http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29745175/

Damn Obama! Leading the country right down the toilet. Next we'll be told we're supposed to respect everyone equally and treat each other with respect.

OMG...here comes color coordination...everywhere.

I'm confused by the title of this thread. It was criminal for gays to vote before this non-binding resolution was signed by the U.S.?

And the 'color coordination' won't be happening in the 70 countries that decided to outlaw homosexuality, instead of signing the resolution. Maybe we'll decide to invade them, to 'liberate' the gays living there?

bloody gays!

All I have to say is gosh, it's nice to see the US making an effort to sit at the big kids' table instead of acting like a bunch of tantrum-throwing, totem-worshipping savages. Seriously, some the Bush administration's social ideological positions made about as much sense as the government of Cameroon forcing people to go to witch doctors to be 'treated' for imaginary possession (as was reported by the BBC this week). And Sixee, the point was that in most countries, criminals are disenfranchised (can't vote, ex: felons in the US), ergo decriminalizing homosexuality is tantamount to enfranchising said individuals.

Late for lab, but I feel somehow... less dirty for being an American today, symbolic act though it may be...

I'm confused by the title of this thread. It was criminal for gays to vote before this non-binding resolution was signed by the U.S.?


are you a moron? dont bother answering.

I think it's time for the Glenn Beck Show Generator (http://www.deusexmalcontent.com/2009/03/glenn-beck-show-generator.html)

/happy

But I'm cautiously waiting for more :)

/happy

But I'm cautiously waiting for more :)


Dont wait...decorate!

Coming soon, white male men to get same hiring advantages as the rest of the group.

Recently upcoming ( intentional to help some realize I am in fact joking! ) on the AP!!! Even white heterosexual males to get equal rights!!

( yes I'm making an attempt to be funny ) However at some point special rules will have to be thrown out. Special exemptions and treatments will have to go if we're ever going to break down these self imposed walls that actually do more to lengthen the time before the low brow amongst us are forced to join the modern age.

Get rid of Hate crime bills, ditch Afirm action and good lord don't make special rules that allow "teh gays" can get married.

Equal means equal, making special rules up only delays the day when we're all treated the same. It's a pet peeve of mine that in this day and age even the educated amongst us celebrate creating more walls of difference instead of pushing to really support and enforce the rules already in place to be for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XIxgGl3vE4

And Sixee, the point was that in most countries, criminals are disenfranchised (can't vote, ex: felons in the US), ergo decriminalizing homosexuality is tantamount to enfranchising said individuals.



So the United States participated in this? Homosexuals were considered felons here?

While I don't disparage anyone to love whomever they want, fact of the matter is, here in the U.S. homosexuals are not treated as felons. They have the same rights, legally, as anyone else. And while it's nice that the U.S. signed on for this bit of fluff, that's all it is: a bit of fluff.

The U.S. can't enforce what sovereign countries do inside thier own borders. Leading by example, is the best that can be hoped for. And that's all this does. However, there are countries out there that seem to like taking the exact opposite position of the U.S. on such things. How much better do you think it is now for those homosexual individuals living in those countries?

So the United States participated in this? Homosexuals were considered felons here?

While I don't disparage anyone to love whomever they want, fact of the matter is, here in the U.S. homosexuals are not treated as felons. They have the same rights, legally, as anyone else. And while it's nice that the U.S. signed on for this bit of fluff, that's all it is: a bit of fluff.

The U.S. can't enforce what soverign countries do inside thier own borders. Leading by example, is the best that can be hoped for. And that's all this does. However, there are countries out there that seem to like taking the exact opposite position of the U.S. on such things. How much better do you think it is now for those homosexual individuals living in those countries?

no.

What can't a homosexual accomplish in the United States, that is only reserved for heterosexuals?

I eagerly await your response....

Well you know he ment to say No to Gay couples having the same rights....or maybe its that sodemy is made illegal in some states? I don't know..

Sixee you are acting like a total blockhead here. Its an international UN document that was pledged our countries support.

And homosexuals don't have the same rights, you really need to read more or something. They aren't allowed to serve their country in the military, they still get discriminated against in a large number of towns in this country, and the super obvious right lacking is the legal protection of marriage. Not only do they not get the tax incentives of a married couple, but in many cases they aren't allowed to visit or tend to their significant others in hospitals or on their death beds, aren't allowed to act as executor of their estates or their living wills or act as medical and health power of attorney.

Its 2009, how do you not know this stuff?

I just want noted that I realize there are vast differences between what is and should be. My earlier post was merely a wish and a stance that I don't celebrate more laws/treaties clearly suggesting we are not where we should be ;(

And exactly how is that enforced? The police break into houses making sure people aren't sodomizing things? Yeah, that happens with frightening regularity.:rolleyes:

And I never said anything about gay couples having the same rights as straight couples. I said homosexuals have the same legal rights as anyone else. This means they can pursue jobs, have a home, drive a car, vote, and cohabitate with whomever they want in the United States. They aren't criminals, nor are they treated as criminals.

Probably not the same in the countries that decided to outlaw said practices.

Sixee

Unfortunately I know someone who was charged with Sodomy in Ga. He was reported by neighbors and he and his partner were charged. After some deliberation it was eventually dropped but still.

I know a handful of people who were fired in Pa for being gay. And many more yet who are afraid to be themselves while at work (myself included except to my HR dept and a few others). In PA alone we only have certain cities (not statewide) that protects against sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace meaning you CAN be fired and it does happen. Just b/c you're not hearing about it on the national news doesn't mean it's not happening,

The fact is it happens, just as other discriminations happen to other segments of the population. In a way I agree with Fandros that it's kind of sad there has to be laws, treaties, and declarations for what is just basic human rights but it is necessary. Many Western countries are leaps and bounds ahead of us in terms of equality. It's much more complicated at the state level and even city/country/township level than I think folks realize. This is a step in the right direction but there's so much more that could be.

Sometimes when you have something it's easy to neglect it. But when you don't you realize what you're missing. Being married to a man made wills, property ownership, and hospital crap so much easier. Not to mention taxes and insurance. I will admit however that in the past 3 yrs things have gotten noticeably easier b/c my employer is a trailblazer in my conservative area for having same sex partner benefits but still... a long ways to go. :)

And exactly how is that enforced? The police break into houses making sure people aren't sodomizing things? Yeah, that happens with frightening regularity.:rolleyes:

And I never said anything about gay couples having the same rights as straight couples. I said homosexuals have the same legal rights as anyone else. This means they can pursue jobs, have a home, drive a car, vote, and cohabitate with whomever they want in the United States. They aren't criminals, nor are they treated as criminals.

Probably not the same in the countries that decided to outlaw said practices.

this makes no sense, are you retarded?

If you cant get married that doesn't exactly mean they have the same rights now does it?

This means they can pursue jobs, have a home

Just FYI, the US doesn't currently have federal laws on the books preventing discrimination in employment or housing on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, so depending on which state you live in, it's perfectly to legal to fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to sell or rent to, GLBT folks on the basis of their orientation.

Here's the (as of summer 2008) current state of legal protections by state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_LGBT_civil_rights_August_2008.png

The whole point of the UN declaration is that it is a statement that the international community is expressing support for universal rights in this case, much like resolutions that have been made in the recent past in support of legal rights and protections for women, etc. Symbolic it might be, but this sort of 'peer pressure' can be more effective than you might think in terms of influencing up and coming nations struggling with social issues of all types and can even on occasion be tied to more binding resolutions.

Regards,
Nydia

this makes no sense, are you retarded?


Did that question really need to be asked?

Did that question really need to be asked?

well quite frankly he embarrassed himself enough, but in the face of such stunning ignorance...i had to say something.

Everyone seems to missing 1 small word, that I keep putting in my posts. The word is "legal".

There are no laws which state that if you are a homosexual, that you are a criminal. Just because there are no protections against discrimination in place in some states, doesn't mean that homosexuals are not allowed to enjoy the same basic rights as all citizens of the United States. They are allowed to vote. They are allowed to own handguns. They can own property. Nowhere in the 50 states are any of these rights curtailed due to your sexual orientation. They are if you are a criminal.

Homosexuals are not criminals, nor are they legally treated as such in the United States.

Everyone seems to missing 1 small word, that I keep putting in my posts. The word is "legal".

There are no laws which state that if you are a homosexual, that you are a criminal. Just because there are no protections against discrimination in place in some states, doesn't mean that homosexuals are not allowed to enjoy the same basic rights as all citizens of the United States. They are allowed to vote. They are allowed to own handguns. They can own property. Nowhere in the 50 states are any of these rights curtailed due to your sexual orientation. They are if you are a criminal.

Homosexuals are not criminals, nor are they legally treated as such in the United States.

the gift that keeps on giving.

*the audience lets out a giant sigh*

They can't LEGALLY marry. They can't LEGALLY do any of the stuff I wrote in my post. Jesus.

Well in all fairness you wrote they can't legally get married, the rest pertains to the first part of your statement. You didn't write a whole lot of stuff....military?

Being gay isnt a crime, nor illegal. I think thats Sixtees point. I can't say what state you live in really but there are plenty of gays at my work, openly and at my wifes work. They are like anyone else, /shrug...other than the fact they can't legally marry...
You cannot legally fire someone in Wisconsin for being gay, much like age, sex, all the above. You guys live in some seriously screwed up states.

Well in all fairness you wrote they can't legally get married, the rest pertains to the first part of your statement. You didn't write a whole lot of stuff....military?

Being gay isnt a crime, nor illegal. I think thats Sixtees point. I can't say what state you live in really but there are plenty of gays at my work, openly and at my wifes work. They are like anyone else, /shrug...other than the fact they can't legally marry...
You cannot legally fire someone in Wisconsin for being gay, much like age, sex, all the above. You guys live in some seriously screwed up states.

but thats not what he said. at all.

That's exactly what I said, Wiggo. But I'm sure you'll try to spin it, to remain relevant on this board. You and Rover can continue to bat pithy remarks about me back and forth. I'm sure someone reading, cares.

Ibudin, thanks for getting it.

Fild, I'm sorry to hear about your friends getting fired. Can't the ACLU come down like a ton of bricks on the employer? Or are they too busy with other endeavors?

That's exactly what I said, Wiggo. But I'm sure you'll try to spin it, to remain relevant on this board. You and Rover can continue to bat pithy remarks about me back and forth. I'm sure someone reading, cares.

Ibudin, thanks for getting it.

Fild, I'm sorry to hear about your friends getting fired. Can't the ACLU come down like a ton of bricks on the employer? Or are they too busy with other endeavors?

you dumb bastard...

i dont need to spin it, you posted it...repeatedly

an excerpt

They have the same rights, legally, as anyone else.

They have the same rights, legally, as anyone else.
They have the same rights, legally, as anyone else.
They have the same rights, legally, as anyone else.
They have the same rights, legally, as anyone else.
They have the same rights, legally, as anyone else.
They have the same rights, legally, as anyone else.
They have the same rights, legally, as anyone else.
They have the same rights, legally, as anyone else.
They have the same rights, legally, as anyone else.
They have the same rights, legally, as anyone else.


do you not know what rights and legally mean? are you seriously this breathtakingly stupid?

Well in all fairness you wrote they can't legally get married, the rest pertains to the first part of your statement. You didn't write a whole lot of stuff....military?

Being gay isnt a crime, nor illegal. I think thats Sixtees point. I can't say what state you live in really but there are plenty of gays at my work, openly and at my wifes work. They are like anyone else, /shrug...other than the fact they can't legally marry...
You cannot legally fire someone in Wisconsin for being gay, much like age, sex, all the above. You guys live in some seriously screwed up states.

There are a lot of other more complex GLBT matters that are legally grey, though marriage and service to their country are the two biggest places they don't have legal rights. (And yes, a lot of the legal issues regarding estates and medicine can be related to marriage, they don't need to be) Adoptions, parentage, even segregation issues regarding high school prom and what locker room they use for gym class are all legal battles that have to be fought many times over in this country. Sixee is insisting they have all legal rights as heterosexual people, which is a falicy and an absurdity:

They have the same rights, legally, as anyone else.

What can't a homosexual accomplish in the United States, that is only reserved for heterosexuals?

I said homosexuals have the same legal rights as anyone else.

Endorsing this kind of ignorance doesn't help anyone and it needs to be pointed out how wrong this line of thought is.

you dumb bastard...

i dont need to spin it, you posted it...repeatedly

an excerpt



do you not know what rights and legally mean? are you seriously this breathtakingly stupid?

Ease up, as the first KKK member from your native country you don't have alot of bragging room.

Six's posts without considering the framework of his intentions at times. I don't agree with what he posted but I don't think he meant what he said.

Or was that I don't think that word means what I think you think it does?

do you not know what rights and legally mean?

As it stands. yes.

This has nothing to do with anything regarding legality but is simply a political statement indicating the redirection of the administrations policies from the last one's policies.

Does that clarify it for you Sixee? you are correct legally but you are pointing to legalities in a moral argument.

good move imo. not earth shattering but another small step in the right direction

(the title was just a joke...)

I'm just happy to see us, as Nydia put it, sitting at the big people's table. Anyone with any sense knows that, legally or not, GLBTQ individuals do not enjoy equality with the bulk of the population, and the US refusing to recognize rights in the past, in terms of the UN actions, is embarrassing, at best.

Let the homo's have rights! what do I care?

I don't think he meant what he said.

Or was that I don't think that word means what I think you think it does?


LOL...Sixee has you all F'd up!

Ease up, as the first KKK member from your native country you don't have alot of bragging room.

Six's posts without considering the framework of his intentions at times. I don't agree with what he posted but I don't think he meant what he said.

Or was that I don't think that word means what I think you think it does?

stop white knighting for him you moron, what he said was not correct in any way shape or form. also, why are you calling me a KKK member? are you back to projecting your awful opinions on your surroundings?

This is probably one of those fundamental issues where my belief system gets in the way of the reality of the situation.

I'm the type of person that believes that laws are not necessary to grant a person rights. Like our Founding Fathers, I believe our Creator endowed us with certain unalienable rights. Being born roughly 290 years after they decided to put these ideas to paper and base a country on this concept, I was ignorant when I formed a lot of my ideas on how America really is: That everyone regardless to race, religion gender or sexual preference has these rights, not just white land owners.

So my frame of reference tends to be skewed towards needing less laws that re-enforce the rights that people all ready have, being granted them by thier Creator.

And it indeed is sad that the behavior a few, necessitate that such laws be put in place.

And in my postings, if I have offended anyone, please accept my sincerest apologies. It is only my intent to discuss issues, and learn from all of you here.

Except Wiggo and Rover. :devil

Well in all fairness you wrote they can't legally get married, the rest pertains to the first part of your statement. You didn't write a whole lot of stuff....military?

Being gay isnt a crime, nor illegal. I think thats Sixtees point. I can't say what state you live in really but there are plenty of gays at my work, openly and at my wifes work. They are like anyone else, /shrug...other than the fact they can't legally marry...
You cannot legally fire someone in Wisconsin for being gay, much like age, sex, all the above. You guys live in some seriously screwed up states.


That's awesome, unfortunately not all states are as forward thinking. I live in PA and as I said we do not have anything "yet" at the state level it has been proposed a few times in fact just this week (yesterday or Tuesday my days are running together this week) several folks in the community rallied on the state cap. steps in Harrisburg trying to push for a vote on some legislation proposing exactly this. In PA both Philly, Pittsburg, and Harrisburg have laws against discrimination for sexual orientation and we're even registered with Harrisburg as a couple (something that just passed last year) but there is nothing at the state level.

Sixee, there is nothing prohibiting them being fired in PA for this. There is nothing legally right now anyone can do about it.

This is probably one of those fundamental issues where my belief system gets in the way of the reality of the situation.

I'm the type of person that believes that laws are not necessary to grant a person rights. Like our Founding Fathers, I believe our Creator endowed us with certain unalienable rights. Being born roughly 290 years after they decided to put these ideas to paper and base a country on this concept, I was ignorant when I formed a lot of my ideas on how America really is: That everyone regardless to race, religion gender or sexual preference has these rights, not just white land owners.

So my frame of reference tends to be skewed towards needing less laws that re-enforce the rights that people all ready have, being granted them by thier Creator.

And it indeed is sad that the behavior a few, necessitate that such laws be put in place.

And in my postings, if I have offended anyone, please accept my sincerest apologies. It is only my intent to discuss issues, and learn from all of you here.

Except Wiggo and Rover. :devil

so you live in a fairy tale world, good to know.

Call it what you will, Wiggo.

I personally don't see how laws can change a person's attitude toward's someone's sexual orientation. It can stop the overt actions, such as what happened to Fild's friends, but there are ways for people to get thier agendas across, regardless. If they can't fire someone based on thier sexual orientation, then they will cite "poor performance", ect.

Laws won't curb people's attitudes. That's where the change really needs to take place.

Laws *can*, however, force people to confront their prejudices (boogeymen ;) ) head-on and thereby greatly facilitate attitude change (consider Brown vs Board of Education, the Civil Rights act of 1964, and subsequent outcomes); which is one of the reasons the religulous right has fought so hard to enshrine discrimination in law (otherwise, why a Defense of Marriage Act? ;) ).

Anti-discrimination laws are important for the very reason that, while they can't change attitudes directly and immediately, by forcing people to 'clean up their acts' (or at least better hide their tracks) with regard to blatant discrimination, they not only help ensure the rights of the groups in question, but they act, as has already been mentioned, as a very important peer-pressure lever - and humans are, at their root, social animals who fear social ostracism beyond most everything else.

Regards,
Nydia

I was going to try and say what Nydia said but Nydia explained it MUCH more coherently.

However, I can go on to give more examples:

- Putting warning labels on cigarette packs as mandated by law up here in Canada have directly lead to a double digit percentage reduction in people smoking.

- Providing a legal means for gays in Canada to be married has improved their lives not only in terms on a monitary level but the way those people are treated in the community.

- Putting in place laws to discourage the pollution of the environment allows for new green technologies to be developed because the "attitudes" of consumers will drive the markets direction.

Laws DO curb people's attitudes Sixee.


Cheers,

You don't think the people's attitudes are reflected in the laws, instead? I think laws can curb people's actions, but the attitudes remain the same.

In the US many of our laws are reactionary. Today congress passed a resolution that said bonuses paid to AIG will be taxed at a 90% rate...that was completely reactionary and retarded. A prime example of reactionary.

Canada seems to write laws that are based on common sense.

Call it what you will, Wiggo.

I personally don't see how laws can change a person's attitude toward's someone's sexual orientation. It can stop the overt actions, such as what happened to Fild's friends, but there are ways for people to get thier agendas across, regardless. If they can't fire someone based on thier sexual orientation, then they will cite "poor performance", ect.

Laws won't curb people's attitudes. That's where the change really needs to take place.

Hurr, Civil Rights Act.

You don't think the people's attitudes are reflected in the laws, instead? I think laws can curb people's actions, but the attitudes remain the same.

So basically you think we're all still closeted racists?

So basically you think we're all still closeted racists?


I don't think that was the intent of the statement, but you do raise the point; regardless of the Civil rights Act and related laws on the books, racism is still a way of life in many parts of the U.S.

The attitudes that a child is imbued with through parenting and reinforced by those important to the child trump any laws passed by people the child has not met.

Minnesota is supposed to be an enlightened place, yet an establishment in northern "tourist" country still thought it was 'cute' to have separate restrooms for whites and coloreds. We also have one of the larger populations of GBLT after California (or so the media have said) but we still have plenty of knuckle-draggers who find it entertaining to go out and harass people on Friday night.

I think the laws in regards Civil Rights were passed because the majority of Americans wanted them to take place. The laws reflected the attitudes.

The attitudes of the racists, whose actions the laws' were designed to curtail, probably did not change much. However, they legally could no longer act on those attitudes, as there were repercussions.

I think the laws in regards Civil Rights were passed because the majority of Americans wanted them to take place. The laws reflected the attitudes.

The attitudes of the racists, whose actions the laws' were designed to curtail, probably did not change much. However, they legally could no longer act on those attitudes, as there were repercussions.

now youre promoting a tyranny of the majority? jesus christ, whats wrong with you.

Hes not to far from the truth, wigout.

now youre promoting a tyranny of the majority? jesus christ, whats wrong with you.Isn't that, you know, sort of the point in a democratic government? Propose a law, and the majority rule wins?

Laws won't necessarily change attitudes, but they do protect the individual, which would be the very point of such things. The signed decree, by the way, is less of a law than an important statement suggesting that the majority does want to see attitudes change.

Isn't that, you know, sort of the point in a democratic government? Propose a law, and the majority rule wins?

Laws won't necessarily change attitudes, but they do protect the individual, which would be the very point of such things. The signed decree, by the way, is less of a law than an important statement suggesting that the majority does want to see attitudes change.


Oh fuck wiggout got so WTFPWNEDLOL'D!!!!!

Isn't that, you know, sort of the point in a democratic government? Propose a law, and the majority rule wins?

Laws won't necessarily change attitudes, but they do protect the individual, which would be the very point of such things. The signed decree, by the way, is less of a law than an important statement suggesting that the majority does want to see attitudes change.

this is the point of a democratic government?

The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) and majority rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule), is a criticism of the scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scenario) in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a minority's interest as to be comparable to "tyrannical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant)" despots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despotism).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority#cite_note-0)

minority rights? fuck'em, amirite?

I'm familiar with my Mill and Madison. But that is the system we use in the US. I'm not advocating fucking over minorities - quite the opposite, since I'm glad to see the US signing a declaration supporting gay minorities. Moving forward with something like this suggests that there are moments when the tyrannical do progress in a positive direction.

now youre promoting a tyranny of the majority? jesus christ, whats wrong with you.

So you propose a minority (racists) should allowed to dictate the laws to their rights superceede the rights of the majority (people who want civil rights for all)?

Perhaps we should be asking what's wrong with you? KKK, much?

So you propose a minority (racists) should allowed to dictate the laws to their rights superceede the rights of the majority (people who want civil rights for all)?

Perhaps we should be asking what's wrong with you? KKK, much?

OMG AGAIN!!!! Wiggo PWNED! JESUS CHRIST! IT'S A MASSACRE!

So you propose a minority (racists) should allowed to dictate the laws to their rights superceede the rights of the majority (people who want civil rights for all)?

Perhaps we should be asking what's wrong with you? KKK, much?

your grasp of the english language is mindbogglingly pathetic, perhaps you should seek some serious help?

I'm familiar with my Mill and Madison. But that is the system we use in the US. I'm not advocating fucking over minorities - quite the opposite, since I'm glad to see the US signing a declaration supporting gay minorities. Moving forward with something like this suggests that there are moments when the tyrannical do progress in a positive direction.

i never said you were, i said sixee was.

your grasp of the english language is mindbogglingly pathetic, perhaps you should seek some serious help?

Since American English is my native tongue, and it is, at best, a second language for you, I will claim rights to understanding what I wrote and the intentions behind it, far better than you could ever hope to.

Go update your translator software, and re-read what I posted.

Actually Wiggo you are appearing more and more the child here and clearly you are out of your depth.

Get back to the soup line, talk to that ole gent who gives you your opinions and then return.

Actually Wiggo you are appearing more and more the child here and clearly you are out of your depth.

Get back to the soup line, talk to that ole gent who gives you your opinions and then return.

The retarded old man has spoken! Wiggo you are commanded to shut it!

Go home you ignorant wastrel. We've enough good ole American plumbers who can handle doing what you do!

Go home you ignorant wastrel. We've enough good ole American plumbers who can handle doing what you do!

Oh no! the mechanic is talking shit!

Can you take a look under the hood of my hummer?!

Oh no! the mechanic is talking shit!

Can you take a look under the hood of my hummer?!


You have to deactivate the car bomb first!

You have to deactivate the car bomb first!

WTF you spoiled the surprise!

If your hummer has a hood, chances are you aren't gonna want to lift and and see what she looks like....:eek:

Oh, wait....!

Since American English is my native tongue, and it is, at best, a second language for you, I will claim rights to understanding what I wrote and the intentions behind it, far better than you could ever hope to.

Go update your translator software, and re-read what I posted.

no, really, you have less than no clue, you are delving into sub-elren territory, please for the sake of all that is holy, shut up.

If your hummer has a hood, chances are you aren't gonna want to lift and and see what she looks like....:eek:

Oh, wait....!


Assuming an awful lot there. :eek:

Edited... never mind. :)

Gotta love this...Kudos to these guys...looks like the republicans might get a taste of their own medicine when it comes to marriage...

SACRAMENTO — The sponsors of a second ballot measure seeking to repeal California's ban on same-sex marriage have been cleared to start collecting signatures.

The secretary of state on Friday gave the group Yes on Equality until Aug. 17 to collect the nearly 700,000 signatures needed to qualify its initiative for the 2010 ballot.


If approved by voters, the group's proposed constitutional amendment would rescind Proposition 8, which passed last November. The California Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on legal challenges to the voter-approved measure.


Earlier this month, two Southern California college students got permission to start circulating petitions for a separate initiative that would end all marriage as a state-sanctioned institution and instead make couples _ gay or straight _ eligible only for domestic partnerships.




HA...good deal!

Who cares not me and I'm a conservative! Well, social Libertarian when it comes to social issues.

Earlier this month, two Southern California college students got permission to start circulating petitions for a separate initiative that would end all marriage as a state-sanctioned institution and instead make couples _ gay or straight _ eligible only for domestic partnerships.


It's about time someone took this approach to the issue.

Excellent Video on gay marriage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMLV3jPQW44)

Earlier this month, two Southern California college students got permission to start circulating petitions for a separate initiative that would end all marriage as a state-sanctioned institution and instead make couples _ gay or straight _ eligible only for domestic partnerships.


It's about time someone took this approach to the issue.

I totally agree. Get the state out the marriage business, and EVERYONE gets domestic partnership.

Now, let's watch Wiggo try and make me into a demon for agreeing with that....

As long as domestic partnership = the same rights as being married. I am perfectly fine with it. But in some states domestic partner and even the federal gov't does not see the two as the same. Civil union sounds better, but they can call it afdkjaflkdsajfdsahfkas as long as it's equal I don't care. And frankly I wish some of the dumb people in the gay community would stop trumpeting for "gay marriage" and think beyond their own simple mindsets. I don't feel the need to be married by a priest, preacher, <insert religious dude here>, love transcends that silly crap. Some people are just beligerent and feel the need to take things too far. If we could seperate marriage in its' current state from the religious sanctity of things and just have <xyz> we'd be far better off. If you want to have a religious ceremony so be it but that doesn't and shouldn't make your bond any stronger than two people who got hitched at the courthouse.

I just don't see why this is so hard :(

I just don't see why this is so hard :(


Hmm, there's a really bad joke in there, somewhere....