Posted on 01/17/2005 6:24:12 AM PST by pissant
The November elections seemed to spell trouble for the gay equal rights movement, what with 11 new state laws banning same-sex marriages and wins for social conservatives in Congress.
Now, after weeks of soul-searching and much internal, and even public, debate over how to navigate the current political waters, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organizations, known as LGBT rights groups, have a plan: to advance an ambitious agenda, including marriage rights.
To underscore their determination, 22 LGBT organizations, representing a spectrum of political goals and strategies, have, for the first time, released a joint list of priorities. They include pushing for equal employment opportunities; adding sexual orientation and gender identity to federal hate crimes law; fighting for protections for children of LGBT couples; overturning military restrictions on gay soldiers; opposing anti-gay state and federal legislation; and fighting for the freedom to marry. (snip)
The groups banding together include the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which focuses its efforts on depictions of gays in the media; Log Cabin Republicans; National Stonewall Democrats; the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; and others.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Log Cabin Republicans! Reminds me of when I was a youngster many, many years ago, me and some buddy's would go our looking for parked lovers, pull along side and ask, "How far is the Little Log Inn?.
Well, how nice...they have their agenda in a nice little list so it can be defeated point by point.
This crap has got to be stopped. There is no way there should be any special protections given for genital preference.
Nor should our kids be taught that 'mos are OK. They are not...they are handicapped individuals who need help and sympathy, perhaps.
Acceptance? Never!
ping
On the map of gay common agenda, the gerbil is located to the south.
someone ping Richard Gere.
That Rove, he sure knows how to sit up things to win!
Their private conduct with like-minded adults is their business, but they should never have anything to do with children.
This is all pointless rhetoric on the gay lobby's part. Why they have any legislative agenda is beyond me, as its clear that they are not content to win such battles in the few states where they could do so in a fair democratic battle. Their path to victory in most states, and nationally, is though judicial imposition of their agenda.
As liberal as Mass, Vermont, and Hawaii are, they did not adopt gay marriage or even civil unions until they were ordered to do so by the Courts. Hawaii revolted with an Amendment, while Vermont and Mass bent over and took it (Romney can be commended for his rhetoricaly courage in that liberal state, but he should have simply refused to obey that outrageous court decision). But my point is that the people of most states would reject any recognition of same-sex unions, no matter what euphemism for marriage is used. Likewise, our current Congress would also. Therefore, the Left/Gay lobby's only alternative is to have some Court impose what they want, then watch as the President and Congress do nothing while the 3rd branch of govt walks all over them.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Hmm, I'm intrigued by the group with "Defamation" in the name. I wonder what they'd think of a documentary - a truthful, factual study of the "gay" life, replete with hospitalized AIDS patients, and with a grand finale of several stories of former homosexuals?
I bet it would go over big.
Note: Let me, AND DirtyHarryY2K, AND ItsOurTimeNow know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist. We're a trio.
Well my point is that the views of decent citizens don't count. All they need to do is get 5 people on the Supreme Court to do their dirty work for them. They have in the past, and they will in the future.
Unfortunately such Sup Court decisions carry a certain weight and gravitas with many people, and the longer such a decision stood, the more momentum it would pick up, thus making an Amendment harder and harder to pass as the Left simply waits out the clock. Now of course if we had a brave and principled Congress and President, they'd simply refuse to obey such a Sup Court decision and declare it void, then the matter would die as the Courts can't enforce a decision w/o the consent of at least the Executive branch.
As bad as the gay agenda is, the even worse enemy is the Courts, because it is through judicial decree that the Left/gay lobby wins.
While most of their agenda is horrible, I actually agree with this part:
"fighting for protections for children of LGBT couples"
I am all for protecting those children.
Of course this means removing them from the custody of perverts.
Somehow, I think they might mean something different.
Well my point is that the views of decent citizens don't count. All they need to do is get 5 people on the Supreme Court to do their dirty work for them. They have in the past, and they will in the future.
Unfortunately such Sup Court decisions carry a certain weight and gravitas with many people, and the longer such a decision stood, the more momentum it would pick up, thus making an Amendment harder and harder to pass as the Left simply waits out the clock. Just consider the abortion example; polls consistently show support for Roe v Wade, yet opposition to the defacto policy of abortion on demand that Roe has put in place, go figure! Now of course if we had a brave and principled Congress and President, they'd simply refuse to obey such a Sup Court decision and declare it void, then the matter would die as the Courts can't enforce a decision w/o the consent of at least the Executive branch.
As bad as the gay agenda is, the even worse enemy is the Courts, because it is through judicial decree that the Left/gay lobby wins.
ha ha ha you sail "log" then "cabin" then "republican" ha ha ha.
(sarcasm off)
This only means they are going to focus their energies on children and recruiting children from the school systems.
Homosexuality should be treated no differently than any other fetish or alternative lifestyle in the public schools. They do not permit wife swapers, animal sex, or rubber fetishes to be discussed in the schools then this should be the same.
Good point about the courts.
Even the courts are influenced by popular opinion. The fact that 11 states rejected mo marriage decisively, and added to the ones who already do reject it, has to play a role.
As their agenda is pushed, if more states come down against it, the federal courts have a chance to honor those wishes of the people. Not that they have to do so, but they do look at it. Justices have often referenced the will of the majority of states,albeit conveniently when it matches their preferred outcome.
This particular article made it pretty plain its not about the big concept of mo "rights"...its about the money.
I have no faith whatsoever that the Courts will take into account the clearly expressed will of the people on this issue. People oppose partial birth abortion and racial preferences too, but that didn't stop the Sup Court from striking down a ban on the former and officially endorsing the latter.
But you do have a point in that on this matter of gay marriage the views of the people have been expressed much more clearly and decisively than on the other issues I mentioned. So I could actually imagine, if I try really hard, that the Sup Court might actually take this into account, if for no other reason than risking an ugly showdown where they may eventually be overturned by an Amendment (though again, the President and Congress could simply refuse to enforce such a possible decision). But if this happens, I have a feeling that the Sup Court might try and go for a so-called compromise, and instead of imposing gay marriage, they might impose either gay marriage or civil unions, and be kind enough to let the states decide which.
I say this because it has become somewhat common now to hear the Left citing various polls showing that the combined percentage in favor of gay marriage or civil unions constitutes a majority. So I could see the Sup Court taking this path instead, and impose what the media now tells us is a 'moderate' and 'centrist' compromise that has mainstream support.
But the problem with this, of course, is that those polls are very misleading. For one thing, even the people of the closely-divided battleground states of Ohio and Michigan voted to ban both gay marriage and civil unions. In other words, I think its safe to say that if left to the people and/or their legislatures, then most states would opt not to grant legal recognition to same-sex unions no matter what they are called. So to states across the South, Rocky Mtn West, Breadbasket, Sunbelt, and much of the Midwest, it would be just as bad to have civil unions imposed as gay marriage, because after all they are the same thing, a difference w/o a distinction.
So I guess I really can't see this current Sup Court doing the right thing, and leaving the entire matter up to the various legislative bodies in this nation. Its hard for me to imagine them not at least imposing the linguistically less-threatening 'civil unions', hoping that will placate the masses because the media tells them that that is what the masses favor, when again, it most certainly is not in most states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.