Advertisement
from jill...
Hello everyone. It will be interesting to see who responds! I told a guy that I could find 300 people who believe in gay marriage before he could find 300 people who do not believe in gay marriage. If you believe in gay marriage, please copy and paste this onto a blank e-mail form (leaving off the headers). or repost it..
Add your name and send it to your friends and family or repost it. If you happen to be the 300th person signing this, please send it back
to, Andrew Nelson. His e-mail address is: Rnbowzrok4evr@aol.com
Thanks!
1)Taylor
2) Jeremy
3)DUSTIN OH YEAH BABY
4) Michael (equality baby)
5)Doran
6. Ryan
7. Jason
8. Stephanie
9. Heather.
10. Misty
11. Jeremiah
12. Katy Calvin
13. Katy Davy
14. Jamie
15. Angel
16. Roxy
17. Fernando
18. MATTT
19. Matt Moo
20. Joseph
21. Chrix
22. Greg
23. jenn
24.christine
25.christina
26. Patrick
27.Jill
28.Melissa
29.Krystal
30. Al
31. Matt G.
32. Valerie
33Heather
34. Steve
35. Karl
36. Paul
37.Christine
38. Daniella
39. Phillip
40. Mike
41. Charlotte
42) Katie
43. Malika
44 Joshua
45. Irma
46.Liz
47. Alyssa
48. Michael
49.Doug
50. Justin
51. Peter
52. Lindsey
53. David
54. Fawn
55.Deborah
56. Jenna
57. Kate
58. Dennis
59. Jennie-Marie
60. malibu mike murphy
61. joanna
62. lea
63. joshua
64. Nicole
65. Rina
66. Jill V
67. Alex K
68. Lorna H
69. Melissa L
70. Jill S.
80. Melissa S.
81. Terry S.
82. Trasbin S.
83. Geoph P.
posted by:
|
|
Unsubscribed |
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: TALK ABOUT A NO BRAINER.........
Sat, February 19, 2005 - 3:31 PMWhat do you mean by "believe" -
-
Re: TALK ABOUT A NO BRAINER.........
Mon, February 21, 2005 - 6:07 PMum, to be fair . . . .
could you perhaps post the other side's email address for those of us queers who don't think pushing for gay marriage is such a great idea right now ;D
like, how bout we consider first getting legal protections for our apartments and our jobs so that we don't risk losing them when some of us decide to out ourselves by gettin hitched ??
makes sense to me to do thingz in order of what is actually accomplishable instead of denying that backlash exists in the political sphere. perhaps it's time we pulled our heads out of the "marriage" sandbox
i mean, are folks who are pushin for gay marriage simply obsessed with pissing off and alienating most americans and making them feel like their values are under attack?? or are y'all just naive enough to believe that because what some GLBTQ folks want is "equal civil rights" that it means that support and advocacy from most straight americans will happen overnight??
why not take the time to build connections with straight potential allies instead of driving them away by focusing so exclusively on "marriage" which is still so unsettling and uncomfortable for so many americans?? -
-
Re: TALK ABOUT A NO BRAINER.........
Tue, February 22, 2005 - 5:38 AMI agree with you, Origynal, at least on the surface of what you're saying. But gay marriage isn't a sudden push. The gay 'community' has been testing the waters for over a decade, The Hawaii and Vermont court decisions came years before Massachusetts, and had begun as lawsuits years before that.
While I agree that for some, myself included, marriage rights are not a huge priority right now. There are those in the community for whom it IS a priority, and an urgent one at that.
I knew a couple a few years ago. One became very sick and died. His partner wasn't allowed by the sick man's family to visit him. He was barred from the funeral, and his house and any possessions he (provided he didn't have a receipt proving that he and he alone had bought it) or they owned were taken by the dead partner's family. Marriage rights would've solved my friend's suffering with a simple stroke of a pen.
It's only been since Mass. that the public backlash began, and it was because the Reigious Right had (has) a patsy in the White House at the time who was looking to be reelected.
The same thing happened with the Gays in the Military fight. There were lawsuits challenging the policy for many decades prior to Clinton's congressional hearings which lead to country-wide debate and argument and eventually settled on the compromise policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Ultimately, all these fights are going on simultaneously. There are still lawsuits in the courts right now fighting DADT. There are lawsuits pushing for gay marriage. There are lawsuits pushing for equal housing and employment rights. But the media spotlight today is on marriage. -
-
Re: TALK ABOUT A NO BRAINER.........
Tue, February 22, 2005 - 5:18 PMwhat happened to your friend is tragic. yes it happens to too many couples, some of whom might not choose to get married even if they could.
if the media spotlight is on marriage, it's not cause of dubya or the religious right. marriage activists were the ones organizing the demonstrations and calling most of the attention to the issue. i wouldn't be surprised if it was revealed that anti-gay conservatives (who understand the realities of backlash), were making sizable donations to marriage equality organizations just like the republican party gave financial support to ralph nader.
from my perspective, it's not about *blame* which i find counterproductive. it's about learning from the past when it's appropriate for us to demonstrate in the streets and when we need to have better timing around discomforting issues like marriage because of the realities of backlash.
and the timing was off cause marriage is still too controversial for most americans to support. we need to start with jobs and housing and build more alliances and gain more support from more straight folks before there's any chance of marriage actually passing.
imho, too many marriage advocates have been acting as if marriage is the panacea and thus denigrating other types of legal recognition for relationships. since marriage would only serve to benefit a fraction of queers, it makes more sense to first focus more of our energy on non-discrimination measures which would benefit all GLBTQ people. -
-
Re: TALK ABOUT A NO BRAINER.........
Wed, February 23, 2005 - 5:59 AMIt's true that this isn't about blaming any one side or the other. The religious right, though, is clearly leading the fight against marriage rights, and they carry a large part of America with them. They've been building momentum just as surely as the gay marriage groups.
You also certainly can't deny that the matter came to a head with the Massachusetts ruling. The Hawaii and Vermont decisions occured during Clinton's term, and were remarked on favorably by that administration. Bush was in office during the Mass. ruling and immediately took steps to introduce the marriage amendment.
That was the moment the Rel. Right began their rallies to support the amendment and the gay rights groups began to get vocal and started rallying in response. Prior to that, the most you saw was a float at a pride parade or two or a booth at a rally. There wasn't the big media attention until Bush's reaction to the Mass. decision.
Does it need to remain in the spotlight? Unfortunately, I believe it does as long as Bush continues to push for that amendment. If it goes through because the media wasn't paying attention and we weren't talking about it, it will be *decades* before it can be overturned by another amendment. And all gay rights will be set back by the precedent.
What it comes down to is that the timing of the lawsuit in Mass. and more particularly, the timing of the decision was off by a couple years. Had it occured under Clinton, it might've been swept under the rug like Vermont was. -
-
Re: TALK ABOUT A NO BRAINER.........
Wed, February 23, 2005 - 1:02 PMtrue, the marriage thing is discrimination on the basis of gender, not sexual orientation. imho, when the timing is better (e.g., after a major election) we should be pushing, not for "same-sex marriage" but for "gender-blind" marriage.
the genders of the people involved should not affect their ability to be married.
and yet if "marriage" is still limited to only 2-person couples, it still discriminates against folks in committed polyamorous relationships with more than one partner.
so yeah, it doesn't make sense to me to support changing an institution which would still uphold 2-person monogamy as the highest relationship ideal when it's not what's best for me personally.
Steven wrote:
>> Had it occured under Clinton, it might've been swept under the
>> rug like Vermont was.
um, what about the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" that was passed under Clinton, which he signed?!?!?!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defe...rriage_Act
don't get me wrong, i'm strongly opposed to the federal marriage amendment because of the way it could be interpreted by the Supreme Court to strike down other laws protecting GLBTQ folks. but just because i oppose the FMA, doesn't mean i need to take a pro-marriage stance. just because i'm not 100% behind marriage doesn't mean that i'm siding with religious conservatives.
why is it so hard for us to break out of either/or dualistic binaries???
my point is that there are more than just two sides to this issue, and any other issues. getting caught up in us vs. them thinking clouds the reality that there's more at stake than just "civil rights" vs. the alleged blaspheming of other people's religious traditions.
-
-
Re: TALK ABOUT A NO BRAINER.........
Wed, February 23, 2005 - 10:49 AMHi, Origynal - I think we could talk about the strategic "good times" and "bad times" to bring up marriage rights - but that issue's dead at this point. And, sure, there are lots of other things we could do to improve LGTB rights in more practical ways. And, yeah, the number of people who actually feel disenfranchised by being barred from marrying the person they love is a minority within a minority.
But the whole reason people came up with the rainbow flag, and with acronyms like GLTB, is because the idea of the gay rights movement is that we're all in this together, and there's a kind of traditional, unspoken agreement in the movement since its inception that your fight is my fight as far as sexual orientation goes.
That said, this issue isn't even ABOUT sexual orientation! It's really about the government discriminating on the basis of sex, period.
Government should not see its citizens as black, white, male, or female. Liberty is supposed to blind. Once we reach 18, we all get the same rights. For them to tell us who we can marry and who we can't is descrimination on sexual grounds, NOT on the grounds of sexual preference.
I personally don't give a shit about getting married. And maybe it's not the perfect time to bring the issue up in the grand scheme of things. But they've brought it up, damn it, and this is one battle I'll fight like hell for. -
-
Unsu...
Re: TALK ABOUT A NO BRAINER.........
Tue, March 1, 2005 - 3:19 PMOK , yall, it's a chain letter i was collecting names for, not an official poll, just sign it if you beleive you and your partner should have equal rights, ok? (that includes the cancelling out of all possible lashbacks, et. c.)
-
-
-
-
-
