The Gay Fray

I am . . . .

  • Homosexual

    Votes: 25 9.2%

  • Heterosexual

    Votes: 201 73.6%

  • Bisexual

    Votes: 31 11.4%

  • Other (I would have complained if there wasn't an "other" option)

    Votes: 16 5.9%
  • Total voters
    273
as i just said its not just for married people
if your living with your brother and suporting him you get THE SAME TAX BENIFIT

if your elderly parents come to live with you and you surport them you again GET THE SAME TAX BENIFIT (unless they require care in which case you also get cares benifits ect)
 
Gratitude and sorrow

'Til Death Do They Part
Del Martin, longtime lesbian rights activist, dead at 87

Deepest condolences at the outset to Phyllis Lyon, whose wife Del Martin passed away yesterday at the age of 87. Their union, twice affirmed—the state of California nullified their first marriage—will remain an icon of the equal rights struggle for lesbian, gay, and transgendered people.

Lesbian rights pioneer Del Martin died Wednesday. She was 87. She and her partner Phyllis Lyon were the first to be legally married in the state of California.

Her wife, Phyllis Lyon was at her side when she passed away.

At a meeting of the LGBT caucus at the Democratic National Convention, Gavin Newsom, his voice breaking, said he had just heard of her death. "Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon defined love, devotion and constancy," he said.

A statement released later from Barack Obama said: "Michelle and I were deeply saddened to hear that Del Martin had passed. Del committed her life to fighting discrimination and promoting equality. Our thoughts and prayers go out to her spouse Phyllis Lyon, and all those who were touched by her life" ....

.... Martin and Lyon devoted their lives to working towards LGBT equality, healthcare access, advocacy on behalf of battered women, and issues facing elderly Americans. Their many contributions over the past five decades helped shape the modern LGBT movement.

Her last public political act, on June 16, 2008, was to marry Phyllis Lyon, her partner of 55 years. They were the first couple to wed in San Francisco after the California Supreme Court recognized that marriage for same-sex couples is a fundamental right in a case brought by plaintiffs including Martin and Lyon.

(365gay.com)
Click to expand...

Raise a glass in thanks and sorrow; thanks for all Del has done, and sorrow for the loss of a lifetime's worth of valiant and determined love.

We need not be diminished, though, by her passing; we are, as a society, stronger for her labor and devotion.
_____________________

Notes:

"Lesbian pioneer Del Martin is dead". 365gay.com. August 27, 2008. http://www.365gay.com/features/082708-del-martin-dies/
 
The problem I have with gay marriage is that if they adopt children, the children will grow up in an unnormal environment an will almost certainly be miserable. My younger brother (13 years old) knows a kid whose moms are lesbians; he is teased all the time by the other kids at school for not having normal parents, for instance, once my brother walked up to him and said "Hey Jeffrey how are your parents doing?" simply because he knew this comment would upset him. I think its horrible that people do that, especially my little brother, but that's what people will do, especially kids. Who knows what psychological effects those experiences will have on that poor kid...
 
whos fault is that?

Is it the parents of the child or is it the kids and THEIR parents who are to blame?
 
Connecticut!

Connecticut!
"Constitution State" becomes the third

The Connecticut Supreme Court today struck down today a state law that provided same-sex couples with the same rights as married heterosexual couples. The law, which limited marriage to heterosexuals and attempted to provide an equivalent legal footing for same-sex civil unions violated the state's constitutional guarantee of equal protection, the court said. Connecticut, by this ruling became the third state to legalize gay marriage after Massachusetts and California:

The ruling, which cannot be appealed and is to take effect on Oct. 28, held that a state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and a civil union law intended to provide all the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

Striking at the heart of discriminatory traditions in America, the court — in language that often rose above the legal landscape into realms of social justice for a new century — recalled that laws in the not-so-distant past barred interracial marriages, excluded women from occupations and official duties, and relegated blacks to separate but supposedly equal public facilities.

“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”

The ruling was groundbreaking in various respects. In addition to establishing Connecticut as the third state to sanction same-sex marriage, it was the first state high court ruling to hold that civil union statutes specifically violated the equal protection clause of a state constitution. The Massachusetts high court held in 2004 that same-sex marriages were legal, while California’s court decision in May related to domestic partnerships and not the more broadly defined civil unions.

(Otterman)
Click to expand...

Conservatives were disappointed, to say the least. The executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, Peter Wolfgang, lashed out after the court's "robed masters" and "philosopher kings", declaring that the right to discriminate against gays "is about our right to govern ourselves".

Governor Rell, while disagreeing with the decision, has conceded the court's authority, saying that she does not believe attempts to reverse the decision, even by amending the state constitution, would be successful. Later this month, the state will begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, and in the meantime Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is reviewing the decision in order to decide whether and which laws will need revision to accommodate the ruling.

Raise a glass; here's to the Constitution State. Hip, hip!
____________________

Notes:

Otterman, Sharon. "Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in Connecticut". New York Times. October 10, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html

See Also:

Kerrigan et al. v Comm. of Public Health et al. (SC 17716). Connecticut Supreme Court. October 28, 2008. http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf
 
For what its worth I'm straight as a board in terms of my personal choices, but cannot express strongly enough that equal protection under the law must be afforded to every one and those who wish to be married have my blessing whether they are straight, gay, bi, poly, or whatever.
 
swarm said:
For what its worth I'm straight as a board in terms of my personal choices, but cannot express strongly enough that equal protection under the law must be afforded to every one and those who wish to be married have my blessing whether they are straight, gay, bi, poly, or whatever.
Click to expand...

For what its worth I'm straight as a board in terms of my personal choices, but cannot express strongly enough that some people should not be premitted to do certain things in life. Gays and lesbians simply shouldn't be permitted to marry another of the same sex. In exactly the same way sisters can't marry brothers or fathers; in the same way that mothers can't marry their sons; in the same way that underage girls can't marry older men; etc. Some things just should be illegal, plain and simple.

I'm not permitted to marry my goats and sheep, but you don't see us goat and sheep lovers out parading around town demanding equal rights to marry those sheep and goats, do you?

As to equal rights, it's simple ...gay males are exactly equal under that law on the issue of marriage. Hetero males can't marry other males; Gay males can't marry other males. See? It's perfectly equal under the law.

But, ahhh, gays want to be special under the law ...they want special laws enacted just for them! Sad, ain't it?

Baron Max
 
what a load of crap baron. The incest previsions are there because of the risk of genetic defects for there children. Gays and lesbians HAVE no such risk, its only bigots like you who cant see that.
 
Asguard said:
what a load of crap baron. The incest previsions are there because of the risk of genetic defects for there children. Gays and lesbians HAVE no such risk, its only bigots like you who cant see that.
Click to expand...

Don't bother; baron might as well have copy and pasted that post from one of the many earlier threads we've had on the subject. He's used the same slippery slope, false equivalency, and appeal to tradition fallacies many times in the past. He was soundly refuted before, but it makes no difference. Hatred is more fun that compassion.
 
tim840 said:
The problem I have with gay marriage is that if they adopt children, the children will grow up in an unnormal environment an will almost certainly be miserable. My younger brother (13 years old) knows a kid whose moms are lesbians; he is teased all the time by the other kids at school for not having normal parents, for instance, once my brother walked up to him and said "Hey Jeffrey how are your parents doing?" simply because he knew this comment would upset him. I think its horrible that people do that, especially my little brother, but that's what people will do, especially kids. Who knows what psychological effects those experiences will have on that poor kid...
Click to expand...

"The problem I have with interracial marriage is that the children will grow up in an abnormal environment."
 
Asguard said:
what a load of crap baron. The incest previsions are there because of the risk of genetic defects for there children.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about children? We're talking about marriage, and as far as I know, there's no law that requires married people to produced children.

Gays and lesbians just want special treatment under the law. And that ain't nice.

And you really shouldn't be calling me names ...that ain't permitted on this site. Oh, wait, if you're gay, then I guess they'll permit it. :)

Baron Max
 
I don't really care if gay couples marry or not. I do have an issue with them
adopting children though.
 
Baron Max said:
And you really shouldn't be calling me names ...that ain't permitted on this site. Oh, wait, if you're gay, then I guess they'll permit it. :)
Click to expand...

He didn't call you any names. He said your post was a load of crap, which is factually accurate.
 
shorty_37 I do have an issue with them adopting children though.

There are tons of studies showing gays and lesbians make good parents and for you homo phobes, their kids, natural or adopted, are no more likely to be gay than any one else.
 
baron max In exactly the same way sisters can't marry brothers or fathers; in the same way that mothers can't marry their sons; in the same way that underage girls can't marry older men; etc. Some things just should be illegal, plain and simple.

I don't recall gays and lesbians asking for the right of incestuous marriage or underage marriage. Its just two people who love each other wanting to get married. More power to them

baron max I'm not permitted to marry my goats and sheep, but you don't see us goat and sheep lovers out parading around town demanding equal rights to marry those sheep and goats, do you?

Baron Max I can see your love for fluffy is true! You are the sheep lover who will change the minds of bigots every where with the power of your love. Its so obvious that you love sheep, I can smell the lanolin from here. I think it is very brave of you to come out. Baa! Brother.

baron max It's perfectly equal under the law.

Gay singles and couples want the same rights as hetero singles and couples. Simple, no?

Baa! Brother
 
swarm said:
Gay singles and couples want the same rights as hetero singles and couples. Simple, no?
Click to expand...

Yep, it is simple ...and they already have those same rights. Hetero males can't marry other males; Gay males can't marry other males. That's exactly, precisely, the same rights under the law.

But see, gays and lesbians want MORE rights than heteros ...it's plain to see.

Y'all won't let me marry my goat and two sheep, so I'm going to work to prevent gays the right to marry other gays. If y'all will support changing the law so I can marry my goat and sheep, then I might, maybe, will support changing the law for y'all.

Baron Max
 
I think Baron really is just angry that he can't marry his goat and two sheep. :D I mean, he's said it so many times in this thread and others, it has to be true.

Anyway, there is no special treatment here. It's allowing equal rights, not special rights. See, if gays are allowed to marry, then they will have the same right as you do; whereas today they do not have the same right as you, and that right is to marry a person you love and are attracted to. If you're gay, you aren't attracted to the opposite sex...see how that works?

And I have no problem with gay couples adopting or birthing children. People made the same bullshit arguments about teasing that people used to make about interracial children years ago, and it's still not true. The more equal gays become, the less the children will have the hear it. And let's be honest...most kids get teased regardless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top