 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 26 Jan 09 - 06:49 PM Hmmmm. I know Lis and she hates it when people get her name wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 26 Jan 09 - 07:00 PM ""I'll broach it. If all living creatures have these two things in common, the will to survive and reproduce, and your sexual organs are the 'normal' way of doing that,"" But not always with a member of the opposite sex, or do you believe hermaphrodite life forms are not also animals? Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jan 09 - 10:09 PM . . . cellular fission. . . . Nature is not a "one trick pony." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 27 Jan 09 - 03:19 AM ohhh wa-a-a-a- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 27 Jan 09 - 03:25 AM Here, for all you of astute comprehension........ Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 09 - 05:17 PM Don: That was (like almost all of yours) a great post. Let's get a room. :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 27 Jan 09 - 10:13 AM GtS 1:33 By the way, I hope your lovely Barbara doesn't know about you hitting up on Amos, for a 'room away from home'...(wink)! You changed your mind? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 27 Jan 09 - 12:26 PM (snicker snicker) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:33 AM And for those folks who insist these kinds of suits will not take place, here it is! Court: Christian school can expel lesbian students Buzz Up Send Email IM Share Digg Facebook Newsvine del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks Print Tue Jan 27, 8:57 pm ETRIVERSIDE, Calif. – A California appeals court has ruled that a Christian high school can expel students because of an alleged lesbian relationship. The 4th District Court of Appeal in Riverside on Monday upheld California Lutheran High School's right as a private, religious organization to exclude students based on sexual orientation. Two girls sued claiming they were discriminated against after they were expelled from the Wildomar school in 2005. A lower court said the school isn't bound by the same anti-discrimination laws as a business establishment. John McKay, attorney for California Lutheran, says the school's goal is to educate based on Christian principles. The attorney for the girls could not be immediately reached Tuesday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,curious reader Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:02 PM at this time, its time to hear from me, and now us. i'm gay, and reading this with much interest. most of this stuff is baloney, by people who don't understand. the one that has caught my interest, is 'guest from sanity'. and i'd like to address this question to him/her. when i first came across this thread, i took little or no interest in it, but now, that the conversation has taken some most interesting turns, its time for me to speak up. first it was just me, then my partner, then a friend, and another, and another. this blog has gotten probably bigger than you all think. you've come at guest from sanity, and ake, with all you've got. and frankly, all the excuses that i've either heard, or used myself. to make it short, 'sanity', has shredded most all of it, now its time to ask you ('sanity')a question. some of your answers, we've printed, and even passed out, to other friends. the question is, you spoke of a deep hurt, which is true, you spoke of actually making the decision to have sex with another guy. that's true too. but you haven't offered a solution. at this point, you have all of our undivided attention. if you offer the solution, to the deep hurt, which i won't even give you a hint, as to what it is, then in all honesty, that could and change EVERYTHING. you all think that the 'christians' are bigoted, you should see my fellow gay friends, when one of us starts deciding to go straight! they become everything but gay. more like downright hateful and nasty. so, my curiousity goes to 'sanity'. here is is, if you hit it on the head, you are going to have a way more massive impact than any of you think. what is it? or is it just hot air. part of me wants you to be 'full of it' and another part wants to be free, and your answer is going to really matter. six of us are now engaged is some very sobering discussions, because of you. please answer this post thoughtfully, as your earlier posts, lead us to believe that you are sincere, knowledgeable, and caring. I know there are others on her, offering us the rap to plead our cause, but it is yours that has spoken to our hearts. what's it going to be? sincerely, more than just us 6 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 28 Jan 09 - 08:52 PM Me, I'm waiting for GtS's response. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 28 Jan 09 - 09:50 PM That explains it. What "GUEST,curious reader" wrote just above is totally inconsistent with what I know to be the feelings of gay people that I am acquainted with. I find that I am able to discuss these matters with a couple of gay friends quite openly. One of these friends is a very good writer and a member of a writers' group that meets at our apartment on the second Sunday afternoon of every month. I presume he will be coming on Feb. 8th, so I will print off what "GUEST,curious reader" wrote, show it to him, and see what he says about it. If this thread is still going by then, I'll report back. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 28 Jan 09 - 10:34 PM You know, curious reader, if you become a Mudcat member you can communicate directly with Guest from Sanity. Membership is easy - basically you just sign on, after you select a password and an email address. It is free, you never receive spam from it, and you will have options that guests don't get. Hmmmmm. I just realized - Membership won't help you when it comes to communicating with GtS because he has never seen fit to reveal himself to that extent. Frankly, I suspect that he is afraid but that is neither here nor there; I imagine fear is a great inhibitor. So. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: bubblyrat Date: 29 Jan 09 - 02:12 PM In some English newspapers today,is the report about the two children,a boy and a girl,who cannot live with their parents any more,because of their (the parents) health,addictions,age,and lifestyle . Fair enough ,so far. So ,the kids have said that,not unnaturally,they would like to live with their Grandparents,whom they love dearly,and who love them too,and who are,they say,teetotal non-smokers. So what have the local "Social Services" decided ?? Well !! ---they are going to be given up for adoption to a "couple" of Gay men !! The children are VERY UPSET about this,and have begged to be allowed to stay with Granny & Grandpa....but NO !! Gay people have a "Right" to adopt children,apparently,whether the children involved like it or not !! As a spokesperson for the children said--"What will happen when the girl reaches puberty ,and starts having periods,for God's sake ?? Is she going to confide in,and seek counsel from, a homosexual man ? What she needs is a MOTHER !!!" ( Un-quote). I never heard of anything so VILE, so DISGUSTING,in all my life !! What have we human beings come too ??? And some of you want Gay people to get "married ?? Shame on you !! Sorry, but that's my conviction and opinion,to which I am,I hope to God,entitled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jan 09 - 02:30 PM bubblyrat, that is not the fault of gays, it's a streak of idiocy in your "Social Sevices" bureau. Someone needs to bang some heads together. How do the kids' grandparents feel about this? What are they doing about it? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 09 - 02:34 PM BR: To be sensible about things you get wrought up about, select the correct target first. In this case, the idiocy was promulgated by meat-headed heterosexual social workers, most likely. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:22 PM Curious similarity in writing style between Guest GfS, and Guest Curious Reader. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:26 PM Don T. - Check out the amazing similarity in writing style between "Guest Curious Reader" and "Guest lansing". They share an aversion to capital letters, and an admiration for the exact same other Guest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Riginslinger Date: 29 Jan 09 - 05:45 PM like e. e. cummings... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:10 PM Yeah, as a "guest," it makes it easy to try to adopt different personae and develop what appears to be a whole horde of people who agree with you. Fairly transparent ploy, however. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:41 PM WOrld-renowned in her own mind, and impeccable in her tastes therein as well. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:47 PM bubblyrat, would you link to the story, please? I haven't been able to find it. Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 29 Jan 09 - 06:53 PM Here ya go my dear! bubblyrat's link |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:00 PM Sorry....try this! link |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 29 Jan 09 - 07:06 PM Sorry Ebbie, just realised you can get the article through the search function in the link....duh! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 30 Jan 09 - 12:32 AM Thanks, ake. An amazing story. In the US - as an operating rule - relatives are considered valid adoptive parents when a parent - usually a woman - is deemed unfit. There are numerous adopted children in my extended family- I have two adopted sisters and several of my sisters have adopted a daughter. This is in Oregon - although one of the adoptions began in Canada. Two others happened in Virginia. It frequently is not an easy or swift process. Several times the adoption has been held up for months because a relative is on again, off again about taking the child or children. In fact, right now, a niece who is a single woman who is an American Sign Language teacher and deeply involved in social work is in the process of adoption. She first fostered two children and then when she expressed her desire to adopt them both, they brought her the children's two siblings. So now she is foster parenting the four and would like to adopt them all. At this point a cousin of the children is in the pipeline as to whether she would be willing or able to adopt them- she has not yet decided. In the meantime Sheryl takes the children to visit the cousin on a weekly basis. She also sees to it that their mother sees them as she is able. I think adoptive parents are remarkable people. (One of my nieces and her husband have adopted nine children- the first three, all unrelated by blood and less than a year apart in age have now left the home. They are 19. One of them is a social worker working with youngsters on the street in Tacoma, another is pursuing a singing career and the other has discovered travel. Everywhere he goes he finds places where he would love to live- China, Belgium, Ireland... He is now back in his hometown and is engaged to be married. His traveling days may be over. :) A great kid. OK, that niece may not be the typical parent!) The grandparents' ages and health issues are NOT good reasons to turn them down. They could be adopted by a healthy young mum and dad who are killed in a car accident a year later. As for the adopted parents being two gay men, good for them. I have two gay men friends who would be wonderful parents. However, this whole matter seems to have been badly mismanaged. I hope this is not the end of the story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: TIA Date: 31 Jan 09 - 12:00 AM Shine a light on cockroaches, and they scurry away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 31 Jan 09 - 03:34 AM I agree that this seems to be a case of mismanagement Ebbie and probably not avery good example for this discussion, but the problem here is that social services are obliged to grant adoption rights to almost any homosexual couple who apply, in order to keep to the same ratios as hetero couples. This is now a legal requirement. As a result, the needs or wishes of the children or of their extended family are being ignored. I'm afraid that in my view the law regarding homosexual fostering of chilren is "an ass" I know you don't agree with my point of view Ebbie, but thanks for all the interesting and reasoned posts that you have contributed. Ake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: katlaughing Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:23 PM IMO, THIS is beautiful and heartwrenching. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: frogprince Date: 16 Feb 09 - 05:01 PM I learned something interesting this morning; one of the older gents we regularly have morning coffee with at Tims pointed this out: General Motors is in immediate danger of bankruptcy. Ford is at least hoping to get along without federal aid. At one time Both GM and Ford "supported gay people", but Ford has since "repented" of doing so. Which just goes to show you... All that I actually learned, of course, was that the old guy is much more "that way" then I realized previously. He prefaced his whole "case" with his own realization that we would disagress; there wasn't much point in arguing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 Feb 09 - 01:59 PM Forgot to post my name, again... Sorry, that i didn't get back sooner....recording. Ok..down the line:From: TIA Date: 31 Jan 09 - 12:00 AM Shine a light on cockroaches, and they scurry away. GfS: I wouldn't know about cockroaches. I guess if you had the time to observe them, maybe you could spend that same time cleaning your house...until then, try eating over the sink! Don: Yeah, as a "guest," it makes it easy to try to adopt different personae and develop what appears to be a whole horde of people who agree with you. Fairly transparent ploy, however. GfS: Is that the best you can do??...The weak accuse others of their own motives!! Riginslinger: like e. e. cummings... GfS: Rig, Do you really think that many people on here are that well read. When I looked at that post, I figured he typed that way, because he was a chat roomer. Oh well, I suppose 'assumptions' in here, are the equivalent of an edict! Maybe. some flexibility, in data gathering, before coming to a conclusion, might be a novel idea.....(?) By the way, thank you for interjecting possibilityFrom: TIA: Don T. - ".... "Guest Curious Reader" and "Guest lansing". They share an aversion to capital letters," GfS: I think that was covered above. Hey, did you ever work for NASA on the Gemini, or Challenger projects? Don Firth: "bubblyrat, that is not the fault of gays, it's a streak of idiocy in your "Social Sevices" bureau." GfS: Don, it must be that time again!..A broken clock is right, at least two times a day!! Amos:.......well Amos's post was too unintelligible, to understand, to reply to it. Sorry ol' chap! Ebbie: You know, curious reader, if you become a Mudcat member you can communicate directly with Guest from Sanity. GfS: Another piece of rocket science. Hmmmmm. I just realized - Membership won't help you when it comes to communicating with GtS......GfS: Thinking out loud, or what?....Ebbie: because he has never seen fit to reveal himself to that extent......GfS: Ebbie, sweetie, I'm so 'fit', that is why you can't understand me. GfS: Sheeesh! Her post is self-explanatory..just by itself. So far, I've managed not to name call with personal attacks, or be nasty spirited. Suck it up..the best is yet to come....(unlike,..well never mind..) AND TO YOU, CURIOUS READER: Sorry I've been long, in replying...I'll do that in my next post. Been doing some intensive recording sessions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:00 PM Lots of snide tap dancing, but not a genuine refutation in the whole carload. (Yawn). Nothing new here. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 17 Feb 09 - 06:20 PM Guest has made his/ her point very well.....Any refuting must come from the "liberals" who so far have failed to make even sense! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 17 Feb 09 - 07:19 PM She hasn't made it at all, Ake, nor have you. Expressing hatred, irrational fear, cross-eyed bias, and the like, is not "making a point very well", or even making it at all. She, and you, have a belief that there should be a social institution, with appertaining legal rights, to "protect" heterosexual mating, as though it really depended on a social formula, and to keep it from being brought low by such a horrible proposition as equal status in the eyes of the law regardless of gender pairing. I believe that no such special institution is needed to encourage heterosexual pairing and that while the protocols and fluff and pomp of solemn rituals is all well and good, there should never be a legal privelege allowed to some and denied to others on the basis of their sexual orientation. You think htere should be. Neither of you has justified this slant. I think this slant is undemocratic and inhumane, and essentially a defense of bigotry. Shall we start the whole conversation over again? Why don't you jjust read the thread into a tape recorder?? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 03 Apr 09 - 10:31 AM "The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the state's same-sex-marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making it the third state where gay marriage is legal. In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge's ruling that the law was unconstitutional. The case stems from a 2005 lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal, a New York-based gay-rights organization. The group filed a lawsuit on behalf of six gay and lesbian Iowa couples who were denied marriage licenses. Connecticut and Massachusetts are the two states that allow same-sex couples to marry. California briefly recognized gay marriage until voters banned it in a referendum last year. Meanwhile, the Vermont House of Representatives late Thursday approved a bill legalizing gay marriage, a measure that now faces a veto from the state's governor. The Democratic-controlled house voted 95-52 in favor of the bill, which had already cleared the state Senate in a 26-4 vote. The state's Republican governor, James Douglas, says he now plans to veto it. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas is hugged by opponents of the gay-marriage bill in Montpelier Thursday. Douglas has threatened to veto the measure. Supporters of the Vermont bill would need additional votes in the house to override the veto, which requires two-thirds majorities in both chambers of the legislature. Lawmakers in New Hampshire and Maine also are considering bills that would allow gay marriage." A sorry state of affairs when California is more reactionary than Iowa!! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: katlaughing Date: 03 Apr 09 - 02:27 PM Iowa??!! Lots of lonely farmers? Whoo-hoo, regardless! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Apr 09 - 08:16 PM "Iowa??!! Lots of lonely farmers? Whoo-hoo, regardless!" Hide the sheep and the pigs! PETA is going to claim equal rights for them too! Amos, If you scroll down, and re-read my posts, instead of having a general opinion of where I'm coming from, you should instantly recognize that I have more than once expressed compassion...for both sides. So, stick to rebutting the text of the posts, rather than reading into where you THINK I'm coming from. Fair enough? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 05 Apr 09 - 11:18 AM "Iowa Decency SEND TO PHONE SHARE Published: April 4, 2009 Like the state's earlier landmark civil rights cases — striking down slavery in 1839, for example, and segregation in 1868 and 1873 — the ruling on gay marriage by Iowa's Supreme Court is a refreshing message of fairness and common sense from the nation's heartland. Related Times Topics: Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships A unanimous decision by the seven-member court on Friday approved marriage for couples of the same sex and brought the nation a step closer toward realizing its promise of equality and justice. Iowa is only the third state, following Massachusetts and Connecticut, to legalize gay marriage. California allowed such marriages for five months until November's election, when residents rejected the idea in a voter initiative. A ruling on the validity of that initiative is expected soon from California's Supreme Court. In finding no "persuasive justification" for the different treatment of committed gay and lesbian couples, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed a lower court holding of two years ago. That ruling overturned, on equal protection grounds, a 1998 state law confining civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriages could begin in Iowa before the month is out. The new decision says marriage is a civil contract and should not be defined by religious doctrine or views. "We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further an important governmental objective," wrote Justice Mark Cady, a Republican appointee. "The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."..." NYT It is nice to be reminded of Iowas past breakouts on the major issues of civil rights, and notice it is dmaking anoother.. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Apr 09 - 12:38 PM Not going into this loop again, but just going to touch on it. Often, political policies, should not be confused with mental or emotional health! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 05 Apr 09 - 10:27 PM Sanity in political policy can go a long way toward supporting mental health without making any impact on the mental health system; the Bill of Rights comes to mind as a good example. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Apr 09 - 11:35 PM It can...................and then again, it might not. Let's not let our optimism overlook reality....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 05 Apr 09 - 11:38 PM IT is not a matter of overlooking, but refusing to succumb to it. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Apr 09 - 02:02 AM Yes...but "KNOW your enemy!!!"-Lao Tzu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 06 Apr 09 - 10:23 AM I am right here in the middle of this new front and let me tell you, it has not caused the world to implode or spontaneously combust. It isn't even a general topic of discussion. Outside of the folks who will be applying for marriage licenses in about three weeks or those vehemently opposed to same, it does not seem to be that big a deal. The word I have gotten from the newspapers is that it would take a constitutional amendment to reverse this decision. That takes a while. It has to pass two separate legislative sessions and then pass a popular vote. We take changes to the constitution pretty seriously here. My understanding is that the earliest this could happen is 2011. I find the comments of those who assume Iowa to be a backward reactionary state amusing. "Know your enemy" indeed. I was told by my mother (a tireless defender of the right as she sees it) that Iowa was targeted as a state in which to bring this case because of our history of tolerance and forward thinking. They obviously picked well. Just so there is no confusion about my stand on this, I have long thought gay marriage should be allowed but I am not gay myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 06 Apr 09 - 10:26 AM Thanks, KB--exactly the reasoned thinking I would expect from an Iowan! :D As to knowing thine enemy, the first one that should be closely inspected is internal willingness to hate. Self-distortion is at the root of distorting others, and thus having enemies. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Apr 09 - 11:41 AM Exc-u-u-u-use me! My comment 'Know your enemy' was in fact, a reply to Amos' comment 'IT is not a matter of overlooking, but refusing to succumb to it..' and only that! It was not meant to be taken like Homosexuals, women, blacks, Mexicans, Polish immigrants, Chinese, women, guys, rich, poor, Native Americans, Africans, Aborigines, Def Leopard, Lucille Ball, Mr. Rogers, Ebbie, Amos, Sarah Palin, Ralph Nader, Sherlock Holmes, Jackie Gleason, Gordon Brown, Batman, Big Mick, Rush Limbaugh, Jim Morrison, the Pope, Wiley Coyote, .....the tooth Fairy....just to mention a few...okay???? ..Jeez!, Trigger Happy Mudcatters! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 06 Apr 09 - 11:49 AM Sorry GfS, I did not mean that to be directed at you. It was just a general comment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 06 Apr 09 - 12:13 PM And mine, likewise, was a general comment. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Apr 09 - 01:37 PM So was mine...okay, we're all cool 1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:00 PM "BOSTON (Reuters) - Vermont lawmakers on Tuesday overrode a veto from the governor in passing a bill that would allow same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the state to become the fourth in the nation where gay marriage is legal. The Vermont House of Representatives passed the bill by a 100-49 vote after it cleared the state Senate 23-5 earlier in the day. In Vermont, a bill needs two-thirds support in each chamber to override a veto. Vermont's vote comes just four days after Iowa's Supreme Court struck down a decade-old law that barred gays from marrying to make that state the first in the U.S. heartland to allow same-sex marriages. Vermont's gay marriage legislation looked in peril after a vote Thursday in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives that failed to garner enough support clear a veto threat from Republican Governor Jim Douglas. California briefly recognized gay marriage until voters banned it in a referendum last year. Vermont, which became the first state in the country to allow full civil unions for same-sex couples in 2000, joins New England neighbors Connecticut and Massachusetts in allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry." This one's for Harvey. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Big Mick Date: 07 Apr 09 - 12:11 PM As an aside, I spent the weekend in the Great State of Iowa, in a rural farm community in the northeastern/central part of the State. Joe Offer suggested that I should get some reaction of the folks to the decision by the Iowa Supreme Court, which found bans on the legal union of gay folks to be unconstitutional. Most of the folks I spoke with thought it was a correct decision, although there were a few that were very loud in their condemnation. While hardly a decent sampling, none the less this was a primarily rural, bib overall wearing group. I found their views to be very progressive, and certainly outside of the stereotype that "sophisticates" would have you believe. And it is fair to point out that it was Iowa that gave President Obama a major boost in his campaign. All the best, Mick |
