HEREis the Margaret Cho Song.
So ok....
I guess Obama didn't notice these little international protests.
How fucking naive was I?
I guess Obama didn't notice these little international protests.
How fucking naive was I?
What makes you think he didn't notice?
Welcome to New York City Z & S. Sorry I'm not there to see what you bring to New York life.
I know you will make your mark on Gotham.
Back to Barack and gay marriage...I think he made his feelings known well before the election on that topic. I read an interview with him a few years ago and thought his perspective on the gays could use some altering.
Welcome to New York City Z & S. Sorry I'm not there to see what you bring to New York life.
I know you will make your mark on Gotham.
Back to Barack and gay marriage...I think he made his feelings known well before the election on that topic. I read an interview with him a few years ago and thought his perspective on the gays could use some altering.
it's way beyond just the prop 8 thing.
Barack Obama has picked a truly despicable creature to usher in "change"
This is a "defining moment" as Obama likes to say over and over.
Unfortunately, at this moment he is redefining what could have been a magical
moment for our society, the inauguration of the first African American president with the
inclusion of a radical cleric who thinks of non believers, jews, gays and lesbians, and many others
as less than full citizens.
It's more and more upsetting the more I think about it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2207148/
I think Hitchens has it right
Barack Obama has picked a truly despicable creature to usher in "change"
This is a "defining moment" as Obama likes to say over and over.
Unfortunately, at this moment he is redefining what could have been a magical
moment for our society, the inauguration of the first African American president with the
inclusion of a radical cleric who thinks of non believers, jews, gays and lesbians, and many others
as less than full citizens.
It's more and more upsetting the more I think about it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2207148/
I think Hitchens has it right
I know, I know Bobby, this shouldn't be a surprise.
I just thought he'd wait until after he was actually in office to slap us in the face.
What a contrast to see "MILK" last night with footage of Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter publicly denouncing Prop 6... 30 years ago, and then we have Obama asking one of the biggest reasons Prop 8 passed, to speak for God for the entire nation.
If he did notice the Prop 8 protests, he didn't understand the feeling and meaning behind them, or just doesn't care.
The equivalent would have been for Ronald Reagan to remain silent during the Prop 6 vote, then years later invite Anita Bryant to speak at his inauguration under the guise of "inclusion."
You are right Lily, this does have MANY more insulting implications and I think that article NAILS them.
It's not just that Obama is allowing Rick Warren to define who God is for the entire Nation at that moment in time, he's also explicitly reinforcing the Evangelicals political power.
Honestly, this is a message to them, we're just eavesdropping.
---
You're not missing us quite yet Bobby, we'll be residents starting January. I'm sure it it won't take long for us to make it up to Ptown after that.
Satori
I just thought he'd wait until after he was actually in office to slap us in the face.
What a contrast to see "MILK" last night with footage of Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter publicly denouncing Prop 6... 30 years ago, and then we have Obama asking one of the biggest reasons Prop 8 passed, to speak for God for the entire nation.
If he did notice the Prop 8 protests, he didn't understand the feeling and meaning behind them, or just doesn't care.
The equivalent would have been for Ronald Reagan to remain silent during the Prop 6 vote, then years later invite Anita Bryant to speak at his inauguration under the guise of "inclusion."
You are right Lily, this does have MANY more insulting implications and I think that article NAILS them.
It's not just that Obama is allowing Rick Warren to define who God is for the entire Nation at that moment in time, he's also explicitly reinforcing the Evangelicals political power.
Honestly, this is a message to them, we're just eavesdropping.
---
You're not missing us quite yet Bobby, we'll be residents starting January. I'm sure it it won't take long for us to make it up to Ptown after that.
Satori
Come to Ptown anytime kids. We would love to see you.
Interesting threads on the Huffington Post about the Obama-Warren thing. I hadn't heard that Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, a supporter of gay marriage, is giving the benediction at Obama's inaguration. While it makes me feel somewhat better about the Obama's "inclusion" excuse, I'd still feel better if Warren and Lowery had switched roles, giving Lowery the more prominent one.
The one thing that concerns me is the rising tension between the LGBT and black communities. It's complicated. Read some of the thread about the Time magazine thing ... kind of unsettling.
Obama Talking Points on Warren
Time Mag Columnist Calls Obama 'Very Rational-Sounding Sort of Bigot'
The one thing that concerns me is the rising tension between the LGBT and black communities. It's complicated. Read some of the thread about the Time magazine thing ... kind of unsettling.
Obama Talking Points on Warren
Time Mag Columnist Calls Obama 'Very Rational-Sounding Sort of Bigot'
JAYNE COUNTY HERE. Exactly, Lily. Its not just a case of allowing people to have their own religious beliefs, these people are dangerous because they want to make their narrow minded twisted version of the Bible, LAW! They want to change AmeriKa into a Right Wing Christian Fascist Theocracy! It is WRONG for Obama to have this disgusting excuse for a human being deliver such an important prayer! An insult to us all who voted for him! He is pandering to those bigots who voted against him! SHAME!!! When you try to please everybody you only end up alienating everyone! I will not be watching his inaguration. It would only infuriate me more! My high hopes have been dashed! Rick Warren is no better than the KKK. Using God as an excuse to deney rights to Gay People just as the white supreamacists used the Bible as an excuse for SLAVERY!!! *Slaves submit to your masters.* Yep, that is in the Bible! I am so dissapointed that Obama is so small minded that he cannot see this important point! Or mayby he just dosn*t give a shit! Either that or he is just plain stupid! WON*T GET FOOLED AGAIN!!! x JAYNE COUNTYquote:Originally posted by Lily of the Valley:
it's way beyond just the prop 8 thing.
Barack Obama has picked a truly despicable creature to usher in "change"
This is a "defining moment" as Obama likes to say over and over.
Unfortunately, at this moment he is redefining what could have been a magical
moment for our society, the inauguration of the first African American president with the
inclusion of a radical cleric who thinks of non believers, jews, gays and lesbians, and many others
as less than full citizens.
It's more and more upsetting the more I think about it.
http://www.slate.com/id/2207148/
I think Hitchens has it right
here's the thing. Rick Warren isn't going anywhere. Obama can make up for this by doing a few things.
1: repeal the Defense of Marriage act so the federal government will recognize same sex marriages in states that allow them.
2. repeal "don't ask, don't tell"
3. Pass the Employment Non discrimination act so you can't be fired for being gay (we already have a law like this in New York, but other states don't)
these steps will matter more than who speaks on the 20th. It doesn't excuse it but actions speak louder than words from a radical cleric.
1: repeal the Defense of Marriage act so the federal government will recognize same sex marriages in states that allow them.
2. repeal "don't ask, don't tell"
3. Pass the Employment Non discrimination act so you can't be fired for being gay (we already have a law like this in New York, but other states don't)
these steps will matter more than who speaks on the 20th. It doesn't excuse it but actions speak louder than words from a radical cleric.
from The Onion...
quote:SACRAMENTO, CA—Activists on both sides of the gay marriage debate were shocked this November, when a typographical error in California's Proposition 8 changed the state constitution to restrict marriage to a union between "one man and one wolfman," instantly nullifying every marriage except those comprised of an adult male and his lycanthrope partner. "The people of California made their voices heard today, and reaffirmed our age-old belief that the only union sanctioned in God's eyes is the union between a man and another man possessed by an ungodly lupine curse," state Sen. Tim McClintock said at a hastily organized rally celebrating passage of the new law. But opponents, including Bakersfield resident Patricia Millard—who is now legally banned from marrying her boyfriend, a human, non-wolfman male—claim it infringes on their civil liberties. "I love James just as much as a wolfman loves his husband," Millard said. "We deserve the same rights as any horrifying mythical abomination." On the heels of the historic typo, voters in Utah passed a similar referendum a week later, defining marriage as between one man and 23 wolfmen.
OMG.
LMFAO
LMFAO
Oh that is so good. The Onion's still got it (and I didn't even realize it was an Onion piece until the end, since, for whatever reason, I read it from the bottom up.)
Who would have thunk it? Iowa?
-------------
From CNN.com
Iowa high court strikes down same-sex marriage ban
* NEW: "This is a great day for civil rights in Iowa," Lambda Legal attorney says
* Iowa joins Massachusetts and Connecticut in allowing same-sex marriages
* Decision upholds 2007 ruling by lower court that said ban stigmatized gay couples
* Debate rages in New England as two state legislatures consider the issue
(CNN) -- The Iowa Supreme Court struck down a state law Friday that banned same-sex marriage.
Iowa becomes the third state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage, after Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Friday's decision upheld a 2007 ruling by a lower court that Iowa's 1998 law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples went against the state's constitution. It becomes effective in 21 days.
"This is a great day for civil rights in Iowa," said attorney Dennis Johnson, a co-counsel with Lambda Legal, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of six same-sex couples seeking to marry in Iowa. "Go get married. Live happily ever after," he said at a news conference where there was loud clapping among plaintiffs.
Other organizations were not pleased. "It's, quite frankly, a disaster," said Brian English, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center. "Obviously, we're extremely disappointed. We're saddened, perhaps a little bit surprised in the unanimous decision that the court handed down."
The state's highest court determined that "the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution," court spokesman Steve Davis said in a written statement. Read PDF of court ruling
"The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage," the statement on the court's Web site says.
The Iowa Supreme Court said it has the responsibility to determine if a law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution. "The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," the court said.
Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson found that the law violated the Iowa Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, and hurt gay and lesbian couples "in numerous tangible and intangible" ways
"Civil marriage in Iowa is the only gateway to an extensive legal structure that protects a married couple's relationship and family in and outside the state," Hanson ruled in Des Moines.
"Iowa reserves an unparalleled array of rights, obligations and benefits to married couples and their families, privileging married couples as a financial and legal unit and stigmatizing same-sex couples."
The case was joined on appeal by several state lawmakers who opposed Hanson's ruling, calling it "a mockery of the judicial system." They argued that the ruling stepped on the state Legislature's authority by using the courts "to effectuate fundamental changes in public policies regarding marriage."
Legislatures in two New England states, Vermont and New Hampshire, have taken steps toward legalizing same-sex marriages.
The Vermont Senate and House have voted to legalize same-sex marriage -- the House voted Thursday night -- but Vermont's governor has said he will veto the measure. New Hampshire's governor has signaled his opposition in the past.
Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey allow civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.
Nationwide, the issue of same-sex marriage remains highly divisive. A June 2008 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 44 percent of adult Americans believe gay marriage should be recognized by law as valid; 53 percent are opposed.
The issue took center stage in the largest U.S. state in November, when California voters narrowly approved a proposition amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. California had been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since a May 2008 ruling by the state Supreme Court legalized the unions.
-----
However, judging from some of the over 700 comments replying to the article in the Desmoines Register we're likely to see some voter backlash similar to California.
-------------
From CNN.com
Iowa high court strikes down same-sex marriage ban
* NEW: "This is a great day for civil rights in Iowa," Lambda Legal attorney says
* Iowa joins Massachusetts and Connecticut in allowing same-sex marriages
* Decision upholds 2007 ruling by lower court that said ban stigmatized gay couples
* Debate rages in New England as two state legislatures consider the issue
(CNN) -- The Iowa Supreme Court struck down a state law Friday that banned same-sex marriage.
Iowa becomes the third state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage, after Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Friday's decision upheld a 2007 ruling by a lower court that Iowa's 1998 law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples went against the state's constitution. It becomes effective in 21 days.
"This is a great day for civil rights in Iowa," said attorney Dennis Johnson, a co-counsel with Lambda Legal, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of six same-sex couples seeking to marry in Iowa. "Go get married. Live happily ever after," he said at a news conference where there was loud clapping among plaintiffs.
Other organizations were not pleased. "It's, quite frankly, a disaster," said Brian English, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center. "Obviously, we're extremely disappointed. We're saddened, perhaps a little bit surprised in the unanimous decision that the court handed down."
The state's highest court determined that "the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution," court spokesman Steve Davis said in a written statement. Read PDF of court ruling
"The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage," the statement on the court's Web site says.
The Iowa Supreme Court said it has the responsibility to determine if a law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution. "The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," the court said.
Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson found that the law violated the Iowa Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, and hurt gay and lesbian couples "in numerous tangible and intangible" ways
"Civil marriage in Iowa is the only gateway to an extensive legal structure that protects a married couple's relationship and family in and outside the state," Hanson ruled in Des Moines.
"Iowa reserves an unparalleled array of rights, obligations and benefits to married couples and their families, privileging married couples as a financial and legal unit and stigmatizing same-sex couples."
The case was joined on appeal by several state lawmakers who opposed Hanson's ruling, calling it "a mockery of the judicial system." They argued that the ruling stepped on the state Legislature's authority by using the courts "to effectuate fundamental changes in public policies regarding marriage."
Legislatures in two New England states, Vermont and New Hampshire, have taken steps toward legalizing same-sex marriages.
The Vermont Senate and House have voted to legalize same-sex marriage -- the House voted Thursday night -- but Vermont's governor has said he will veto the measure. New Hampshire's governor has signaled his opposition in the past.
Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey allow civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.
Nationwide, the issue of same-sex marriage remains highly divisive. A June 2008 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 44 percent of adult Americans believe gay marriage should be recognized by law as valid; 53 percent are opposed.
The issue took center stage in the largest U.S. state in November, when California voters narrowly approved a proposition amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. California had been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since a May 2008 ruling by the state Supreme Court legalized the unions.
-----
However, judging from some of the over 700 comments replying to the article in the Desmoines Register we're likely to see some voter backlash similar to California.
And now votes in Vermont overturns their Governor's Veto:
--------------
(from CNN.com )
With veto overrides, Vermont legalizes same-sex marriage
* Vermont House and Senate voted Tuesday to override governor's veto of bill
* Same-sex marriages will become legal in Vermont on September 1
* Vermont becomes fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage
* Jubilant supporters of the bill throng legislative building after the override votes
(CNN) -- Vermont's House and Senate voted Tuesday to override the governor's veto of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.
The Senate voted 23-5 to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto, according to the Senate office. Shortly afterward, the House overrode the veto on a 100-49 vote. The votes surpassed the number needed -- two-thirds of those present -- to override the veto.
The action makes Vermont the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriages. The others are Massachusetts, Connecticut and, as of last week, Iowa.
Douglas vetoed the bill Monday. "Vermont's civil union law has afforded the same state rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples," the governor wrote in a letter to David Gibson, secretary of the Senate. "Our civil union law serves Vermont well, and I would support congressional action to extend those benefits at the federal level to states that recognize same-sex unions. But I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman."
Tuesday's votes end a 10-year battle to legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont despite a court ruling legalizing civil unions, according to CNN affiliate WPTZ-TV. Same-sex marriages will become legal on September 1.
Following the House vote, corridors of the legislative building filled with jubilant supporters, some embracing and others talking on cell phones to spread the news, WPTZ said.
"We haven't decided who's going to propose to who yet," said one man, standing with his partner. The couple told WPTZ they will have been together 25 years in September.
The Human Rights Campaign, which describes itself as the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, issued a statement applauding the votes, noting Vermont is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislative process.
"This historic vote in the Vermont Legislature reminds us of the incredible progress being made toward equality," said Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign president, in the statement. "Less than five years ago, lesbian and gay couples began marrying in Massachusetts. Now, with the Iowa court decision last Friday and today's vote in Vermont, there will be four states recognizing the right to marry for loving, committed lesbian and gay couples."
Vermont Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin was quoted in the statement as saying, "The struggle for equal rights is never easy. I was proud to be president of the Senate nine years ago when Vermont created civil unions. Today we have overridden the governor's veto. I have never felt more proud of Vermont as we become the first state in the country to enact marriage equality, not as the result of a court order, but because it is the right thing to do."
Vermont's neighboring state, New Hampshire, also has taken steps toward legalizing same-sex marriages. On March 26, the New Hampshire House passed a bill by seven votes that would legalize same-sex marriage, sending it to the Senate, according to the Concord Monitor newspaper.
New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch has said he opposes same-sex marriage but has not said whether he will veto a bill legalizing it. Like Vermont, New Hampshire allows civil unions for same-sex couples.
"The civil unions bill [Lynch] signed into law prevents discrimination and provides the same legal protections to all New Hampshire families to the extent that is possible under federal law," Lynch spokesman Colin Manning told the Monitor.
On Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a state law banning same-sex marriage. The decision upheld a 2007 ruling by a lower court that struck down Iowa's 1998 law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson found that the law violated the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection and hurt gay and lesbian couples "in numerous tangible and intangible" ways.
--------------
(from CNN.com )
With veto overrides, Vermont legalizes same-sex marriage
* Vermont House and Senate voted Tuesday to override governor's veto of bill
* Same-sex marriages will become legal in Vermont on September 1
* Vermont becomes fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage
* Jubilant supporters of the bill throng legislative building after the override votes
(CNN) -- Vermont's House and Senate voted Tuesday to override the governor's veto of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.
The Senate voted 23-5 to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto, according to the Senate office. Shortly afterward, the House overrode the veto on a 100-49 vote. The votes surpassed the number needed -- two-thirds of those present -- to override the veto.
The action makes Vermont the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriages. The others are Massachusetts, Connecticut and, as of last week, Iowa.
Douglas vetoed the bill Monday. "Vermont's civil union law has afforded the same state rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples," the governor wrote in a letter to David Gibson, secretary of the Senate. "Our civil union law serves Vermont well, and I would support congressional action to extend those benefits at the federal level to states that recognize same-sex unions. But I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman."
Tuesday's votes end a 10-year battle to legalize same-sex marriage in Vermont despite a court ruling legalizing civil unions, according to CNN affiliate WPTZ-TV. Same-sex marriages will become legal on September 1.
Following the House vote, corridors of the legislative building filled with jubilant supporters, some embracing and others talking on cell phones to spread the news, WPTZ said.
"We haven't decided who's going to propose to who yet," said one man, standing with his partner. The couple told WPTZ they will have been together 25 years in September.
The Human Rights Campaign, which describes itself as the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, issued a statement applauding the votes, noting Vermont is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislative process.
"This historic vote in the Vermont Legislature reminds us of the incredible progress being made toward equality," said Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign president, in the statement. "Less than five years ago, lesbian and gay couples began marrying in Massachusetts. Now, with the Iowa court decision last Friday and today's vote in Vermont, there will be four states recognizing the right to marry for loving, committed lesbian and gay couples."
Vermont Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin was quoted in the statement as saying, "The struggle for equal rights is never easy. I was proud to be president of the Senate nine years ago when Vermont created civil unions. Today we have overridden the governor's veto. I have never felt more proud of Vermont as we become the first state in the country to enact marriage equality, not as the result of a court order, but because it is the right thing to do."
Vermont's neighboring state, New Hampshire, also has taken steps toward legalizing same-sex marriages. On March 26, the New Hampshire House passed a bill by seven votes that would legalize same-sex marriage, sending it to the Senate, according to the Concord Monitor newspaper.
New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch has said he opposes same-sex marriage but has not said whether he will veto a bill legalizing it. Like Vermont, New Hampshire allows civil unions for same-sex couples.
"The civil unions bill [Lynch] signed into law prevents discrimination and provides the same legal protections to all New Hampshire families to the extent that is possible under federal law," Lynch spokesman Colin Manning told the Monitor.
On Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a state law banning same-sex marriage. The decision upheld a 2007 ruling by a lower court that struck down Iowa's 1998 law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson found that the law violated the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection and hurt gay and lesbian couples "in numerous tangible and intangible" ways.
Vermont's vote today was historic because it's the first time same sex marriage has been legalized by an elected legislature instead of a court. The problem with California is they have an insane process where you can put anything on the ballot, even a constitutional amendment just by getting enough signatures. In New York and most eastern states you can't do that.
We will have same sex marriage in New York soon. The Assembly has passed it and the Governor supports it. The vote in the State Senate is close. We just need to bring a few more State Senators over and then we win.
We will have same sex marriage in New York soon. The Assembly has passed it and the Governor supports it. The vote in the State Senate is close. We just need to bring a few more State Senators over and then we win.
I wish somebody would shoot that freak.
Giuliani (Catholic) : "Protecting the sanctity of heterosexual marriage since 1982."
I love how one of the comments on that Post piece call him a "serial adulterer" - so true.
I'm with you Daddy, although I'd like to see someone rip out his lisping tongue and shove it up his ass. Then shoot him!
I'm with you Daddy, although I'd like to see someone rip out his lisping tongue and shove it up his ass. Then shoot him!