THINK!!! Why is this news happening now? Why didn't it happen 10 years ago?

Answer: Because "gay activists" with nothing better to do started bitching about gay marriage! The religious right had no clue this was an issue until activist idiots made it public.

Now the religious right is on the defensive. You have stirred the hive of bees and are getting stung!

10 years ago, the gay movement was much more quiet and nobody was pushing for legislation against gay marriage.

THINK!!! Why is this news happening now? Why didn't it happen 10 years ago?

Answer: Because "gay activists" with nothing better to do started bitching about gay marriage! The religious right had no clue this was an issue until activist idiots made it public.

Now the religious right is on the defensive. You have stirred the hive of bees and are getting stung!

No, ten years ago (plus), gay activists were battling fundamentalists who'd rather the world ignore the fact that AIDS existed. Gay activists were battling companies who would fire people just because they were gay. Gay activists were fighting landlords who would deny an apartment to a gay person. Back then the issue was living. Who cares about marriage when some religious fundamentalist and his conservative politician in Washington wants to cut funding for AIDS medicines? Please read your history.

Well put Hombre de Agua.

We were fighting for our lives back then, now we're fighting for our rights.

I'm sorry ctrever23 that you don't feel like you deserve that.

This thread has seemingly exposed a side of this board that I have wondered about from time to time. Are all the folks on this board really gay? Some of the opinions expressed on this board make me wonder.

I am reluctantly inclined to agree with you, millerbeach. Some of the statements made on this board, particularly where it concerns gay marriage make me ponder that point.

I have wondered about that sometimes.

I think there are a few straight provacateurs occasionaly, but I think that more often what I read is from new posters who happen to be very young and have no sense of the real history or scope of the gay communitty. I finally decided to give the benefit of the doubt and just ascribe some of these writings to pure ignorance.

Of course there are also occaisionaly a few religiously conservative straights who read this website and board with the supposed purpose of finding salacious material to 'prove' to the world what an immoral, devil spawned, group of people we are.

I kid you not - a couple years ago my sister (a knee jerk southern evangelical)mailed me an article that was published in her churches paper supposedly showing the depths of immorality to which gays had sunk (It was about one of the gay new years parties in Sydney I think). The article included several references to photographs on a 'pornographic' web site. After reading the article closely, I was convinced that the website they were refering to had to be OS. I think there were even a couple of recognisable quotes from one of the OS articles.

So how and why did these things get reported to this churches paper unless someone in the church had actually visited our little den of iniquity?


R

Sorry to disappoint any of you - on any number of levels - but I am confirmedly as queer as a three-dollar bill!

Now as far as that bit about "gay and proud," goes ...

I think it shows how diverse gay people really are...we're even deep in the dark pit of right wing fundamentalism...

ITJock, what makes you think those people spreading fear about gays are straight? Just look at the Ex-Gay movement: more than happy to sacrafice the rights and dignity of gays people just because they can't come to terms with their own desires. It's projecting. And the more they talk about the dirty, dirty things that gays do, the more titillating for them. Win-win situation, except for the deep shame and fear of exposure, of course!

Et ego in 'Dextria?' Wrong again, gloverboy. I'm a Catholic, not a Bible Thumper, and unlike you, I've actually been in court battling for gay rights, so there goes that latest unsupported theory of yours. Put the gloves back on and go play tennis.

He was talking about the newsletter ITJock's sister got, you narcissist.

thank you bpj, but every chance gmginsfo gets to parade his innocuous quotes and bush-like nicknames is amusing...it's the web equivalent of people who need to drop names to sound important or to attempt to demean others - and those around just smile and think "poor guy.."

LOL! "Innocuous" = "harmless; not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or or hostility." (Webster's New Collegiate Dict.) Makes me out as a bit of a "peacemaker," properly understood, of course.

Yes, I'll confess to being a "narcissist," but hey, it beats being "self-loathing," no? Not to mention "closeted, homphobic," or any of the others.

Let's review: Mr. Bryan was the one who several days ago vowed that "the gloves were off," so I'm just responding in kind, not wanting to be defenseless. There's logic to my nicknaming, too; it's called abbreviating to save strokes and space. As for my jokes and references, that only some people "get" them isn't going to dumb me down to stop making them. They're regularly appreciated by those who know what they - and I - are talking about. So how 'bout it, "Bry": tell me what my paraphrase means and how it fits this discussion you tardily - but testily - joined. C'mon, FT, help him out here, now!

Oooh, tardily! Old Mrs. Gmginsfo is in the schoolroom!

Keep defending yourself, gmginsfo, keep the quotes and the definitions and the lawyerly nonsense coming, it's the same old playbook...and all you convince me of is how mean spirited and cold you are...but, hey, i'm sure one day you'll get the attention of whoever it is you're so desperately trying to impress...

Oh, and I think gay people deserve every civil right available to straight people including the right to marry. It's not my top issue and I'd probably be okay with strong civil unions laws even if we stopped at that, but equal rights are just that: equal rights.

Damn! I was trying to keep the gloves on, but I just couldn't help it...i'm so emotional

[ August 15, 2006, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Bryan ]

I'm gay. I have only touched a vagina 3 times. Once getting out of it and 2 other times making sure I never wanted back in. Thankfully, I only used fingers and didn't soil my special toy.

Meanwhile, if it's penis you want to talk about...

[ August 15, 2006, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Ou Sooner 1997 ]

Boys, boys, boys! Let's keep the debate from degenerating into something reminiscent of the relief effort after Hurricane Katrina. Yes, some of us are in denial, and some of us want more than just our fair share. Sure, we have plenty of people on both extremes. But yet, I would hope we could all have a great discussion regarding gay marriage without getting too snippy or too personal. It's easy to let the debate get that dirty; I would hope we could rise above that and take the high road. We can debate ideas without getting too into personal issues.

That being said, I still don't entirely understand how it is that someone who IS gay would not be at least somewhat supportive of civil unions. The logic in holding such a stance less than that, while being gay, escapes me. Maybe I'm just too thick-headed to see it, but how is that possible to be gay and not support civil unions at the very least?

UCLA, I guess that was the point of my question...how could someone who is gay not support civil unions. Then again, I don't understand how a gay person could be a Republican. From a fiscal point of view, I might buy it, but from a social standpoint, it is impossible for me to understand. Oh, and by the way, Ou Sooner, if you want to talk penis, ring me up!

UCLA, I guess that was the point of my question...how could someone who is gay not support civil unions. Then again, I don't understand how a gay person could be a Republican. From a fiscal point of view, I might buy it, but from a social standpoint, it is impossible for me to understand. Oh, and by the way, Ou Sooner, if you want to talk penis, ring me up!

I don't want to get "married" but I would like to have that option if I later change my mind or if Brad dumps Angelina.

Millerboy, try this for a mind-f**k: I support both gay marriage and civil unions, in the interim, as well as the full range of associated benefits, and have gone to court to fight for them - although I do keep my gloves on in that arena. And, mirabile dictu, I AM A REPUBLICAN!

But, gloves on or off, I've never touched that nasty thing that straight boys are always hankerin' after!

GMG, I'm glad we can agree on something! I was beginning to think for a couple of days that maybe there wasn't anything. Not that it's a bad thing, because some of the people who challenge my beliefs are some of my greatest allies. I'm glad that you are in the fight as well.

Actually, if you and many of my other critics would READ and ACCEPT AS WRITTEN my posts, you'd find we agree on quite a lot of things. At the risk of citing cases,* here's the link to the first one I brought, way back in 1987, that sought to give gay couples some of the same benefits available to straight ones in personal injury terms. Although we lost then, my theory was later adopted by NJ's Supreme Court, and the same idea has since been legislated into California law. Coon v. Joseph (l987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1269.
_____
*Only 1 a day allowed! (But there ARE more!)

PS - Oh yeah, I can also hold my liquor, so watch out! eek!

Big Props to gmginsfo!

Once again, the Massachusetts legislature has denied the citizens of the Commonwealth the "right" to vote to repeal other other people's civil rights.



Boo-hoo!

(What is that "lady" on the right holding? Some kind of voodoo talisman?)

Bravo to MA! - of course there were also all those other states where anti gay initiatives passed...

The truth is we have a long, long road ahead.

Legally, one of the best things I could have done is marry Iain in Britain: both he and I are far more protected here legally than if we had married at home - even in VT or MA. Here, I could even legally apply for citizenship if I wanted to, and receive it with a minimum of fuss - something still not possible for Iain in the US.

We have come a long way in the last 35 years, but we have hardly 'arrived' yet.

I for one, am not willing to give up until Iain has full - equal - legal rights before all State and Federal Courts.

As it stands right now, the lawyers are getting very rich just trying to draw up my last will and testament so that it will stand up in US Courts.

Rob

Good for you & Iain Rob.

I am probably one of the few guys who wishes the Massachusetts legislature didn't table this proposed amendment. Well, kind of.

While I agree that civil rights ought not be put up for popular vote, the public here is very supportive of equal rights and the amendment would have failed. Along with it, the opposition by those who merely want to "let the people vote" ("Nooo, we don't hate gays. We just want a vibrant democracy!" Bull sh*t.) would be completely obliterated and we'd be able to move on to other things. As it turns out, the Christofascists will just keep complaining and finding procedural loopholes to keep proposing amendments.

Did anybody notice that the Arizona ballot measure for a ban on same-sex marriages failed? Isn't that about the first one of those to go down? Even Oregon passed one, so for a relatively conservative state like Arizona this is quite a victory. South Dakota's passed, but by a slim margin. We still have a long way to go in Tennessee and South Carolina, but at least we're making some progress.

I hadn't looked at the results (assuming gay marrage would be banned everywhere by varying majorities) so it's good to hear of Arizona's result ( especially since I've been thinking of moving there at some point). I'm glad of the MA legislature's inaction at this point- I'm not secure in the belief that residents would not approve a ban. "Time is on our side, oh yes it is"

So, we're now behind South Africa when it comes to civil rights. Great....

Yes, very good news from South Africa. It's ironic that the country which had apartheid until relatively recently would be the first in Africa to grant equality to all.

USAToday/AP: Israeli high court orders gay marriage recognition



Toronto Star: Gay Israeli couples credit Toronto

Well - as they promised to their neo-con constituents, Canada's ruling right wing minority Conservative government went ahead with a vote in our Parliament with the intention of re-visiting the legalization of Gay Marriage.

I am pleased to report their attempt has been trounced in our House of Commons by a vote of 175 - 123, a bigger margin than the 158-133 vote that legalized gay marriage in the first place last year when the Liberals were in power. In fact a number of MP's - some Conservative - who voted against gay marriage last year, voted in favour of gay marriage this time.

So it seems we have won and gay marriage is safe here in Canada. Another day to celebrate as a proud gay Canadian!

Awesome news! I wonder how hard it would to have California secede and become part of Canada?

Yes, I was glad to see it voted down in Parliament (including by 6 Conservative cabinet ministers), although I must admit it would have been interesting to see the governments reaction had it passed. It was well known that this was a meaningless move done to please their small religious neo-con base in Alberta and that the government never wanted it to pass because they didn't want it to become an election issue. This way they can tell the base, we tried but failed and its over.
The Canadian Family Coalition Action Committee's leader, a Mr McVity says they will fight on against same sex marriage and that we need a study to show the effects of gay marriage on heterosexual marriages. The mans a wing nut, but funded by similar groups south of the border, so I suspect we havent heard the last of him but fewer and fewer people will pay him any attention. What we need is for Harper to be defeated in the next election to finally put this to rest, although we all know that even if Parliament did overturn te laws the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional. As the last PM and current opposition leaders keep saying, you cant pick and choose which rights people should get based on personal prejudices.

Also today, the city of Padua, Italy, has voted to recognize and register same sex unions. Predictably the Vatican has condemned the move as the first step towards gay marriage and gays acquiring children through adoption or foster parenting. Heaven forbid 2 people decide to spend their lives together in a committed relationship and provide love and support to children. The Pope obviously preaches from a different Bible!

To our Northern brothers & sisters...



ENGLISH LYRICS

1. O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

2. O Canada! Where pines and maples grow.
Great prairies spread and lordly rivers flow.
How dear to us thy broad domain,
From East to Western Sea,
Thou land of hope for all who toil!
Thou True North, strong and free!
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

3. O Canada! Beneath thy shining skies
May stalwart sons and gentle maidens rise,
To keep thee steadfast through the years
From East to Western Sea,
Our own beloved native land!
Our True North, strong and free!
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

4. Ruler supreme, who hearest humble prayer,
Hold our dominion within thy loving care;
Help us to find, O God, in thee
A lasting, rich reward,
As waiting for the Better Day,
We ever stand on guard.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

---
FRENCH LYRICS

1. O Canada! Terre de nos aïeux,
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!
Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
Il sait porter la croix!
Ton histoire est une épopée
Des plus brillants exploits.
Et ta valeur, de foi trempée,
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.

2. Sous l'oeil de Dieu, près du fleuve géant,
Le Canadien grandit en espérant,
Il est né d'une race fière,
Béni fut son berceau;
Le ciel a marqué sa carrière
Dans ce monde nouveau.
Toujours guidé par Sa lumière,
Il gardera l'honneur de son drapeau,
Il gardera l'honneur de son drapeau.

3. De son patron, précurseur du vrai Dieu,
Il porte au front l'auréole de feu;
Ennemi de la tyrannie,
Mais plein de loyauté,
Il veut garder dans l'harmonie
Sa fière liberté.
Et par l'effort de son génie,
Sur notre Sol asseoir la vérité,
Sur notre Sol asseoir la vérité!

4. Amour sacré du trône et de l'autel
Remplis nos coeurs de ton souffle immortel.
Parmi les races étrangères
Notre guide est la foi;
Sachons être un peuple de frères,
Sous le joug de la loi;
Et répétons comme nos pères
Le cri vainqueur: «Pour le Christ et le Roi»
Le cri vainqueur: «Pour le Christ et le Roi».

Viva Canada! Special shout-out to Lake of the Woods, Souix Narrows, Ontario! Thanks for the rockin' childhood memories.

It came as no surprise that the motion to re-visit the Same Sex Marriage issue was soundly defeated this afternoon in the House of Commons. In a move that should please most people, it was a FREE VOTE by both the Conservative and Liberal parties.

This issue, however, is far from dead. The Canadian Family Coalition Action Committee has already said that they hope to get the Conservative Government to revisit this issue if/when they form a Majority Government.

I think most Canadians are getting sick and tired of this same sex marriage debate. It's already been passed and the only way it'll change is if the Prime Minister uses the non-withstanding clause to change the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- which would be a political career killer. What bothers me the most is the fact that same sex marriage isn't affecting anyone or trampling on anyone's religious rights. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms PROTECTS religious institutions in their refusal (if they so choose) to perform a same sex marriage (Which I totally agree with). So it's not like priests will be forced to marry two men or two women.

While watching Question Period today, it was very interesting to see the Conservatives side step certain questions. Liberal MP, Hedy Fry, asked anyone from the Conservative Party to explain to the house what kind of negative effect Same Sex Marriage has had on our society...no one could answer that question.

Bottom line, I believe that the Conservatives are done with this issue. While they may not accept Same Sex Marriage, they know that in three separate votes under three different Prime Ministers, Same Sex rights have gone ahead. It's a small minority (far right religious extremists) that want to take away basic rights. They use messages of fear and propaganda to get people to think that the state of the Church and our society will crumble with Same Sex Marriage. It hasn't yet, and it never well as I mentioned before...Religious Rights and Freedoms ARE PROTECTED under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Well Enigma, I think you're right to the extent that there will always be people who object, for one reason or another, to same sex marriage. In the Globe & Mail comments section on news stories related to the motion there some incredibly stupid justifications by some people for their anti gay prejudices, including that marriage is only for the purpose of having children. Frankly their stupidity doesnt really bother me. They are probably the same people who cant quite wrap their small minds around official bilingualism or the metric system, which were also divisive issues when introduced long ago by prior governments. Heck, some of them probably still think the earth is flat. I'm just glad that it is very very unlikely that any future government will ever be stupid enough to bring this issue up again. Canada is not an especially religious nation, or perhaps I should say Canadians dislike politicians who try to bring religion into public policy believing,as I do, that religion is a personal issue not a political one.

A personal, non-political Amen to that sentiment swiminbuff. ;-)

I'm breathing a sigh of relief, as I'm sure the rest of you are. Harper himself has essentially declared the issue settled once and for all.

Even in Alberta, there are signs of progress. At the Conservative leadership vote last week to replace King Ralph, I'm glad to say that the most socially-conservative candidate (homophobe Ted Morton) ended up in last place, and most of his support came from rural areas, not the two big cities. He told an outright lie during the televised debate when he said that "two thirds of Albertans are opposed to same-sex marriage", when polls show the figure is much closer to one-half, not two-thirds. Despite this province's reputation for intolerance, that number is virtually identical to Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and only slightly higher than several other provinces. Morton knows he can't change the federal law, but he wanted to allow provincial marriage commissioners the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples and to censor discussion of gay marriage in the school system. The other two candidates (Jim Dinning and the eventual winner, Ed Stelmach) while not exactly 'liberals', don't seem to be too interested in imposing such restrictions.


Here's a link to some interesting CBC TV and radio clips documenting the evolution of gay rights in Canada , dating back to the 1960s when homosexuality was still illegal. Among the clips, you'll hear the famous line by Pierre Trudeau about the nation's bedrooms, a documentary by the late Barbara Frum, the first gay rights march on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, and a 1978 progress report which includes comments by Claire Hoy, a Toronto Sun journalist whose anti-gay rants I remember from when I lived there 25 years ago.

NY Times: Legislators Vote for Gay Unions in New Jersey

It appears that New Jersey has done it! Gay marriage is being called a civil union but it is entirely legal now there. Who knows! I could just become a New Jersey resident in the future here.

The Garden State is third again! (Not counting MA's "marriage.")

There's a bright future for Gay Marriage in the US.

This article is encouraging!

Not only is that article encouraging but so is this. California's Supreme Court is set to to review the ban on gay marriages. I'm getting butterflies in my stomach already!

NY Times/AP: N.J. Governor Signs Civil Unions Bill

I want a fella to marry for Christmas!

I'd propose, but polygamy is illegal in California.

Perhaps a spinoff of same-sex marriage, the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that a child can have three parents... in this case, a father, mother... and mother.