfrey and millions of housewives with tears in their eyes would have rallied to the cause. Their husbands (denied sex for a few weeks) would have finally learned to overcome their homophobia and join the cause of righteousness as well, but what have you done instead? The debate is now centered on “them perverts in San Francisco pulling stunts and such.” Good job! TOLD YOU SO!!! Notice no matter how much you hate Bush that he never entered this fray until NOW and why? To ride the political wave of the backlash that is going to swamp you and your supporters. Could have seen this coming a mile away. I told you so. I told you so. I told you so and I still done told you again.
Regarding the gay civil union (or whatever it’s called), what is the situation regarding taking one’s same-sex partner to the US if that person is not an American citizen? Do the same regulations apply as for two same-sex American citizens?
Also, is the situation on par with heterosexual couples? For example, if one partner is not an American citizen, can a gay couple get “unioned” as quickly as a heterosexual couple can and does each couple receive equal treatment under the law?
Does anyone know?
Closet Queen:
Those are excellent points that we have raised before in this thread. I personally do not know, but I believe that it may be a problem. However, please remember that many hetero couples have great difficulties getting US citizenship. Ask around.
But my main point regarding this whole issue was the process and as I have so accurately predicted, hysterical flouting of the law ala Alien has resulted in the predicted backlash and now that the shoe is on the other foot, gosh, she is whining about how it isn’t fair and stomping her very heavy hoof. What can I say? Adults have to take responsibility for their actions and should rely less on raw emotions and more on reasoned thinking.
Back to you, with just one more thing…
I TOLD YOU SO
Well I don’t know either, nor am I American, hence my asking. I couldn’t find where it has been discussed in this thread, but maybe I missed it.
Citizenship aside, I presume a heterosexual can marry a foreigner on arrival in the US, and he/she is entitled to remain with his/her spouse, presumably indefinitely. Anyone know? Now, are homosexual couples given equal treatment?
Is that a right or a privilege? The legal language often flummoxes me, though I presume a right can be legal recognition of what was once a privilege.
Whatever the reality, if a civil union is equivalent to marriage (minus the
Closet Queen:
I do not believe that in the United States privileges are doled out equally to any or all groups so you may want to reconsider your opposition on that point. However, for those on the Left that do want to press this issue, again, they may find that many privileges that their “favored” groups have now might be on the table so again, this is a point of procedure. Better make sure what you are going to lose before opening that door.
As to the actual status of the various legal factors involved here I cannot claim to be an expert, but I do believe that there is a pattern of discrimination that could be proved even though on individual points, the case is hard to make. BUT again, the results would have been much better if supporters had tried to make this a contest to see who get get the housewives to cry most on Oprah Winfrey. Sad, but normal gay couples whose lives were driven to misery, the sadness they felt, the oppression, etc. if done with enough wailing violins in the background would have done far more than this flouting of the law whenever it serves their purposes approach in San Francisco. Now, there is a backlash and quite rightly so and people “well meaning” people that is like Alien are bewildered and outraged that their little stunt provoked the reaction that I predicted which is precisely that they now feel justified in pulling stunts of their own just as I predicted. So, squeals of unfairness now that this little box of stunts has been opened by those who opened it first fails to generate any sympathy with me, but I do have to point out just one more time I TOLD YOU SO!!!
This is Conservative columnist David Horowitz’s comments on the matter today and I find that they closely mirror my own… I TOLD YOU SO!!! My only difference is that I would still support such civil unions and even marriage as opposed to David who is now going to support the Federal Marriage Amendment because I do not agree that all gay couples should suffer just because of the stupid and inept actions of some deliriously hysterical and overwrought emotional individuals.
I am a believer that the gay Americans should have the rights of all Americans, including the right to have legally recognized unions. I am personally not opposed to calling these unions “marriage.” I have publicly opposed the federal marriage amendment to the Constitution. But I am appalled by the assault on the American legal and political system by the left, the attempt to change a 5,000 year old social institution through a one-appointed-judge majority, the defiance of law and of majority opinion by one elected official in the city of San Francisco, and the anarchy to which this will lead. T
To stop this destructive juggernaut, I will now support the Federal Marriage Amendment. I applaud the stands taken by President Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger against these destructive developments and in defense of the American political system, which allows deeply divided communities to live side by side in peace.
I am certainly not alone in these views. The gay rights movement has shot itself in the foot with its arrogant political tactics and contempt for those who disagree. This arrogance which pervades the liberal side of the political spectrum these days with a manic intensity may even cost the Democrats the upcoming elections. Sixty percent of California voters supported the law that one Democratic mayor in San Francisco has sought to overturn. A recent Zogby poll shows majorities not only in the red states but also in the blue states against gay marriage. By choosing to throw down this particular gauntlet at this particular time, gay leaders will produce a backlash that may swamp Democratic electoral hopes.
If the gay political leadership had supported civil unions, which would confer the missing legal rights on gay couples, and if they had pursued this through the legislatures (as in Vermont) they would have undoubtedly persuaded majorities in many states to support their admirable quest for equal protection under the law. But by displaying their arrogant contempt for the deeply held beliefs of the American majority, and for the political and legal system that holds our disparate communities together, they have provoked the majority into defending itself in ways that will defeat their own agenda and set back their cause for years to come.
This is also quite sensible and comes from the very conservative front page magazine…
frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re … p?ID=12339
But the debate over the idea of gay marriage has brought out concerns by one extremist end that it will lead to people marrying their livestock to Gay Gestapo charges of homophobic bigotry against those opposed to same-sex nuptials.
Neither accusation is valid, so as an independent gay woman, I think it
The Economist has been arguing for gay marrriage for some time. Here’s its latest comment on the equality and societal concerns. It also includes an attack on Bush’s constitutional amendment and why it might just backfire.
[quote] [b]
Equal rights
The case for gay marriage
It rests on equality, liberty and even society
[/b]
SO AT last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely
Oh I completely agree with the Economist’s view Closet Queen and I never said that I did not support gay marriage despite all of Alien’s hysterical thrashing efforts to portray me as a homophobe and by extension a racist, a nazi, a fascist and kicker of kittens and puppies. What I said in the beginning and want to keep reiterating is that my whole take on this issue was that:
a. I did not like the methods
b. I thought that they would be counterproductive
and I believe that I have been proved right on both accounts so one more time with gusto to Alien: I TOLD YOU SO!!!
Some people will not be deterred:
[quote]SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Comedian Rosie O’Donnell wed her lesbian partner on Thursday amid festive cheers and whoops from hundreds of onlookers and declared that her wedding was inspired by outrage over President Bush’s call to bar gay marriage.
The former talk-show host rushed to San Francisco a day before California’s attorney general is set to file a lawsuit that may end the controversial weddings. She returned to New York almost immediately.
“We were both inspired to come here after the sitting president said the vile and vicious and hateful comments he did,” O’Donnell said after kissing her bride, Kelli Carpenter.
[/quote]
And
[quote]The celebrity apparently jumped a line for marriage appointments that now stretches into April. But other gay couples were delighted to see O’Donnell, who announced her sexual orientation in 2002 and has since embraced gay rights issues including gay adoption.
“It means this view will be brought to a wider audience of America in a positive light,” said Hans Hansen, 32, who had just wed Mark Harris and watched in the audience. “People are going to identify with Rosie.” [/quote]
reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … ID=4450113
Fred:None are so empty as those who are full of themselves
[quote=“Alien”]Some people will not be deterred:
[quote]SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Comedian Rosie O’Donnell wed her lesbian partner on Thursday amid festive cheers and whoops from hundreds of onlookers and declared that her wedding was inspired by outrage over President Bush’s call to bar gay marriage.
The former talk-show host rushed to San Francisco a day before California’s attorney general is set to file a lawsuit that may end the controversial weddings. She returned to New York almost immediately.
“We were both inspired to come here after the sitting president said the vile and vicious and hateful comments he did,” O’Donnell said after kissing her bride, Kelli Carpenter.
[/quote]
And
[quote]The celebrity apparently jumped a line for marriage appointments that now stretches into April. But other gay couples were delighted to see O’Donnell, who announced her sexual orientation in 2002 and has since embraced gay rights issues including gay adoption.
“It means this view will be brought to a wider audience of America in a positive light,” said Hans Hansen, 32, who had just wed Mark Harris and watched in the audience. “People are going to identify with Rosie.” [/quote]
reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … ID=4450113
Fred:None are so empty as those who are full of themselves[/quote]
And this:
[quote=“Michelangelo Signorile”]Would the media giant Gruner & Jahr have decided to sue Rosie O
notice kerry and edwards both said they were against gay marriages? that actually places them to the right of many of us on this forum who see nothing wrong with gay marriage but oppose mayor newsom’s little publicity stunt. how are we going to have an all-out culture war if the democrats won’t play their part? =P
oh, and where’s the criticism for the democrats who oppose gay marriage? 
I’d oppose anyone who opposes same sex marriage, Democrats or Republicans, who gives a shit? Anyway, it’s all just a load of campaign bollocks, the predictable bores.
But now for something completely different. Penguin sex!
[quote]New York flips as penguins come out in Central Park
Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday February 8, 2004
The Observer
As gays go, Roy and Silo are not unusual. They cohabit, are affectionate in public and have been inseparable for years. Only their species marks them out. The New York pair are chinstrap penguins.
Every day at Manhattan’s Central Park Zoo the two males entwine necks, vocalise to each other and have, er, sex. When offered female companionship, they decline.
Roy and Silo have even displayed urges to procreate, and once tried to hatch a rock. Finally their keeper, Rob Gramzay, gave them a fertile egg from another brood. Tango, their chick, was born later. The pair raised it lovingly. ‘They did a great job,’ admits Gramzay.
According to a study of the penguins released this weekend in the New York Times, Milou and Squawk - another pair of Central Park’s male chinstraps - have started hanging out together, billing and bowing. At the New York Aquarium on Coney Island, Wendell and Cass - male blackfoot penguins - are a devoted couple.
But being gay is not just a New York penguin thing. In fact, scientists are discovering homosexuality everywhere they look. The lessons for humans are profound, say scientists.
Bruce Bagemihl, author of Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, says homosexual behaviour has been noted in more than 450 species and more often in wild animals than captive ones. The question is: why? Some researchers say it helps a species’ survival. By not producing offspring, homosexuals can help to support relatives’ young. ‘That’s a contribution to the gene pool,’ says Professor Marlene Zuk of University of California, Riverside.
Sexuality means more than just procreation, says Zuk. 'In animals like the bonobo, you see expressions of sex outside the period when females are fertile. It means more than making babies.
‘And why should we be surprised? People are animals.’
[/quote]
guardian.co.uk/gayrights/sto … 68,00.html
Pink is the new pinko
[quote]
Meanwhile, the British Conservative party is suddenly heading in the other direction. This week the Tories announced that they were organising a gay summit in Westminster. Michael Howard recognises that there is a lot of ground to make up for a party in which safe sex means making absolutely sure you’re wife can’t find out. The Tories’ understanding of gay culture may be a little outmoded, but they’ll be doing their best based on their memories of boarding school.
“We’re having my old Greek master giving descriptions of the male athletes running naked in the Olympic games.” “Yes, and I’ll be explaining that being a homosexual doesn’t automatically mean that you went to Cambridge in the 1930s and then spied for the Russians.” But the conference is a step in the right direction. Unlike the American right, the Conservatives are embracing the gay community because they have finally realised that there is nothing lower than trying to use fear and prejudice for narrow party advantage. (So don’t vote Tory 'cos they’re obviously a big bunch of poofs.)[/quote]
guardian.co.uk/gayrights/sto … 87,00.html
I vote Guardian UK as world’s best online mainstream media new source!
:lovestruck: 
You just never see this type of thing in US-based journals!
They will not be deterred!
[quote]Gay rights battle shifts to village in New York
The Associated Press
NEW PALTZ, N.Y.
Well Alien:
At least this is not being debated in Saudi Arabia…
Saudi investigators are grilling some 50 people for allegedly attending a gay wedding in the city of Medina, a newspaper reported on Monday.
The suspects deny they were attending a gay marriage and say they took part in a ceremony to mark the wedding of a Chadian friend, Arab News said.
The accused Chadian told the police he was rehearsing for his legal marriage, which was planned for last Friday.
The incident has shocked Saudi Arabia, where gay marriage is banned.
An initial newspaper report last Friday claimed that police arrested guests at the wedding of an all-male couple from Chad.
Different stories
Police raided a rest house where the ceremony was under way after advice from the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, or religious police, Arab News reported.
Investigators say that invitations to last Wednesday’s ceremony indicated it was a gay function and point to the suspicious behaviour of guests.
They fled the venue at the sight of police cars and left some 30 vehicles behind, according to security sources.
But one of the two Chadians involved told the police that he was rehearsing for his legal marriage, to be held at a wedding hall last Friday.
His Saudi sponsor confirmed the man’s story and said he had given him money to meet the marriage expenses.
I’ve have posted in a similar thread in the open forum. But, this is the first time I’ve checked out the discussion here. I had to stop reading after the first page or so, 'cause the bickering between Alien and Fred were both starting to give me a headache. For this reason, some of what I’m about to post, may have already been stated. Even so…
As a gay Christian, who was raised in a very conservative home, has a partner of three years, and would one day like to get married to him, I have definite opinions about this issue.
But, before I get into the issues brought up in this thread and at the risk of being verbose, let me digress a moment and talk about the personal side of this debate. Because, something that is often obscured by the political, moral, and religious debate about homosexual rights (in general) and same-sex marriages/civil unions (specifically) are the people who are the reason for these debates in the first place.
The US Census Bureau lists the current population of the US at just under 273 Million. If the research is correct, that would mean that approximately 27.3 million Americans are lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) – i.e., 10% of the population. Over the last two weeks approximately 6,500 gays and lesbians (3,250 couples, including those in New York & New Mexico) have gotten married.
Now, I understand that 6,500 is only a tiny percentage (0.026%) of the estimated LGB population in the US. However, three things should be taken into account: one, it has only been two weeks since they have had the ability to get married, legally or not (how many straight couples are married in one city in that period of time?); two, not every couple that wants to get married has the ability to travel to SF right now; and, three, some couples may feel it is better to wait till they know the licenses will stay valid.
Even so, legal or not, right or wrong, the marriages in San Francisco, New Mexico, and New York have shown that many gays & lesbians, like their straight counterparts, do want to be in long-term, committed relationships. And, this, despite anti-gay claims that homosexuals are “incapable” of maintaining long-term relationships.
The very fact that about 3,200 couples, many of whom have traveled from other parts of the country, have waited outside the SF courthouse for a piece of paper that, if it isn’t now, could sometime in the future be considered null & void, is (IMHO) telling. Especially since the first couple to get married in SF have been together for 51 years, longer than many straight relationships last. (Yes, I realize, that this could be seen as an exception, rather than the rule).
(Aside: I also think it is ironic – hypocritical? – that these same people are so opposed to giving us the legal status/rights that would legally recognize our relationships and give us greater support in maintaining our relationships.)
My point in including this in a thread on the legality and/or necessity of the SF mayor offering same-sex marriages is to not forget, in all these discussions, the personal impact this has on people. Whether you support same-sex marriage (and/or civil-unions) or not, I would urge you to seek out and talk to gay or lesbians Americans who are in long-term committed relationship. Talk to them, first hand, about what life is like for them as a couple. Go into the discussion with an open mind and try to put yourselves in their shoes. I’d be happy to talk to anyone here in Taipei who is struggling with this issue.
Ok, on to my comments concerning points in this thread:
Civil disobedience is defined as “Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.” (Note: I’ll abbreviate civil disobedience as “CD” for ease of typing.)
a. Nothing in this definition says “who” is allowed to engage in CD and who isn’t. Therefore, it would seem perfectly acceptable for a civil servant - whether a mayor or county clerk – to participate in an act of CD. They may be an elected official, but they are still a citizen and, therefore, able to participate in any form of CD in order to “induce change in governmental policy or legislation.”
b. However, I also believe that, in this case, the civil servants who are participating in this act of CD are not doing it just as individuals. In other
words, in letting their beliefs guide their actions, they are involving the entire city/county government. Therefore, they must be sensitive to the impact and effect this will have. And, they must be sensitive to the beliefs of those under them. If a member of their staff does not want to participate, that person should be allowed to abstain from participation, without fear of negative repercussions.
Some people have said that their problem with the marriages in SF, and other places, is that the civil servants have sworn to uphold the “rule of law.” However, there are inumerable cases in history where that argument has been used to justify what many of us would consider horrible abuses of power, human rights abuses, and even genocide – “It is not my fault. I was only doing my job!” Sometimes, though, when the law is felt to be unjust – i.e., its execution brings harm (physical harm, removal/denial of rights, etc) to a person or group of people, whereas breaking the law does no one harm – people may feel the need to break the law, whether it is their duty to uphold the law or not.
Corporate Benefits
a. It is true that many corporations (though, not 100%) in the US offer benefits – e.g., health insurance, retirement benefits – to same-sex, permanent partners. However, the number and types of benefits vary from company to company.
b. Local or state governments are not required to recognize these benefits. These benefits can, and are, challenged by family members. For instance, there have been cases where the parents of a deceased partner have sued for and won life insurance benefits that were originally intended for the surviving partner.
Local & State Governments
a. It is also true that some local and/or state governments have instituted
permanent partner or civil union laws. Again, these laws, and the benefits they confer, vary from locality/state to locality/state.
b. Again, there is nothing requiring one locality/state to recognize a civil union/partnership contracts from another locality/state. Whereas, for opposite-sex marriages, though laws regarding them vary from state to state, they are recognize by all states as legal.
c. In most cases, state-sponsored permanent partnership laws are not equal to marriage laws, like civil unions are supposed to be. Besides, only Vermont even has a civil union law.
d. As with local/state governments and corporate-sponsored partnership benefits, the federal government is not required to recognize either civil union/partnership contracts performed within the states. This means that even the Vermonters who get “unioned,” still are not eligible for the same federal marriage benefits, such as social security benefits, tax breaks, and immigration rights (this last one being most important to me).
Fred keeps saying that gays & lesbians are already offered the same rights & protections (through other means) that heterosexuals are granted through marriage. However, this is not exactly true. I hope that in some small way, I’ve shown some of that above. However, the main protection/right that is not granted is stability of status. Unless the federal government recognizes same-sex partnerships, whether called civil unions or marriage, our status as couples will always be in doubt.
Without federal recognition, for an SF couple to keep their status (if their marriage license isn’t struck down in the near future), they will have to always live in SF or move to another city/state with marriage laws. Currently, that gives them limited options. The same even holds true for anyone getting “unioned” in Vermont. It is only legal and valid in Vermont.
Even if the Federal Marriage Amendment is defeated and more states enact civil union laws, without the same federal recognition that is afforded to opposite-sex marriages, and a requirment that one state needs to recognize the partnership contracts of another state (even if the state doesn’t have similar contracts), same-sex couples’ status will always be in flux. In essence, we will always, legally, be in “second-class” relationships."
Quiet Mountain:
First, thank you for your very interesting perspective on this issue.
Second, I have already said I do not disapprove of gay marriage and perhaps it was in another post, I already said that I believe that the civil disobedience now taking place in SF is acceptable. I was most swayed by the fact that a magazine that I respect very much, the Economist, made the case and I have to say that I agree with them so please consider my opinion on this issue changed.
But… and there is always a but…
I do not like the fact that Lefties like Alien are quick to disobey laws that they consider “inconvenient.” Ironic given that so many of them were against the war in Iraq because of the international “law” etc involved, but I realize that perhaps this was coloring my view of this issue and that it was wrong for me to link them in this way. I also accurately predicted the negative reaction, but I now agree that such a negative backlash is no excuse for not granting everyone their full rights. Again, consider my views changed.
Fred
[quote=“fred smith”]Second, I have already said I do not disapprove of gay marriage and perhaps it was in another post, I already said that I believe that the civil disobedience now taking place in SF is acceptable. I was most swayed by the fact that a magazine that I respect very much, the Economist, made the case and I have to say that I agree with them so please consider my opinion on this issue changed.
I also accurately predicted the negative reaction, but I now agree that such a negative backlash is no excuse for not granting everyone their full rights. Again, consider my views changed.
Fred[/quote]
Bravo Fred, and welcome to liberalism! I for one appreciate your public volte face. It proves that even a computer virus has a heart!
I’m glad that we also agree that the Economist is a fine and respectable publication, and perhaps we can put aside your earlier quip about all European media being biased. In fact, in its last special issue, if I remember correctly, the magazine stated that around 40% of its readership was based in the US.
And two more. Another mayor in New York. And Oregon.
Fred,
You’ve cleared up the fact that you agree on the premise, but you believe this will cause a strong backlash. What are your ‘personal feelings’ about all these government officials taking the law into their own hands in regards to this matter? Would you call it a civil rights movement? Do you think they’re brave? Especially when Jason West faces 19 criminal counts…Just wondering.
[quote]ALBANY, New York New York’s attorney general said Wednesday that same-sex weddings are prohibited under current law, throwing a potential hurdle into the plans of two mayors to preside over gay nuptials.
.
Meanwhile, across the country in Oregon, gay couples lined up to wed after a county commissioner there said she would begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
.
Both sides of the issue have been awaiting New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s opinion since Friday, when Mayor Jason West of New Paltz, New York, married 25 same-sex couples. He now faces 19 criminal counts and could face jail time.
.
On Wednesday, Mayor John Shields of Nyack, New York, said he would also start marrying gay couples and planned to seek a license himself to marry his same-sex partner.
[/quote]
Concentrate Alien Concentrate:
I know that you can concentrate try try try. Please reread my last and previous other posts. When I say that the actions in San Fran and elsewhere are acceptable civil disobedience. This is hardly comparable to the civil rights movement however since the level of discrimination against gays is hardly in the same league. Now, where did I put my white hood…
My big beef was never with gay marriage but with what I see is a completely inconsistent Left. There are no principles or poles that enable anyone to determine how and when the Left (or you Alien) will act with outrage or who is deserving of mass movements. So okay the gays in San Francisco get the support for gay marriages but nary a word about growing anti-Semitism. Remember that the whole Iraq thing is a neocon READ JEWISH conspiracy to protect Israel.
We cannot say a thing about Blacks and crime but we can frequently disparage White men and Red Necks for racism or chauvinism or homophobia (these generalizations are okay) and any time Christianity comes up, it’s fair game and open season (IMHO) but Allah forbid we suggest that Muslims or Arabs are terrorists (cannot generalize), though all Christians are rednecks? (or at least this is how it seems to me)
We can scream about 3,000 indirect deaths in Chile that resulted from Pinochet and his troops in what was a coup d’etat but America is blamed and we cannot go into Iraq for security concerns even though Saddam killed 2.3 million? So Kosovo and Bosnia yes and Afghanistan okay but Iraq no? At least with the neocons, you know where you stand. What does the Left stand for exactly and whose rights are to be protected when and how? I am totally bewildered. As anyone else as lost as I am?
BUT again, I do believe that my contempt for the Left was clouding my perception of this issue. Just because I have a problem with this inconsistency does not mean that gays in America should suffer for what really is no fault of their own. So again, not exactly a volte face Closet Queen but perhaps a major revision of my perceptions, which has led me from passive disinterest to open support?