RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 12:06 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:32 am 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120

It's why I never supported this "let's have civil unions for teh gayz because we can't call it marriage." Yes, we can and did, thank you Obgerfell, and the way most of those civil union statutes were written, it seems that civil unions carried fewer of the legal benefits of actual marriage - maybe by design.

No, same rights and benefits for everybody.


Yes it was definitely by design. That's why people made those arguments: special rights for themselves, second-class citizenship for others.

That was another knock-down-drag-out we had to have with our supposed allies, and, ironically enough, one that rightwing nutjobs like some on this board love to hold over Dem voters' heads in the same manner they love to say the Dems = the KKK.

It was the standard position of the D party and liberal heteros that took years of pushback and education for them to finally shake free of it. And at the exact same time, you had the HRC outright abandoning trans individuals in their advocacy for ENDA based on the same logic. :?

Of course, the reich wing really ought to keep its mouth shut, since they are the ones who advocate for NO civil rights for anyone, and special social exemptions for themselves. :problem:

People (self included) never forgave the HRC for that, and some of its other stances like supporting Mark Kirk over Tammy Duckworth, but before I get off into the weeds about that, just these two stories alone are instructive as to just how quickly people will argue either gradualism or second-class citizenship for others while enjoying first-class citizenship, themselves.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138

It's why I never supported this "let's have civil unions for teh gayz because we can't call it marriage." Yes, we can and did, thank you Obgerfell, and the way most of those civil union statutes were written, it seems that civil unions carried fewer of the legal benefits of actual marriage - maybe by design.

No, same rights and benefits for everybody.
I'd take a different approach. "Civil unions" for all. Marriage is private, whatever someone wants, or doesn't want, to do. They could arrange it with whatever authority -- religious or Elvis -- they prefer. This is the practice in some other countries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 11:46 am 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
I'd take a different approach. "Civil unions" for all. Marriage is private, whatever someone wants, or doesn't want, to do. They could arrange it with whatever authority -- religious or Elvis -- they prefer. This is the practice in some other countries.


That was what our supposed allies said at the time, but our at least my retort was, good luck getting the straights to ever downgrade their marriages to "civil unions"...

Plus, they never once said a peep about everybody having civil unions until LGBTQs fought back against RNC get-out-the-bigot-vote ballot measures outlawing "gay marriage," which at the time were already illegal. And marriage was never that big a political plank for LGBTQs until that time, anyway.

Marriage equality is/was the best solution. Thing is, heteros aren't in the boat that samesex married people are. There is no hetero Obergefell for a far-right SCOTUS to overturn if Obergefell is ever challenged.

These are reasons why I have said for a long time: we are on our own.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:57 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:30 pm
Posts: 168
civil unions was just another way to say separate but equal. pretty sure we all know that didn't work out.

_________________
imagination is intelligence having fun


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:13 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 14910

That was what our supposed allies said at the time, but our at least my retort was, good luck getting the straights to ever downgrade their marriages to "civil unions"...

Plus, they never once said a peep about everybody having civil unions until LGBTQs fought back against RNC get-out-the-bigot-vote ballot measures outlawing "gay marriage," which at the time were already illegal. And marriage was never that big a political plank for LGBTQs until that time, anyway.

Marriage equality is/was the best solution. Thing is, heteros aren't in the boat that samesex married people are. There is no hetero Obergefell for a far-right SCOTUS to overturn if Obergefell is ever challenged.

These are reasons why I have said for a long time: we are on our own.

Didnt his daughter say he would protect LGBTQIA community?

Oh wait, that is right, forgot...not one of them has ever told the truth once in their entire miserable fucking lifetimes.

_________________
"Corporate Democrat" phrase created at the same place "Angry Mob" was...People keep falling for rightwing talking points. How sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:15 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
What I think makes sense...maybe not what's politically feasible. To me, its primarily contract enforcement. Not 'separate but equal.' My preference would be the same, civil union, for everyone. Drop the government role in marriage.

But what gets me is 'marriage fidelity' doesn't seem to mean much to heteros, so why are they (meaning those who oppose equality) so self righteous?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:16 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
Didnt his daughter say he would protect LGBTQIA community?

Oh wait, that is right, forgot...not one of them has ever told the truth once in their entire miserable fucking lifetimes.
Heck...he even said it...but as you say...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:20 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
These are reasons why I have said for a long time: we are on our own.
"On our own" doesn't get anywhere.....It has to become important, at least relevant, to the bulk of people for things to change. Once the critical mass recognizes that this is their families, friends, neighbors, business acquaintances and a recognition that intolerance can turn on themselves...we see change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:32 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:30 pm
Posts: 168
What I think makes sense...maybe not what's politically feasible. To me, its primarily contract enforcement. Not 'separate but equal.' My preference would be the same, civil union, for everyone. Drop the government role in marriage.


unless you take away freedom of religion ~ marriage is here to stay. i get it is a civil institution technically but the wedding ceremony is often based on religious beliefs and practices. and you have no chance at changing their beliefs and practices.

_________________
imagination is intelligence having fun


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:52 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
unless you take away freedom of religion ~ marriage is here to stay. i get it is a civil institution technically but the wedding ceremony is often based on religious beliefs and practices. and you have no chance at changing their beliefs and practices.
who said anything about taking away freedom of religion or marriage? (If you look at my posts, I'd be one of the last people on this board to propose that). Marriage, as far as I'm concerned belongs in the realm of religion, or social in some cases. No one should (barring abuse) get in the way of someones "beliefs and practices," whether no matter which side of this issue they're one. The governments role is to enforce contracts and agreements. And that should be done without regard to ones sex, religion, race, national origin, identity, etc. (again barring abuse and some other instances of real societal importance...but therein lies a place for dispute.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:05 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:34 pm
Posts: 5142
Sexually insecure Cons are a very strange people. I've given up trying to understand them.

_________________
Glenfs posted about the Left's War On Women. Glenfs posted this after the Cosby Verdict "Gloria Allred is a media hound and an asshole. The most dangerous place to be is inbetween her and a microphone or camera". 04/27/2018.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:15 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
"On our own" doesn't get anywhere.....It has to become important, at least relevant, to the bulk of people for things to change. Once the critical mass recognizes that this is their families, friends, neighbors, business acquaintances and a recognition that intolerance can turn on themselves...we see change.


Yeah but the marriage equality horse left the barn well over a decade ago, and you just advocated civil unions for everyone, which is a political non-starter.

You'll never get heterosexuals to ever downgrade their precious marriages to civil unions.

We've always been on our own. Without our own self-advocacy, we'd be nowhere fast, and that's not just about LGBTQ marriage, it's about every aspect of civil rights.

MLK himself marked this fairly early on when he critiqued white moderates, not the kkk, as the main obstacle in the pursuit of civil rights for everyone.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:20 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
who said anything about taking away freedom of religion or marriage? (If you look at my posts, I'd be one of the last people on this board to propose that). Marriage, as far as I'm concerned belongs in the realm of religion, or social in some cases. No one should (barring abuse) get in the way of someones "beliefs and practices," whether no matter which side of this issue they're one. The governments role is to enforce contracts and agreements. And that should be done without regard to ones sex, religion, race, national origin, identity, etc. (again barring abuse and some other instances of real societal importance...but therein lies a place for dispute.)


Lol now go tell your religious peers to all downgrade their marriages to civil unions.

Have you downgraded your own marriage to a civil union?

Actually, don't even bother with this pointless thought experiment.

"Civil unions" is a 2005 idea that only cropped up when LGBTQs pushed back against anti-LGBTQ public policies. The country has moved on. Question now is, where will our peers be if/when samesex marriages are threatened by an Obergefell challenge that reaches a far-right social conservative majority SCOTUS.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:43 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138

Lol now go tell your religious peers to all downgrade their marriages to civil unions.

Have you downgraded your own marriage to a civil union?

Actually, don't even bother with this pointless thought experiment.

"Civil unions" is a 2005 idea that only cropped up when LGBTQs pushed back against anti-LGBTQ public policies. The country has moved on. Question now is, where will our peers be if/when samesex marriages are threatened by an Obergefell challenge that reaches a far-right social conservative majority SCOTUS.
Hey...call it what you will....I'm calling for equality...period. And yes...as I've alway said, this is my preference....not necessarily what's politically feasible. (which is rarely an issue on this board)

Seems like getting the government out of marriage would be an easier sell than getting my religious peers to change their view of what marriage is. (My personal religious peers might have a wide range of reactions, just like they do here.)

As for my family...no they are all 'legally married' as that's how the law currently works. Marriage doesn't take into account LGBTQ issues at this point. At least in some states where I have some first hand knowledge, being trans wasn't an issue in getting married. The real point of this thread, I thought, was that some people wanted to change that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:06 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
Without our own self-advocacy, we'd be nowhere fast, and that's not just about LGBTQ marriage, it's about every aspect of civil rights.

MLK himself marked this fairly early on when he critiqued white moderates, not the kkk, as the main obstacle in the pursuit of civil rights for everyone.
I'm all for self advocacy. But alone wont solve the problem. The problem isn't with gay and/or trans people. The problem is the 'straight' crowd.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:17 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
Marriage doesn't take into account LGBTQ issues at this point.


Obergefell, 2013. Yes, marriage takes into account LGBTQ issues.

Until you've downgraded your own marriage to a civil union, you shouldn't recommend it for anyone else.

Quote:
At least in some states where I have some first hand knowledge, being trans wasn't an issue in getting married.


Trans people are a part of LGBTQ - it's what the T is for.

There are transgender people in samesex relationships, e.g., transgender lesbians like Judge Vicky Kolakowski of Alameda County.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Kolakowski

She is transgender and her wife is a cis woman, Cynthia Laird, a reporter for the Bay Area Reporter, one of the flagship LGBTQ newspapers locally and nationwide. Judge Vicky should also have her own subsection in Amen Corner, because she's also an ordained minister in the Metropolitan Community Church.

LGBTQ marriage equality directly affects them as a samesex couple, and couples like them. They are probably the only couple in the world with the kind of A-lister visibility that can bring any recognition to what these struggles mean for the rest of us. It is not easy for them.

Quote:
The real point of this thread, I thought, was that some people wanted to change that.


The point of the thread is that this administration is attacking transgender rights, and this latest story from Sunday is one more way it's been doing so.

It's not just in the Department of Health and Human Services. It's in the Department of Education, the military, the State Department, and in looming court cases that the SCOTUS may take up in its next session.

There is a larger elephant in the room, that a government attack on transgender rights especially at the federal level filters down to all LGBTQ rights. Rightwing LGBTQs, not even people like Caitlyn Jenner, get this, yet. Or maybe Trump's fellow reality television star is finally starting to get that...dunno. I don't expect them to get it. I do expect people who claim to be our allies to get it.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Last edited by carmenjonze on Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:26 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
I'm all for self advocacy. But alone wont solve the problem. The problem isn't with gay and/or trans people. The problem is the 'straight' crowd.


Well, the problem is with crank ideas like civil unions, an idea that has long come and gone. And yet, you still advocate it here?

A lot has happened in the past decade and a half just around marriage equality, alone. But numerical minorities can only do so much to educate numerical majorities with the same access to information as everyone else.

Until the straight crowd takes a personal investment in self-education seriously, then yes, the problem of a continued two-tiered society that is meant to benefit you at our expense is indeed on you.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:48 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
LGBTQ marriage and family issues also directly impact religious minority issues.

Another one for the "Religious Freedom is always a Crock o'Crap" files....

Religious Freedom May Now Include Discrimination Against Jews and Muslims - Rewire

Quote:
South Carolina governor Henry McMaster moved to protect Miracle Hill and other agencies that want to to discriminate against Jews and others and continue to receive government funding.

As the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services faces harsh criticism for its proposed policy to redefine “sex,” another memo sits on the desk of HHS Secretary Alex Azar, one that would allow South Carolina child welfare agency Miracle Hill Ministries to affirmatively discriminate on the basis of religion while receiving state and federal child welfare funds. While it appears that Miracle Hill has been exclusively serving Protestant families for decades, the agency came under the scrutiny of the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) in early 2018, when it turned away a Jewish parent from serving as a foster mentor.

South Carolina law prohibits discrimination in the provision of child welfare services on the basis of religion. Miracle Hill is arguing that this state law violates the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This is the same law that Hobby Lobby used to successfully argue that, due to their religious beliefs, they shouldn’t be obligated to provide birth control to employees as mandated by the Affordable Care Act.

In February, after the state DSS warned Miracle Hill that its actions violated state law, ultra-conservative South Carolina governor Henry McMaster moved to protect Miracle Hill and other agencies who want to to discriminate against Jews and others and continue to receive government funding. McMaster issued an executive order that exempts faith-based child welfare agencies from state nondiscrimination law, and he personally appealed to the federal DHS to speed along Miracle Hill’s request for a personal exemption. (The state legislature later moved to enshrine McMaster’s exemption into state law, making South Carolina the tenth state to permit faith-based child welfare agencies to deny services to children and families.)

Miracle Hill claims that while it may not deign to work with parents and families who aren’t Protestant, it does refer those families and parents back to the state DSS, which also offers foster and adoption services. But soon even those referrals may not be required. In the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision, faith-based employers such as Little Sisters of the Poor successfully argued that even letting the government know that it was not willing to provide contraception would violate their beliefs. This escalation of exemptions could easily be applied to the child welfare context, and Miracle Hill might reasonably argue that even referring non-Protestants to other agencies violates their faith.


So it's not to your benefit to remain myopic and apathetic when the federal government moves to curtail the rights of sexual and gender minorities. Especially under the "religious freedom" canard.

You're next.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:54 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
Didnt his daughter say he would protect LGBTQIA community?

Oh wait, that is right, forgot...not one of them has ever told the truth once in their entire miserable fucking lifetimes.


Probably not even two of these DeVos family thugs has knowingly met a trans person in their lives, much like a lot of people piping up on this matter.

They're quite willing to create discriminatory public policy about it, though. Ah well, same as for every other civil rights matter. They don't know any minorities except for Confederacy Blacks, pro-Pat Robertson Jews, Muslims for immigration bans, and Latinos for the Wall. :problem:

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 3:56 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 12762
Location: Sunny South Florida
Marriage is not always a religious rite or accompanied by it. Atheists get married. You can be married by a justice of the peace, or Elvis, or a ship's captain. Doesn't have to be a religious minister. The entity that issues you your marriage license (and sets some criteria for eligibility) is the government, not your church. I understand most religious people want this to take place in a religious sanctuary. Now, of course, this can get complicated if the two partners belong to two different religions and both feel that way and neither will convert. Which holy place? I've watched that argument play out, BTW.

You cannot "get the government out of marriage". The laws about eligibility for marriage (you can't marry close blood kin/incest, you must be 16 in most states, you need to take a blood test, etc.) are set by the states. The government issues the marriage license. And if you get a divorce, the dissolution of the relationship is often handled in a judicial government building called a divorce court. My personal opinion, marriage is a governmental/social contract that many people choose to solemnize through a religious ceremony ... the latter is the accompaniment.

Thus, whatever various religions believe about gay marriage - and again, we could discuss whether there is an actual scriptural basis for their beliefs, but that issue aside - cannot be the basis for secular law on marriage.

Don't want your church to marry two gay people - fine - they'll look for one who will do it or opt out of a religious ceremony altogether - don't put your views into the secular law. And, frankly, I don't care if you don't want to bake cakes or take photos of those people - if it's your job to serve the public without discrimination, then just do it.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:06 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
Hey Carmen

Not sure what's up.....Usually I have a lot of respect for you.

Because how I think things should be done doesn't match what you believe is politically feasible, doesn't make me your, or anyone else's enemy, nor does it make me opposed to equal rights for all. I was pretty clear, before you posted anything similar, that the problem is not gay or trans people... The problem is squarely 'straight' people and their hypocracy on this issue. At least half of what we see on this board isn't politically feasible.

But more than that, you've never seen or heard me call for anything but total equality. On this issue, I don't care wether you call it marriage / unions / partnership / licenses/ whatever, my position is that it should be totally equal...and you don't see either in fact or by implication anything else. You know little about the background of people here, beside what someone shares or how they present themselves. You've go no business implying otherwise.


Last edited by Viewer on Mon Oct 29, 2018 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:09 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
Marriage is not always a religious rite or accompanied by it. Atheists get married. You can be married by a justice of the peace, or Elvis, or a ship's captain. Doesn't have to be a religious minister.
Thanks Prof
Who knew that non-religious and secular people get married?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:16 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 17960
Location: The blue parts of the map
I see no reason for marriage discrimination beyond the obvious ones relating to the age or kinship of those marrying.

In California, once they accept your blood test and issue the license, you're married. The only thing left is for some kind of authority to sign off on it. We've made a big ceremony out of that part. I had a great time at mine. Lately, there's been some dilution of who's an authority. $10 mail-in ministers marry people all the time. Wiccans have handfastings. (I love handfastings.) It all seems to count.

Other states might vary. Nevada seems to be one stop shopping. License, ceremony, reception. Elvis can marry you on a carnival ride. The Little Wedding Chapel in the Dell can marry you, even including the bridal gown if you tell them your measurements in advance.

_________________
"Our democratic institutions... seem to have been upended by frat-boy billionaires from California," remarked Canadian politician Charlie Angus. (BBC, 11/27/18)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:21 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:26 pm
Posts: 1138
I see no reason for marriage discrimination beyond the obvious ones relating to the age or kinship of those marrying.

In California, once they accept your blood test and issue the license, you're married. The only thing left is for some kind of authority to sign off on it. We've made a big ceremony out of that part. I had a great time at mine. Lately, there's been some dilution of who's an authority. $10 mail-in ministers marry people all the time. Wiccans have handfastings. (I love handfastings.) It all seems to count.

Other states might vary. Nevada seems to be one stop shopping. License, ceremony, reception. Elvis can marry you on a carnival ride. The Little Wedding Chapel in the Dell can marry you, even including the bridal gown if you tell them your measurements in advance.
Heck, I've performed 'marriage ceremonies' and I haven't even purchased a $10 mail in certificate. But it was "legal," because the civil authorities issued a license in the jurisdiction where the people live. (I'm pretty certain not having done that ceremony would have had no legal implication. Its simply something the people wanted to do.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:39 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 19120
Hey Carmen

Not sure what's up.....Usually I have a lot of respect for you.

Because how I think things should be done doesn't match what you believe is politically feasible, doesn't make me your, or anyone else's enemy, nor does it make me opposed to equal rights for all. I was pretty clear, before you posted anything similar, that the problem is not gay or trans people... The problem is squarely 'straight' people and their hypocracy on this issue. At least half of what we see on this board isn't politically feasible.

But more than that, you've never seen or heard me call for anything but total equality. On this issue, I don't care wether you call it marriage / unions / partnership / licenses/ whatever, my position is that it should be totally equal...and you don't see either in fact or by implication anything else. You know little about the background of people here, beside what someone shares or how they present themselves. You've go no business implying otherwise.


It's almost incredible to me that a thread about the rescission of transgender rights has deteriorated into discussion of old ideas about marriage vs civil unions.

It's not what I personally think is politically feasible. The issue in this thread is the precarity of the very idea of equal rights for LGBTQs, most especially trans people.

I can tell this is an abstraction, because you're still somehow invested in the civil unions for everyone line, a failed idea around attaining full LGBTQ citizenship rights.

We don't have them yet, by the way.

As for equal marriage rights, that horse left the barn at least 5 years ago. Nobody EVER talked seriously about civil unions for everyone until the queers pushed back at the idea of civil unions for us and full rights for heteros.

And if our marriage rights are rescinded (yours will never be in danger of that -- ours very much are) and you float this idea again, the response will be the same: go downgrade your own marriages to civil unions. I can already tell you how that story will endend. Not one of you will do it.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carmenjonze, Ike Bana, marindem, ProfessorX, Sam Lefthand and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group