We're done, Dashy.
Posted on 07/10/2006 5:36:22 AM PDT by madprof98
Gays want rights if not acceptance
I was pleased to hear the governor say that gay people are free to live their lives in Georgia. Thank goodness I don't have to leave the state after paying taxes here for 25 years.
The governor left no doubt, however, that I am in fact still a second-class citizen. Despite those 25 years of tax paying and eight years with my partner, we do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple who have been married for one day.
To Gov. Sonny Perdue, the Supreme Court of Georgia, and the people who voted for the constitutional ban on gay marriage, we want you to understand that gay people --- your neighbors and fellow U.S. citizens --- do not want to get married in the First Baptist Church of Anywhere, Georgia. By all means, continue to exclude us from your religious ceremonies. We just want the same civil rights as you have and we will continue to have our relationships blessed in welcoming churches.
THOMAS FITCH, Atlanta
Faith in country is now all gone
I wonder, did the Georgia Supreme Court justices rule that the amendment to ban gay marriage was constitutional just to keep it from becoming a wedge issue again in the upcoming election, or do they really believe in its contents? Either way they have sold their souls.
I have been with my partner in a happy, monogamous relationship for nine years. Our union has outlasted many of those of our friends and relatives, yet we are the threat to marriage? Try outlawing divorce and adultery.
It appears that the justices are happy to continue with the status quo: no equal rights for gays. I would have thought that some of them would have understood what it feels like to be discriminated against. Will they be enacting Jim Crow laws in the near future, or is that too much of a stretch even for them? We gays have truly become the new, black, hated minority, and at the hands of several African-American state Supreme Court justices! How ironic.
It looks like I'll need to move to Canada and renounce my American citizenship just to be treated like an equal member of society. I have lost all faith in this far-right-wing, hate-mongering, religion-distorting country.
ALLEN RENSHAW, Mableton
Future generations will be ashamed
Our governor and state Supreme Court should be ashamed of themselves for throwing logic and compassion out the window in their support for a 21st-century "Jim Crow" constitutional amendment banning all legal recognition for same-sex unions. For the governor to say, "I don't think it demeans gay Georgians in any other way," sounds very much like the stale "separate but equal" rhetoric that the U.S. Supreme Court made obsolete about 50 years ago, except that in the case of civil marriage and civil unions, it is separate and unequal for gay Georgians.
Whether our current politicians like it or not, when the young people of Georgia eventually grow to hold the positions of authority in this state, they will relegate this type of thinking about gay Georgians to the same dustbin of history that the "Colored Only" signs of the past now occupy. Our current leaders should be forward-thinking in trying to legally protect all of Georgia's families, lest they be looked back upon by today's fair-minded young people as having stood and blocked the door to fairness, compassion and equality.
REED PITRE, Atlanta
Just as outrageous as racial prejudice
Justice Robert Benham's opinion says in part that the objective of the amendment is "reserving marriage and its attendant benefits to unions of man and woman." And that is OK and not discriminatory? Try adding one word --- "unions of white man and white woman" --- and immediately you see how discriminatory it is. Substitute the group of your choice to deny rights to Mexicans, blacks, Jews, etc.
Gov. Sonny Perdue says we have to listen to the "people's voice." Really, governor? It has not been that long since the majority wanted white-only neighborhoods, white-only schools and white-only drinking fountains. Did that make it right, governor?
RAY TOWNSEND, College Park
"Delta's ready when you are."
The whining pack of flamers just don't understand the concept of marriage.
I beg to differ: Gays have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals, they just don't define them the same. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex that they choose, but they want an additional right to marry people of the same sex. Everyone is in the same exact legal position.
They are being treated equally, but want more.
The solution is to get the government out of the business of licensing things.
Heterosexuals HAVE no special rights. It was only because of the Bush administration that the marriage (tax) PENALTY was removed. Gay people seem to be extremely immature.
Folks, I'm a little bit confused. Maybe some kind FReeper can set me straight. What are these new rights I got when I got married? I'm not finding anything in the Constitution that gives married people more rights than singles.
Good questions. If you find the answers, let me know.
No pun intended there. Really. *snicker*
I'll say it again: it's ironic how many seem to equate the institution of marriage as currently defined with racism or segregation. Yes, marriage is between a man and a woman. No, it is no longer illegal to marry someone of another "race," nor should it be. But there IS legal segregation in society - separate men's and women's restrooms are perfectly legal, even in public buildings. Why? Because MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT - they are equal in the eyes of the law but not identical. The institution of marriage recognizes this.
Reminds me of the man in the Monty Python movie who wanted the right to be pregnant. ignores a basic biological fact, no?
"Delta's ready when you are."
If he sits right behind his "life-partner," he can fly United.
"It looks like I'll need to move to Canada and renounce my American citizenship"
Adios
I'm guessing that letters representing majority opinions were "filed".
Nice screen name.
Good talking to you.
yours
ThingamaBob
You missed the "universal health care is a civil right" theme during the Democrat National Convention.
Yes I saw the new 'Gays Only' drinking fountains, and dining room at The Varsity on my last trip to Atlanta.
When did 'homosexual' become a race?
Somebody should inform these people that perverse behavior doesn't have rights.
Right! :0
It is impossible for people of the same sex to marry.
It is impossible for a person to marry an animal or a knothole.
Of course the people who accept the corrupted meaning of gay might also accept the corrupted meaning of marriage.
Jeez...did anyone write in praise of the SC? Or did only the fags whine and moan?
Its to bad in addition to being gay that they are ignorant too.
Their logic is ...illogical.
Like what defines U.S. citizenship? Sorry, I ain't buying that...
And anyone who's against socialized health care as a "civil right" is a racist. Somehow.
"The governor left no doubt, however, that I am in fact still a second-class citizen. Despite those 25 years of tax paying and eight years with my partner, we do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple who have been married for one day."
They're not second class and they DO have the same rights.
They can marry a person of the opposite sex anytime they want - just like everyone else !
These people don't want equal treatment, they want SPECIAL treatment !
Like what defines U.S. citizenship? Sorry, I ain't buying that...
Citizenship is not a license, it's a right, once you meet the requirements.
I'm suggesting that 'licensing' gives government control over people, and serves mainly as a revenue generation device.
People ought to be able to make a contract with whomever they want, for whatever they want.
The argument here is whether the government ought to have a say in such contracts. I say not.
If anything men lose a few rights when they get married to a woman, like the right to leave the toilet seat up.
With two queer men living together they retain this right.
Who's being discriminated against?
Cynthia Tucker and her fellow editors naturally refuse to print such bigoted and homophobic responses.
-Despite those 25 years of tax paying and eight years with my partner, we do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple who have been married for one day.-
I suggest he stop paying taxes and the city can cut off his water, electric, garbage collection, street repairs, and police protection.
I pay taxes and no matter what I do I couldn't join the military. I simply don't qualify. My sister and I have lived together for years and years and I won't be getting her social security if she dies no matter what. Do you hear me bawling in the media?
Like murder for hire or ritual murder?
Don't think so...
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
The argument here is whether the government ought to have a say in such contracts. I say not.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees...
Some of you liberal-tarians forget, it is YOU who advocate “separation of church and state.” Let me cram it right back down your throats...
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
Now, it ain't so palatable to you, is it? You are the ones here bashing the religious folks, now you want to claim some mercurial, ever changing definition of freedom of religion? I'm not going to live in your hell...
Some of you Bozos out there can't get past that word “God,” so you would just piss the entire country away and join the enemies of America; all because you have this polemic need to bash the Christians and do everything in contravention to them. I say screw you and the filthy practices you want to live by. My children are not going to inherit your squalor if I can help it.
Exactly. They want special treatment but they also want to pretend that marriage is nothing more than legal recognition and goodies for two consenting adults who love each other enough to enter a legal agreement with the state.
Marriage is more than that. Leaving out all the religious reasons for marriage, one of the reason the state recognizes and privileges marriages is because the state realizes a specific, direct benefit from marriage between a man and a woman. When a man and woman marry, they unite, legally, what were formerly two tribes. The more tribes in a society, the more potential for competition and violence. The fewer tribes, the more stability for the state. Marriages bring more peace and stability to a society (not to mention all the good it does to create and socialize children).
Now marriage only temporarily unites those tribes, but the children of that marriage permanently unites the tribes. The children are the permanent welding force to keep the tribes together from that point onward. Therefore, to the extent the state can encourage children arising from legal marriage, it realizes a direct benefit of higher stability.
Gay marriage cannot offer the same benefit to the state. It can temporarily unite two tribes but it cannot genetically and permanently weld them together like the marriage between the genetic parents do. In fact, to the extent gays have children in their marriage, they have forcibly separated the child from his or her genetic tribe in order to foist the fiction of "parenthood" of the nongenetic gay partner. Far from creating stability in a society, it destabilizes society.
I don't mean to simplify the argument. Of course there are matters of adoption, of artificial insemination, of childless married couples, and so forth, but the state has a right to privilege a relationship which could conceivably produce a benefit as opposed to giving the same privileges to a relationship which can't conceivably (uh-oh, I can hear the sarcasm;o}) benefit the state in the same manner. By this standard, the state has the right to discriminate in favor of heterosexual marriage and refuse to equate homosexual relationships to heterosexual relationships.
We need to stop letting gays get away with the argument that they are the victims of an unfair nation.
You're holding back here. Tell the libertarians what you REALLY think of them!
They are liberaltarians, not libertarians and if I told them what I really think (by their fallacious standard of free expression) I would get arrested...
LOL
Now that's a clown-ass argument if I've ever seen one.
Clearly, deep down, you are someone who believes that he has to do what he is told.
Do tell: Is the Supreme Court infallible? Do you agree with them on Roe v. Wade? Kelo? How about some of their rulings regarding slavery?
I made no claims about Church and State; quite the opposite. I believe the State should get the hell out of a business that is God's province. If a man decides to let a goat in his house and call it his wife, is it any more legitimate if he got the state to sanction it? Clearly you must believe it to be so.
Nonsense.
Mine is a Christian household, your assumptions and insults notwithstanding.
As for your insults to Libertarians? Take it up with them, and take your stereotyping BS attitude and stick it in the same place
You seriously need to see a doctor; your seething arrogance and condescension have made you downright delusional.
Well said.
Interesting reading -from the minds of moonbats...
Two questions for the gay "marriage" crowd:
1. Why 2 people? I can tell you exactly why 2 for Male/Female marriages. Absent procreation (and all that goes with it to make a home, inheritance, etc.) 2 is an arbitrary number.
2. If this isn't about sex, then why can't children marry their parents? Brother and Sisters? If either is unable to reproduce it places them in the same position as gay people (I mean this for example a single adult child taking care of an adult infirm parent -- why can't that couple get the same rights as even Domestic Partners?)
These 2 questions (and the gay community's complete inability to answer them) expose this issue for the political posturing it is.
Consider moving to San Fransicko and perhaps you can marry your sister. Sarc
Bingo. I have said over and over, why can't two good buddies receive same benefits as two perverts? Answer, they must perform perverted sexual acts to receive domestic partner benefits.
One week, I complained to my wife every time I found the toilet seat down.
She didn't think that was nearly as funny as I did.
Nice to extrapolate like that, but, IMHO, there won't be time for that development. It is my opinion that the fire of judgment is impending and not too many more generations are left to this earth.
So, you would have no problem telling the homosexuals they cannot legally marry each other in contravention to the Mosaic Law and Genesis???
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
If a man decides to let a goat in his house and call it his wife, is it any more legitimate if he got the state to sanction it?
It would be lawful... AND THAT IS argumentum absurdium...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Mine is a Christian household,...
So, you would have no problem telling the homosexuals they cannot legally marry each other in contravention to the Mosaic Law and Genesis???
"If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." (Luke 16:31)
Gay-only neighborhoods, gay-only schools? Yeah, they have 'em. Gay-only bathrooms? Now there's an idea.
How do they prove it??? They have to videotape it or something?
Ah, I think the rule is that all perverts tell the truth. Jacko proved it in his legal quagmire. Since perverts tell the truth there would be no need for proof beyond their statements.
Rules at the universities and many businesses allow benefits for homosexual partners but not heterosexual. My brothers girlfriend asked about benefits for him and was denied. She asked if she had a lesbian friend would the same rules apply?? ANs, no, the lesbian would be allowed benefits for her partner. That is justice by PC standards.
We're done, Dashy.
odd how there were no contrary points of view.
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.