Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

Shinobi · Post by **Shinobi** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:27 pm

JawZ wrote:Don't bother....he's looking to pick a fight lol.

lol not really...

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:39 pm

Shinobi wrote:lol not really...

Well you certainly went off track with teh first post of yours quoting UOD.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:42 pm

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:43 pm

Shinobi · Post by **Shinobi** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:57 pm

JawZ wrote:Ok, so are we gonna trade friendship bracelets?

Let's trade off some pm's first..

JC · Post by JC » Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:01 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:
It just a matter of time of course, before this all over and liberty triumphs (which of course I mean gays get some of their rights back). Still, it is depressing to think of the stupidity of it all.

I would like to know what rights a gay person doesn't have that I have.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:04 pm

Shinobi · Post by **Shinobi** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:02 pm

JawZ wrote:sigh, I'm all out of nasty things to say to people.

I can save you some trouble.

I already know that I'm an egotistical a s s holesonofabitch with a God complex. In my own mind, I'm Mr. Perfecto and I have never been wrong, only mistaken or misunderstood.

Actually I wasn't going to say any of that..

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:40 pm

JC wrote:I would like to know what rights a gay person doesn't have that I have.

The rights that are being fought for are not solely rights only for homosexuals but also the rights of heterosexuals.

But here are a few of the bigger issues.

Anti-Discrimination Laws:

Gay men and women are routinely discriminated against in this country based on their sexual orientation and need laws to protect them. By seeking specific language to cover sexual orientation, homosexuals are not seeking a special category of protection under the law, but rather the clear extension of basic civil rights afforded to all under the Constitution.

It is legal for any private employer to fire or not hire people because they are gay or believed to be gay in 39 states. But under the Constitution, everyone has a right to hold a job and be a contributing member of society, regardless of sexual orientation. Anti-discrimination laws merely force courts to extend equal opportunities, not special rights, to all.

http://www.speakout.com/activism/issue_ ... 23b-1.html

This is also effects your rights, although being straight it is less likely to become an issue for you. But none the less, your rights are not being protected here either.

-

Gay Marriage

Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue
When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.

One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?

Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?

These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

-

Adoption

19 states allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt children in a complex and expensive two-step process, in which one parent first adopts and then the second can petition for joint rights.

http://www.speakout.com/activism/gayrights/

-

And then there is DADT. Which I am still reading on but here is a good web site I found on it.

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/03/03/dadt-redux/

I think some of you might actually like this read.

A small quote.

While I appreciate the efforts of some who say they’re trying to free me from the yoke of DADT, it’s clear many still don’t get it. When people argue about the policy and yell about it being “unfair”, I have to laugh because it shows a pretty thorough lack of understanding of what the military is about in the first place. I endure a lot of unfair things in order to serve. I have to cut my hair a certain way. I have to wear a uniform, and wear it correctly. I can’t do many things my civilian friends are allowed to do. I can’t quit my job; simply walk away and tell my boss to shove it. If I don’t do something my boss tells me to do, I don’t get fired…I go to jail. I could go on. So who gives a rip if I have to stay closeted? Lots of people are in the closet by their own choosing. And even though I didn’t realize I was gay when I joined the military, I was well aware of the policy when I figured myself out. I was also well aware of it the numerous times I’ve re-upped since then. It’s a choice I made, and a choice I stand by, so get off my back about it.

Of course the circumstance surrounding DADT are different, however, it still is "unfair" and perhaps disabling to out military might (still looking at the numbers).

Those are some of the larger issue that draw the most attention. I could relate some of my own personal horror stories but they are too personal to post.

Discrimination effects us all; more so some then others, but it is still a battle for the civil rights of all. Protect your rights today; tomorrow you might find yourself in the minority.

JC · Post by JC » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:49 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:The rights that are being fought for are not solely rights only for homosexuals but also the rights of heterosexuals.

But here are a few of the bigger issues.

Anti-Discrimination Laws:

http://www.speakout.com/activism/issue_ ... 23b-1.html

This is also effects your rights, although being straight it is less likely to become an issue for you. But none the less, your rights are not being protected here either.

-

Gay Marriage

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

-

Adoption

http://www.speakout.com/activism/gayrights/

-

And then there is DADT. Which I am still reading on but here is a good web site I found on it.

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/03/03/dadt-redux/

I think some of you might actually like this read.

A small quote.

Of course the circumstance surrounding DATA are different, however, it still is "unfair" and perhaps disabling to out military might (still looking at the numbers).

Those are some of the larger issue that draw the most attention. I could relate some of my own personal horror stories but they are too personal to post.

Discrimination effects us all; more so some then others, but it is still a battle for the civil rights of all. Protect your rights today; tomorrow you might find yourself in the minority.

I just want to know one, just one right that I have that you don't have because you are gay.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:54 pm

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:56 pm

JC wrote:I just want to know one, just one right that I have that you don't have because you are gay.

http://forums.speedguide.net/showpost.p ... stcount=49

JC · Post by JC » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:56 pm

JawZ wrote:Does the Constitution enumerate rights to couples or to individuals?

I don't see this as being deprived of your rights, I see it as a higher frequency of your rights being violated.

Are hate crimes Constitutional?

Ooh Ooh I know I know..

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:12 pm

JawZ wrote:Does the Constitution enumerate rights to couples or to individuals?

I don't see this as being deprived of your rights, I see it as a higher frequency of your rights being violated.

Are hate crimes Constitutional?

"I don't see this as being deprived of your rights, I see it as a higher frequency of your rights being violated. "

That is how discrimination works, UOD. Gay rights are not be protected as they should and this allows discrimination to suppress rights.

When did Lady Justice take off her blindfold?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:39 pm

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:19 am

JawZ wrote:J, there are NO gay rights, only human rights. Gay implies you are something other than human.

"there are NO gay rights, only human rights"

Gays rights are basic human rights that are violated and/or suppress solely because of sexual orientation. But really your argument is only a semantical one. There is a problem with discrimination against gays and it needs to be addressed. People's rights are being suppressed and violated solely because they are gay. I have seen and experienced it myself and it does not just exist in the populace but it effects our laws as well. You can not have strongly bias people running a system without the system being bias itself.

"Gay implies you are something other than human"

No it doesn't; gay, simply, means you are attracted to the same sex.

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:30 am

JC wrote:I just want to know one, just one right that I have that you don't have because you are gay.

He posted it already JC, you had to edit it out of your quote no less.

One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?

Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave.

A couple is just that, and any one should have the same legal rights as any other couple IMO. Especially when it comes to medical or after death decisions.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:34 am

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:06 am

JawZ wrote:Being gay is part of being human...it does not in any way make you different under the purview of the law.

What about way it changes the rights you have with your partner when they need medical desicions made?

David · Post by **David** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:13 am

JawZ wrote:

J, you are born with ALL of your rights...you are born with all of your inalienable rights intact in this country. You have to have rights...to have violations. If you didn't have rights, there wouldn't be any violation under the Constitution.

Being gay is just another facet of being a free man or woman in our nation. There are ALL types of discrimination, none of it is good, but it doesn't mean that your rights are non-existent. Being gay is part of being human...it does not in any way make you different under the purview of the law.

Is a gay couple afforded the rights as a heterosexual one? Can individuals in such a partnership permitted the same legal status? You really do not have to bother with a response.

Here is a novel hypothesis. What of our founding fathers were Catholic, selecting chiefly said tenents as the basis of our law? Would only gays run aground on issues of marriage? Perhaps, divorce would be illegal. Hopefully, we as a nation will continue to evolve beyond our prejudices.

As an aside, I meant no offense to those devoted to Catholicism. My commentary was designed to illustrate our differences in perception, not as a condemnation.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:27 am

JawZ wrote:What does it mean under the law?

J, you are born with ALL of your rights...you are born with all of your inalienable rights intact in this country. You have to have rights...to have violations. If you didn't have rights, there wouldn't be any violation under the Constitution.

Being gay is just another facet of being a free man or woman in our nation. There are ALL types of discrimination, none of it is good, but it doesn't mean that your rights are non-existent. Being gay is part of being human...it does not in any way make you different under the purview of the law.

"J, you are born with ALL of your rights...you are born with all of your inalienable rights intact in this country. You have to have rights...to have violations. If you didn't have rights, there wouldn't be any violation under the Constitution.'

A moot point. As I said, "There is a problem with discrimination against gays and it needs to be addressed."

"Being gay is just another facet of being a free man or woman in our nation. There are ALL types of discrimination, none of it is good, but it doesn't mean that your rights are non-existent."

Yes, discrimination does exist in all walks of life but some carry a heavier load then others. Discrimination will never be completely gone but that does not mean we just ignore it or those who suffer because of it. Also, I seriously doubt that you have ever been discriminated against like I have.

"Being gay is part of being human...it does not in any way make you different under the purview of the law"

Laws are created and upheld by humans. Humans are not perfect, they are prejudice and this is reflected in our laws. A ban on gay marriage does not have the same impact on you as it does me. This is obviously bias and directed solely at homosexuals. It has no other reason for existing. You act as if the laws are perfectly neutral but that is not the case. Lady Justice never even had the blind fold on. Bias people running a bias system make for bias laws or bias exclusion of laws. You'd have to be pretty ignorant of the situation to think that prejudice does not exist in the legal system.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:57 am

I think all gay people should be behind bars

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:14 am

Brent wrote:I think all gay people should be behind bars

That's not going to work. I know you are just baiting.

Rivas · Post by **Rivas** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 4:18 am

Good for them.

As long as they dont bother me I really dont care.

hanketron · Post by **hanketron** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:26 am

Do you believe that public schools will start teaching heterosexual relationships are normal and natural? You know, the social science classes where such things as nuclear families are discussed.

hanketron · Post by **hanketron** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:53 am

I'm just wanting to enter the fray and curious, not really picking a fight with jawz

" I've stated multiple times in the past that alternate lifestyles, as much as we may disagree with them on a personal level, require equal protection under the law or else we risk losing the very same rights as free men and women. "quote from jawz

If me and my sister wish to live an alternative lifestyle and require equal protection under the law, can we get married? Just because you think it's wrong isn't a reason for denial of our right to marry. To be fair I should be able to marry anyone or any group I wish. Who are you to say it's wrong to marry your mother and your sister and maybe your cousin. I wish people would stop being haters and let anyone marry any person or group of people they want. It would be nice if people didn't judge others.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:15 am

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:23 am

hanketron · Post by **hanketron** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:31 am

can siblings marry?

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:56 am

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:13 am

Prejudice can exist on many levels. Whether it's laws preventing homosexuals to marry or tv shows/news that only spins religion in a negative light.

hanketron · Post by **hanketron** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:47 am

I don't think a female can marry a male monkey because the animal can't offer consent. even though I think we all know he would enjoy it.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:01 am

hanketron · Post by **hanketron** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:29 am

maybe it's a homosexual incest marriage, no child problem then. what if they can't have children for physical reasons, would it be OK then? who are we to tell others what they can and can't do? I read someone here suggesting no blood test, just let people do what they want. But where is the child's consent to having genetic diseases ex.sickle cell anemia
I was just curious who decides and why.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:32 am

hanketron · Post by **hanketron** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:48 am

In my opinion, humanity has evolved just as everything else. In the course of this evolution, humans follow different paths creating infinite number of experiments. As these experiments fail and thrive, the information of what worked and what didn't was handed down in the form of "rights and wrongs". It could be in the form of religion(any kind) or values or stories. This is also part of the evolution of mankind. Those groups that passed on the information best, flourish most and survived longer. Our laws come from our forefathers values, morals, and religion. But these where just their way of passing on the things their forefathers had passed on. Those things that worked well and those that didn't.
but that's just what I've learned about it

Gixxer · Post by **Gixxer** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:28 am

Brent wrote:I think all gay people should be behind bars

why do you say stuff like this?

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:34 am

Damn, I'm old, and all this time I thought Gay meant " Happy "
I have to stop listening to that old ragtime music from the 20's and 30's

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:55 am

JawZ wrote:Can the unborn child of an incestuous marriage offer consent to the inherent risk of physical/mental retardation associated with inbreeding?

Nor can an unborn baby consent to being killed in the womb.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:14 pm

hanketron wrote:can siblings marry?

THIS