I think we need to talk to that "hand." And tell her that she's a liar and a bigot.

Mary Ann Glendon is a noted Roman Catholic conservative scholar at Harvard; she's often trotted out to give the Rightist or Catholic viewpoint on legal issues.

As for Learned Hand, he was a distinguished jurist and scholar. If you're not sure, either Google the name or hit the history books, folks:

Encyclopedia.com: Learned Hand

"There is no surer way to misread any document than to read it literally." -- Learned Hand

I think "scholar" is a misnomer in this case. And I had no idea that Learned Hand referred to a person. I am always amazed at what I learn on here from the rest of you guys (and gal).

Actually folks... I'd not vote for W for the reason that a sitting president has ZERO say in something like this... other than to say, yes or no.

If you libs wanna do some good, get some of those repugs outta the house and senate and your problem is solved. My house rep is pastor a dem.. and i got McCain as my senator...

My not voting for bush is merely a personal issue right now with this, that is all. I'm not a single issue voter.. so i'd never vote for kerry with the stick up his ass. That leaves? a write in vote for Raze? Nevermind.

This is typical Republican propaganda, basing their votes on the religous belief that one form of sex is better than another, they feel they have to label people based on what they prefer sexually.

There are some Baptists [shudder] in our corner at Baylor University.

The Baylor Lariat, the student newspaper at the world's largest Baptist university, where dancing was banned on campus until 1996, supported legal marriage for gay couples in an editorial Friday.

"Taking into account legal protection under the law, gay couples should be granted the same equal rights to legal marriage as heterosexual couples," the editorial said.

Lariat editorial

Dallas News article

Edited by Tarkus to correct links

[ March 13, 2004, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]

Whoops. So much for my tenuous grasp of legal history. Now that the memory has been jogged, i believe he was also one of the major pioneers in intellectual property (as well as other subjects). How ironic is it that someone like Glendon holds a chair in his name?

Thanks for posting that HornFan. Wow. Even the conservative student newspaper at the "BabDist" Baylor University is on the right...em...correct side of this issue. I see the perfect storm brewing against Bush if alliances like this continue. This editorial made my day, considering the source.

Neither are we. We're also taking into account the loss of millions of jobs, the WMD fiasco and unnecessary loss of lives in Iraq (both American and Iraqi), our nation’s skyrocketing budget deficit, and his homage to America’s wealthiest. The gay marriage issue is just another issue, and unlike you, one of the most important to all of us.

If you vote for me I promise: to create 2.6 million jobs this year...

To find those "hundreds of tons" of WMD

A once a year teeth cleaning courtesy of the Alabama National Guard

To get Osama "dead or alive"

Do I want your votes? YEAH! BRING 'EM ON!!!

This is one of the most disgusting parts of the anti-gay arguments - that their religious freedom is hampered if they have to live in a world that does not look down on those they consider "sinners." They are tacitly admitting their religious leanings are so narrow that they cannot co-exist with those with whom they disagree.

And I don't care if it is based in religious beliefs or not - making the argument that an entire group of people are dangerous to their society is bigotry, plain and simple. It means that they have pre-judged every single gay and lesbian person without ever meeting them. Instead of being evaluated on our personal actions and characteristics, which is the hallmark of America, we are automatically to be considered a negative influence.


On the other hand, things like the Baylor editorial are just great to hear. In fact, I have had a lot of positive experiences in the last few days with straight folks on this issue - The most negative thing I've heard is something along the lines of: "I don't support gay marriage, but I certainly don't think it's so important that we have to have all this attention on it, and we certainly don't need an amendment"

And even more surprising - A good friend of mine, who nearly voted for Bush last time, and who has a gay younger brother, walked into my office on Friday wanting to know the web address for HRC - she's so pissed about the amendment that she wants to volunteer in the anti-amendment movement. I steered her to the Don'tAmend.com website, as well. Bush will not be getting her or her husband's votes this year - she doubts her very rich father in Mass, who isn't even happy about the whole gay son thing, will vote for him either.

I really think this could be a huge political misstep for Bush - so many of us have come out since 1992 (when the Republican anti-gay attacks were already a deciding factor against Bush in a lot of voter's minds) and our lives touch so many dozens others, that a lot more people than I thought are pissed off at his support of the amendment. For the first time probably in the history of the gay rights movement, for a lot of straight people he is not attacking some nameless, faceless "homosexual" - he is attacking people who are part of their communities - their co-workers, neighbors, and friends. Hell, he's attacking Will Truman and Jack McFarland, and the majority of straight people have at least those two gay people in their lives.

And we all know where Dan \"Murphy Brown\" Quayle ended up, don't we?

Here's another analysis of the chances of it passing any time soon. Short version: none. But as one of the comments people writes, just because it's dead now, doesn't mean it will be in 2006 [note: I don't know how these things work procedurally; comments welcome]; we have to be vigilant, counter the Republican smears, not let Democrats off the hook and, most of all, get everyone we know to get out and vote.

File this under \"Well, Duh!\", but the Texas Souffle lied about when he decided to support the FMA: Not a big deal, just another brick in the \"they lie about everything and anything\" wall.

And file this under \"Right-wing closet cases and their never-ending supply of two-facedness\". Wait, that'd never fit on a file folder label. We have a rip of one Armstrong Williams. Yeah, he wrote just another stupid column supporting this and claiming civilization will crumble if we don't. But, hmmmmmm, maybe Mr. Williams shouldn't write about this issue in this way: Buwhahaha! "Armstrong supposedly needed affection because he wanted to stay celibate heterosexually until he got married". Best. pickup. line. ever. Legal disclaimer: yes, it's all heresay, but I posted it as snark, so there!

[ February 28, 2004, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but One Log Cabin'er isn't going to fight from within anymore: I have no sympathy at all for Republicans who suddenly saw the light because of this issue, but hey, welcome to The Side of Good.

For those of you who want some ammunition when talking religion. consider this: Jesus never once spoke about homosexuality. However, he was totally opposed to divorce: "The Savior, who never spoke a word about homosexuality, would need to have a young conservative activist explain to him that Congress regarded gay marriage just as Jesus regarded divorce — namely, as a crime against nature."

This from a terrific article in today's LA Times by Jack Miles, the author of "God: A Biography."

SO we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, is that it? And all because we choose a different way, among different people, of working for equality for gays? It's because of opinions like these, and the intensity of the current debate over gay marriage, that my will to work within the GOP for change is renewed on a daily basis.

Good call, Jim, on Jesus' views on divorce. I wonder how Peter M. Robinson ("It's My Party") reconciles that one to his fellow So. Baptists, who consistently have the highest rate of divorce among Americans.

Except for its idea about trading abortion rights for gay rights, the following article sums up my views on another aspect of the gay marriage debate: its lousy marketing. I apologize for the lengthy post, but I couldn't find a way to link to it. The author, Robert Klein Engler, is a Chicago teacher and writer, who wrote it last July.


Gay Marriage: A Public Relations Failure

If gays want to convince the average American to support same sex marriages, then gays have to realize first that they have a public relations failure on their hands. Many Americans view marriage as a loving and committed relationship, while at the same time the image they have of gays is one of promiscuity and outragous behavior. This image of gays has to change if Americans are going to change their minds about same-sex marriages. Gays have to work on their public relations.

It is ironic that the bad PR gays receive is brought to them often by the same liberal media that claims to support them. The recent Gay Pride Parades are a good example. How many more pictures of outrageous behavior and outlandish costumes must average Americans see before they conclude these people are not serious. ''How can gays be expected to have loving and committed relationships, if all they do is drink, party, and go to bathhouses?'' the conservatives ask. If the media wants to support marriage for gays, then they'd better start portraying gays in a different and more conservative light.

The truth is that most gays are responsible and productive citizens who want their committed relationships respected. Often, these are the gays you never see on TV or read about in news magazines. Furthermore, the respect this ''silent minority'' deserves will not come from the Democratic Party, either. Many gays are conservative at heart, especially the ones who own or manage small businesses. They are often closet Republicans. The antique store owner or the beauty shop stylist wants nothing more than a strong economy and a safe environment in which to do business and make a profit. Likewise, the violinist or the ballet dancer wants a well attended show and respect for his art. They couldn't care less for outrageous public expressions of sexuality. How did this conservative segment of the gay community get overlooked by the media? What will average Americans think when they discover that most gays are as patriotic as they are?

The political mistake the gay movement made happened during the sixties. It was then that the movement for gay rights pinned its hope onto the now falling star of liberalism. Gay social activists thought that a coalition of minorities would bring about a situation where each minority would advance, because one would look out for the other. That did not happen. Last century, most American minorities were as homophobic behind closed doors as the majority. Furthermore, many of these minorities evolved into being anti-American. Gay politics now suffers from living under the shadow of liberalism. When many people hear of gay rights, they make an association with the anti-American left, and want no part of it. Gays have to work hard now to overcome an image that is all about sex and anti-Americanism. Gays need to separate themselves from this coalition of minorities and pursue their own agenda, an agenda that has more in common with the values of the Republican Party than with the left.

Perhaps the only thing that will advance in a positive way the so called gay agenda today is a conservative, gay movement. One can see this happening with the Log Cabin Republicans. They are working to change the image of gays not only in the press but in public life as well. Many gays are also willing to be practical in their politics and understand the use of compromise in that arena. I believe that if it were politically possible for the new gay rights movement to make a deal where they would exchange support for overturning Roe v. Wade, in return for some kind of gay marriage, many gays would make that deal. Gay men are coming to understand that abortion on demand is not in their interest, nor in the interest of a compassionate society.

The gay civil rights movement lacks a leader with symbolic and moral authority. With the possible exception of Harvey Milk, the assassinated member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, no one now leads the movement for same sex marriage who holds the moral authority or respect once held by Martin Luther King, Jr., in the black civil rights movement. One reason for this is that the gay movement has mistakenly defined itself as being about sexual freedom as opposed to love and responsibility.

The only institution that corresponds to the black church in the gay community is the gay bar. It is hard for the average American to believe that gays are serious about marriage when their community meeting places seem to promote promiscuity. The bar scene, which evolved out of discrimination against gays, now gives the impression that it contributes to that very oppression and discrimination. Bars also do not project the spiritual quality needed to motivate average Americans to respect minority concerns. Besides certain legal rights that come with marriage, there is a spiritual quality in this union recognized by many Americans. Unless gays can find a way to tap into this spiritual quality, the gay bar scene will work to the detriment of legal same sex marriages.

Conservatives should not see the campaign for gay marriage as all bad. One of the unintended consequences of such a campaign may be a renewed support for traditional marriage. Heterosexuals have been guilty too long of encouraging divorce and devaluating marriage in our culture. Liberal government welfare policies also have done much to undermine marriage in the black community. There is no longer a stigma attached to children born out of wedlock. A high divorce rate and a high illegitimate birth rate is more of a problem in our society than gay marriage ever will be. A new respect for marriage may reverse these trends in divorce and illegitimacy. It is disingenuous for people to complain about gay marriage when they do nothing to stem high rates of divorce among heterosexuals. It is better that straights get the beam of divorce out of their own eye before they complain about the sliver of gay marriage in the eye of their neighbor.

There is something in a furtive glance of eyes on the subway, or from the passing crowd that does not tend to permanence. These casual relationships happen usually in the land of the young. Yet, we are not young forever. A companion is a good thing as we get older. This is one reason why marriage is a conservative institution. It stands as a bulwark against alienation in a society that encourages all that is fast and disposable. A social policy that encourages intimacy and responsible relationships is good for all of us in the long one. If gays want same-sex marriage, then maybe they will become conservative in other ways as well. A media campaign by gays to make this point will return more goodwill than any Gay Pride Parade. If gays want to convince average Americans about same-sex marriage, then they have their public relations work cut out for them.

GMG, I for one am sorry you and others had to see the light in this way, I wish you all could have been right, but since that is not the case, I for one, welcome you and hope that in the future all Gay Republicans will be a bit more cautious with thier support of GOP candidates who try to pull over a vail of inclusion.

I have always been a Dem and I am even second guessing my afilliation when it seems they are no better (Kerry's recent support for the mass. amendment). I just trust that sometimes the worst Dem is better than the friendliest Repub. When you look at the radical wings of both parties, we stand far better off on the left.

What are you talking about? He doesn't see the light. He just posted some moronic article about how anyone who isn't conservative, buttoned-down, etc. is bad and therefore should be hidden away when it comes to discussing equal rights for gays. Well, honey, DRAG QUEENS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY TOO!!!

The same way Straight couples can dress as clowns and be married by Elvis, I guess.

Good Point, I am all for diversity, and those who point fingers need to see some of thos news clips of weird straight weddings first.

And when I said "see the light" I mean seeing the real GWB. I know they have other acceptance issues I certainly don't agree with.

My "see the light" comment was meant as a criticism, by the way. I forgot to put some emoticon there to indicate as such. People like the guy in the article I linked are dickheads in my view; apparently, Pat Buchanan declaring a culture war at the 1992 Republican convention, using homosexuals as the punching bag, wasn't enough to cause them to abandon the party. All the hangwringing about how the FMA is causing these people to question the Republican party is nothing but the most cynical use of crocodile tears.

Joe nailed the article that GMG pasted. Short version: be as much like heteros as you can and then MAYBE they won't discriminate against you. I've been reading variations on that exact same article since the early 70's. This sentence alone just shows what a lame-ass piece it is:
What an idiot. The two have nothing to do with each other. And funny, the zillions of straight bars--gasp!! even ones where women slide around poles and show their boobies to drunken straight guys!!--don't seem to have hurt their side.
What an ass. If he tried that line on Coretta Scott King, she'd laugh in his face. She's been quite eloquent on the linkage between the black civil rights and gay rights movements. This is a shoddy attempt at historical revisionism; anything the gay community has gotten has been because the left has been out there fighting tooth-and-nail with the Republican party and the conservative wing of the Democratic party while his ilk have been preaching \"caution\". In fact, it's a typical Republican attitude: let others do all the hard work while we swoop in at the end and benefit. He may think that I'll forget about the unending stream of negativity from those two entities because all of a sudden I'll see that being pro-NRA and anti-affirmative action is in my best interests, for example. But I won't. EVER.

That finding out that Joe Homo waves a flag on the 4th of July doesn't trump the fact that, at the most basic level, they won't accept our very existence because we are men that have sex with men.

Notice the stereotyping about \"antique store owners\" and \"beauty shop stylist\". And that violinist and ballet dancer has increasingly less of a chance to make a living because Republicans hate arts funding and do everything they can to slash it to the bone, even though the US ranks at, or near the bottom, in public arts funding amongst industrialized nations. And the whole \"only a strong economy and safety will happen with Republicans in charge\" BS is utterly laughable. The author is blind if he doesn't see the linkage between feminist issues and gay rights issues.

And here's the crux of this mans argument:
Yep, don't really care about gay marriage unless it's a Republican Party recruiting tool. Yep, until we're all just a bunch of lock-step obsessives about taxes and abortion, we're doomed to a life of bitterness, unhappiness, one-night stands and the *cough* liberal media *cough* showing Dykes on Bikes to titillate their homophobic audiences. The article reeks of the usual sex-phobia purveyed by writers like him. Sure, I have more in common looks and life-wise with a lot of straight guys I meet rather than gay men, but I've been crystal clear since the early 70's on the concept of "it's all of us or none of us". If it's only bourgeois assimilationists that are fit to be full-on citizens, then f**k that. I refuse to do the stereotypical Republican thing and do the "well, I got MINE, everyone else is on their own" routine. What a twat. What a total, utter twat that author is.

[ March 01, 2004, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

gmg: " my will to work within the GOP for change is renewed on a daily basis."

Good job gmg, keep it up, its working out great!!!!

"stay tuned" "inclusion wins!"

[ March 01, 2004, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

I may not agree with whatever reasons they feel they are Republicans, but I don't beleive taunting them and rubbing this in thier face will help either.

What I don't get is people who act like they're SURPRISED that George W. Bush is a hatemonger and a bigot. C'mon people... people on BOTH sides of the aisle try to play themselves off as moderates when they aren't.

Those are the people I don't think should get a free pass. Ridicule? No. But they definitely shouldn't be given a free ride to the subway station either. I have more sympathy for the ones who had reservations about GWB from the very beginning and voted for him because they agreed with most of his other views and are not going to support him now because of this.

“Someone should tell Bush that if the only way you can win the ball game is by rewriting the rules, you’ve already lost the ball game.”

—Harvey Fierstein, on the proposed constitutional amendment.

PhillyFan, you are absolutely correct. The only way to beat this to to ACT.

I'm sorry that your party is letting you down and though I disagree with you on tons of issues, I take no joy in this betrayal. I'm glad that you're sticking to your guns about not giving the Republicans your vote. I'm gonna vote for Kerry because I think that he has a chance to beat Bu$h. But if you wanna vote Nader, or whoever the Libertarians are slating, or even for my dog, go for it. Here's something else we can agree on: Anybody but Bush!

All of you in the DC area - come to the HRC rally on Wednesda, March 3. Phil - I'll yell extra loud on your behalf.

gj

GJ...thinking like that is what helps the Vols win in The Swamp. If you don't go for the obvious way to win, you will lose. I'm NOT telling anyone how to vote but isn't it VERY obvious that a vote for Ralph Nader (or any third party candidate) is a vote for the Christian-in-Chief? People say, my one vote doesn't matter...well, it does when 95,000 Naderpeople think that way like they did in Florida in 2000. A vote for Kerry is the ONLY way to crush the Punk Ass Chimp.

Voting for a third or fourth party candidate is not wasting your vote. Voting for someone you don't believe in is wasting your vote.

I'm going to have a hard time supporting Kerry because I can't stand his double-speak on gay marriage bans, but I can't stand Shrub.

just saw something on politics1.com that the amendment is pretty much dead this year. there are close to 50 senators that are opposed to it--including some Republicans that I was surprised to see like Lamar Alexander

www.politics1.com

while kerry's stand is disappointing, it is wholly consistent. he thinks this is a state issue, and therefore, opposes a federal constitutional amendment. and, since he opposes gay marriage, he favors a constitutional amendment at the state level -- in his case, massachusetts. it does seem he is trying to have it both ways, but he's not.....he does favor full-right civil unions, however.

now back to the topic at hand -- bush's support of fma....

Here is one reason why Kerry and the Dems seem wishy-washy on this:

A Pew poll found 34% would vote against a candidate who supports gay marriage EVEN if they agree with the candidate on most other issues. Only 6% would vote against a candidate simply because they oppose gay marriage. That's a huge discrepancy.

Dear sweet bobby, not reading a post fully is what helps the Gators sink the Vol Navy at Neyland.
wink

I said that I'm voting for Kerry because I think that he can beat said Punk A$$ Chimp.

As for PhillyFan, he's not going to vote for the Shrub and he wasn't going to vote for a Democrat no matter what. Therefore, it doesn't matter who he votes for, as long as he doesn't vote for the Chimp. His taking a vote out of the Rep. tally and placing it in the Nader column is very diffrent from those who took from the Gore column and gave to Mr. Ego. (shrug)

I'm just happy to see those taken-for-granted LCR votes evaporating.

Yet another burst of hatefulness from pope himself:

we just need to take a Time Machine and send the Pope back to the 14th century where he and his antiquated views belong.

yes, Mister Pope. I understand that gay marriage is the reason why war and famine and pestilence have ravaged the earth. and I thank you and the church for showing me that molesting little boys is not that big of a transgression and people should just get over it. Thank you sir.

Ung, the poop can borrow the time machine that the Georgia legislature has successfully used on numerous occassions. It has taken the state of Georgia back to the time of the confederacy.

Wade, sorry to hear that...back in the early 90's, Atlanta was considered to be the progressive capitol of the New South.

There is an amazing column by Gersh Kuntzman in the latest edition of Newsweek on the reaction of certain anti-gay types to his support of gay unions. It is nice to see a straight guy not only "get it," but also get the hate that drives so many who are opposed to gays.

Here is the link to the full article, which names many of the people who threatened him and sent him hate emails. It reminds me of the spokesman at the Fort Collins hospital where Matthew Shepard died, who got choked up when reading the last statement from his parents, after his death. He got one email that said "do you cry for all your patients who die, or just the fags?"

Hate Nation

From that same Newsweek: gay Republicans and buyer's remorse:

I assume he won't even be on the platform committee when the time comes.

This country's already polarized. Bring on the outings -- but of the politicians, not the relatives (unless they're doing what Mary Cheney is doing.)

[ March 01, 2004, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

and what exactly do you want cheney to do there JIP? Exactly what right do you have to say what she should or should not do?

What right would any of you have to "out" whoever you chose to? Arent you spreading the same hate that the marriage folks are spreading?

Outing a republican will not move the agenda ahead. If anything it separates us more.

I think Mary Cheney needs to be a constant reminder everytime a person of our community is on a news show discussing this election. The Right needs to be reminded that Dick Cheney has a gay daughter and he is not listening to the religious wackos when it comes to changing her.

If we're outing people, I think our biggest weapon would be publishing the divorce records of various prominent Republicans.

This will be my first step in a plan to inact an amendment prohibiting divorce since, in the Bible, God says, "I hate divorce" (Malachi 2:16).

I just got this link today: LoveisLoveisLove.com, Margaret Cho's Marriage Equality Resource Page. It has tons of links including, among other things, rallys this week in Detroit, DC, Chicago, and NYC.

I think Jqueer's correct, start publishing the records of the numerous divorced people in Congress. Could make for interesting reading.

Outing is only appropriate--and just barely--if someone is a homosexual and is viciously anti-gay in his/her public life. See: Roy Cohn, for example.

The situation at Baylor took an expected turn:

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but walked by a newstand today and the cover of The Economist jumped out at me: The Case for Gay Marriage, it blazed. The magazine presents a wonderful, rational argument:

I see nothing wrong with outing gays who work against gays.

I say let their arguments stand on their merits alone. If their arguments are valid, it will still be valid after they're outed.
But my feeling is that after an outing, their complicity and duplicity will be shown to be the hypocrisy it is.

basically, when we allow men to stay in the closet and lob bombs at us, we are enabling their bullshit politics.

so expose these hypocrites. get a list of those who are divorced (after all... NOTHING is as destructive to marriage as divorce) and get a list of those who are gay. and then see what they say after they are exposed to the light of day

to answer Phillyfan's question of what outing a person would do... besides the above reason, the same logic is behind exposing the obvious contradiction in John Kerry's voting records. and for the same reason we are looking at W.Bush's National Guard record.

[ March 01, 2004, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

Cheney can do what she wants. But anyone who is gay and working for the campaign of an anti-gay politician of any party, even if it's her father, forfeits the right to hide their sexuality. Outing them doesn't spread hate, unless the anti-gay forces suddenly turn on one of their allies. It merely exposes their hypocrisy.

Today was a very interesting day at the Georgia State Capitol. As if in an effort to stir up the kettle, both advocates and opponents of SR595 gathered in the streets around the Capitol, in the offices across the street, and in the Capitol itself. I spent most of my time in the Capitol talking to and lobbying state representatives, supporting fellow equal rights advocates, and discussing the issue with proponents of SR595. Today the House decided to vote again on the issue even though they voted it down last Thursday. Tomorrow the legislation goes to committee to get reappointed back to the floor of the House for a second vote.
Long story short...too late. I had a wonderful time! Engaging those interested in the topic all day long was fun. I even had the opportunity to talk to Sadie Fields, the leader of the Christian Coalition. She mobilized a lot of religious folk from churches that believe all gays and anyone who supports them are an abomination and are going to Hell. Her big argument is that same-sex marriages is an afront to the "sanctity of marriage", a term I have yet to see defined with any clarity. Well, I have done my research and know that Sadie went through a messy divorce. I went up to her and said I was sorry for her messy divorce, and that my mother went through the same thing 4 times. She thanked me for my concern. I then said that she will now have to come up with a new support since she has no validity with the sanctity of marriage. She was shocked that anyone would stand up to her, especially since I was by myself standing in the midst of the Christain Coalition. She started rattling things off which made no sense, and then would not allow me the chance of rebuttle. I thought, how typical for the right wing. I then was engaged by a "so called" minister who was an absolute moron. He got tired of my laughing at his debate tactics. He had the nerve to tell me that effeminate acting people could not get into the Kingdom of God- 'cause the Bible says so. He also said that I personally was breaking the law because I am a sodomite. I asked him how would he know if I was a sodomite? "Everyone wearing those stickers (Georgia Equality) is a sodomite."
I said, so because I wear this sticker, you know that I am sticking my Dick in another guys Ass?" His mouth dropped. I laughed at him again. I went on to talk with him about the meaning of the New Testament, and that in My church both the New and Old are taught. He got upset and walked away. Right when it was getting fun.

To my gay cousins south of the 49th,

I've been reading the posts with keen interest. The hub-bub with several "rogue" cities issuing same-sex [ss] marriage licenses, I think is having a larger impact than many might realise.

While up here ss marriage is not quite the law of the land, the legal/social tradition and situation is very different up here. Our Supreme Court, thanks to our constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has greater automony and authority to ensure that the will of the majority, Parliament, does not override the rights of the minorities. We do not have the wealthy right-wing religious groups that can wage an effective campaign/lobby movement that such groups in the US. In fact the closest examples we have in Canada are extremley localized with little national profile and are actually being financed with "gravy" from US right-wing religious groups. Our Charter, is written to expand rights and not retract them, and it cannot be rewritten. There are over 5000+ ss married people now in Canada, the cat is out of the bag and there is no way it can be put back. By the time the dust settles, Canada will have ss marriage, coast-to-coast end of story.

I look south and see trouble brewing if the gay community does not fully mobilize. There were significant gains in the 80's and 90's. These gains have made the rogue city thing possible. However, those gains were also a wake up call to the religious right. They have moblized and marshalled their resources to better situate themselves in the political arenas. Do not underestimate them.

Bush is fighting for his political future. The war on terrorism has gone south, there are no weapons of mass destruction, the body count of US soldiers grows daily and the economy is not as booming as he promised. He must do something to ensure a second term. His state of the union address was the test, and his recent declarations proved the test was a success. Sacrifice the queers and get re-elected.

And if you think that the right will stop with just an ammendment on ss marriage, an ammendment which according to published drafts also bans civil unions and domestic partnerships, you are I fear sadly mistaken. Chatting with some legal beagle types down south, they can see new state and municipal laws that specifically target gay men and women should the ammendment pass. If there can be no right to legal relationship, how can there be a legal right to freedom or existence? Prohibitions/restrictions on gay sexual activity, social centres and bussinesses are all possible with the ammendment lending them legal credance to pass.

US political experts up here think that Canada could experience a sudden influx of gay US immigrants coming north fleeing the new order in the lower 48. Some of my firends have already indicated that if the fight against the ammendment is lost they will come north. They feel that they will no longer have any expectation of freedom from oppression in the US.

I hope you all get out and fight for your rights and that if you win. But if things do go bad. Remember you will have a place you can go and be welcome.

Kelly aka Polopony

Canmark, It was my receipt of the latest issue of The Economist, specifically its front cover showing two guys in tuxes celebrating - presumably their wedding - that prompted my post. THAT is my idea of how the PR campaign should have been run from Day One.

JIP, no one, least of all me who's represented his share of drag queens in court, is saying they or any other cross-, crude- or sloppy-dresser shouldn't be entitled to marriage or any other right. The point of the article is that in the PR department there are better ways to portrary ourselves so we can create the environment where these folks can marry. Can anyone here honestly say that we wouldn't be better off if we'd taken a more moderate approach in presenting - and disporting - "our bodies and ourselves" over the years?

Finally, there's always the rather simplistic argument that people can dress or behave whatever way they want. Fine - but the flip side of that is that other people are free to form their own opinions of them based on their behavior and distance themselves from it, especially when asked to support it with their tax dollars. Call that a Republican view if you will, but it's one shared by most people when it comes time to put their money on the line - whether they admit it to that point or not.

It also invades their privacy and, in most states, subjects the "outer" to tort liability which could include punitive damages, court costs and attorney's fees. Keep that in mind next time you unilaterally decide someone else has "forfeit[ed] the right to hide their [sic] sexuality."