California courts finally get it right...

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
alan said:
Hey, I've got nothing against gays in general.

I just don't think that public displays of emotion are appropriate behaviour, rather very bad manners. e.g. I don't want to see two dudes kissing or holding hands in public; what you do in the privacy of your own home is fine. Just like people don't want to sit next to smokers or women who breast fed shouldn't do it in a public restaurant while other people are eating. Not to mention the non-stop public urinating on the whole route of the annual Bay to Breakers race. The public urination was so flagrant it warranted a whole opinion piece in the SF Chronicle (although I sure a lost of straight people were involved in this vulgar act also.

And could you please not dress so badly. Dressing like a drag queen may be OK for the party at night but some jeans and a decent shirt will be fine for public during the daytime. I understand the bad dressing in Hollywood, people go there like it's Halloween all year long but San Franciscans aren't in Hollywood.

Finally, keep the disgusting slogans off the cars. In a public parking lot at a park in S.F. I saw a sign stuck to the rear view mirror that said "I love my Penis". Vulgar. Would you like to take your kid to a Park where someone had that on his car.
Click to expand...

Alan, your ignorance is incredible. PDA's are done by just about everyone; not just gay men. Public urinating was done at Bay to Breakers by many guys; I'm sure not all were gay. Not all gay men dress in drag. Disgusting slogans are on various vehicles, not all of which are driven by gay men.
 
Thanks Anon., well said....

"Not all gay men dress in drag" Ummm, I am going to clarify this and tell you that only a very miniscule amount of gay men dress in drag. Let's not forget that the hets like to cross dress too ! We don't hold a lock on this interesting form of self expression.

And come on Alan ! Everyone knows that gay men are GQ dressers ! Take a trip down to Santa Monica Blvd in WeHo some evening...every single one of them is dressed impeccably, amazingly buff and perfectly coiffed. I'll give you a hundred bucks if you see one person publicly in drag.

Contrary to your belief, we're pretty normal folks who wear the same clothes everyone else does. For instance, I'm typing to you in cute jeans, a turtleneck sweater and yellow fluffy slippers (and some of you can vouch for these slippers :lol: ) .... Not a stitch of men's clothing on me! Imagine that.

p.s. I look like a girl, too ! If I was sitting next to you, you'd have no idea I was a homo. Scary, huh.
 
Thanks, Trooper, for your praise. And you're right about the dressing in drag - I've known of one gay male friend who did this and it was for fun. He was gorgeous, too, when he did it. On the other hand, I can think of a few more straight males who crossdress. It's definitely not a "gay male only" thing, regardless of what Alan thinks.
 
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Gov. David Paterson of New York has told state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they are legal, his spokeswoman said Wednesday.

New York agencies have been told to recognize same-sex marriages performed in places where they are legal.

The governor's legal counsel told state agencies in a May 14 memo to revise policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in California and Massachusetts as well as Canada and other countries that allow gays and lesbians to marry, said Erin Duggan, the governor's spokeswoman.

The memo informed state agencies that failing to recognize gay marriages would violate the New York's human rights law, Duggan said.

The directive follows a February ruling from a New York state appeals court. That decision says that legal same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions are entitled to recognition in New York.

Thank you New York
 
For the record, I love my penis. My wife is also very fond of it. The beautiful thing about the First Amendment is that a bumper sticker proclaiming one's love for their penis enjoys the same legal protection as one proclaiming their love for a dead jewish carpenter. No one can force you to put one on your own car, but you don't have the right to prevent other people from speaking their mind, alan. Two people of the same sex who share a PDA isn't a problem for anyone but you, alan. You find it personally offensive but that doesn't make it "wrong" universally; offense is in the eye of the beholder and your personal feelings are the only reason you are offended. Root out and remove the cause of that feeing and you will find yourself much less concerned with what other people are doing and more interested in what you are doing. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness doesn't just apply to those of a certain skin color, or sex, or religious affiliation, or sexual persuasion, or birthplace.

I do agree that urinating in public is gross though. What in the world did we do before indoor plumbing or outhouses?
 
One of the interesting things about this discussion is how in a way it relates to blog.. the real estate debacle.

Greed, liar loans, falsification of documents were what drove the bubble. People who perpetuated these acts showed no morals.

People posting here defend bad manners as a constitutional right. I don't see manners as a constitutional issue. What you do in your own homes is fine, what you do in public, how you dress, how you present yourself is a matter of manners and upbringing. In the 50's, manners were taught in schools. Now look at us.

Just shows how our society has gone to the toilet if we tolerate people with bad morals and bad manners without a whimper and anyone who criticises bad morals or bad manners is flamed in a Internet chat/discussion.
 
So, Alan, are you saying that being gay is a matter of bad manners? I didn't know that manners had anything to do with it.

P.S. Being gay is not a matter of bad morals, either.
 
Anon. said:
Thanks, Trooper, for your praise. And you're right about the dressing in drag - I've known of one gay male friend who did this and it was for fun. He was gorgeous, too, when he did it. On the other hand, I can think of a few more straight males who crossdress. It's definitely not a "gay male only" thing, regardless of what Alan thinks.
Click to expand...

yep, i've know more than a few that do. What is interesting to me is that they are either very pretty or very... uhh.... manly.

Oh well, I'm glad things are going well, i thought this ruling was kinda stupid, even for some very liberal californian's.

-bix
 
See?

An aesthetic objection couched as bad manners.

I don't see Alan as a flamer.

Pecks are ok, make out sessions not ok, as to either gay or

straight. But what about what's inbetween.

A youny hetero couple arms in arm walking down the street

cuddled up with a smooch here 'n' there will cause few people

any uncomfortableness. A gay couple doing the same thing

will cause more uncomfortableness in more people.

Maybe it will not in the future. Years ago, an interracial

couple would have caused lots of uncomfortableness. Now,

hardly at all. Race is immaterial to the evil Vanessa Williams

character in Ugly Betty.

Race is still a problem. But it's getting lots better. So maybe

race is a leading indicator?

Uncomfortableness is no reason to deny anybody their

civil rights.
 
Is marriage a civil right? Aren't the gay couple's rights with respect to each other covered nicely by a civil union in California?

Honestly, b/c I truly don't know, what IS the difference between marriage and a civil union? (I'm talking in practical terms, not moral or "we should all be the same" arguments. What, legally is the real difference?)

If you know, I'd be especially interested in the what the difference is with respect to children. That is my only beef with gay marriage. I think a kid should ideally have a mother and a father. (Not saying gay couples or single parent's don't love their kids to death or that they don't often raise terrific kids. I just believe in general that's best for a kid. Men and women are quite different and having that mix is, IMHO, extremely important) If adoption agencies place children in homes with a mother and father over single gender homes, would permitting gay marriage mean they could be sued for discrimation?

Is there any real evidence yet on this? Do children from a single parent home (that is well off and where money and time together are not major problems) have exhibit problems from not having a father or mother around? Obviously, some do, but how often? How severe?
 
Is marriage a civil right?

We actually discussed this several months ago in another thread. I believe "yes". It boils down to the equal protection clause.

Aren’t the gay couple’s rights with respect to each other covered nicely by a civil union in California?

Yes, but civil unions are not marriage. I know it sounds silly and kind of "semantics", but I'm not any different from you and I want to say "I'm married" some day. Any other word to me screams "second class citizen". As you can see, NY State has just announced that it will recognize gay marriages that are performed in CA and MA. That wouldn't be the case if I only had a "civil union" available to me.

I really do think this argument is now simply over the word marriage. In California at least.

Regarding all of your comments on children, I can understand where you are coming from. Time is the only thing that will ease people's minds on this issue...the more visible we become, they more you can see us and understand us. We've been bearing and raising children for decades, just in a closet. You never knew us....but eventually, you will. To my knowledge, there have not been any major studies done on children of gay parents.

Funny, I recall Nude saying last week that Mother Nature's plan included a Mother and a Father. I am the product of such an equation, so there is no arguing it... But I couldn't help but think this: I honestly do believe that I was born gay. I can trace it back to my first feelings in 3rd grade....(and I remember when I caught myself and recognized it, I was horrified ! I mean, here I was...this little 8 year old....scared to death that I was "A Homo". I had learned what a homo was from the playground and I my father, and I knew it was a shameful thing. With that being said, it's taken me a long time to feel comfortable with my sexuality and occasionally my own internal homophobia catches up with me).

OK, so I went off on a tangent there.........SO, if I was born gay, and it's a matter of genetics, why then did Mom Nature leave me with a fully functional reproductive system - and a brain to figure out how to make it work ! ;)

Thank you for your comments 4walls.
 
The California Supreme court, in it's ruling, found that there is inherent inequality in reserving the designation of "marriage" for opposite-sex couple and denying it to same sex couples. They also found that the best remedy was to allow same sex marriages rather than deny everyone equally, which would result in NO marriages of any kind. So, according to the State of California, marriage is indeed a civil right. "Domestic Union" laws are a 'seperate but equal' remedy that ultimately proves to not be equal.

Trooper,

Mom Nature did indeed make you a homosexual with a fully functioning reproductive system. My point was that were it not for modern science, you would have to engage in heterosexuality in order to "make it work". I hope in the future kids won't feel such enormous pressure to conform to any societal standard but it still doesn't change the basic biology that drives species reproduction and most people equate natural with "God". It's a moot argument anyway; human beings don't produce homo- or heterosexuals, they produce human beings who then find their own individual tastes in sex, hair style, music, ice cream, etc.
 
Thank you for your thoughts Nude.

Funny, when I was in my mid-30's, my body was screaming at me to reproduce. I imagine that most of you straight women know exactly what I'm talking about. I had never experienced that type of ....I guess I could call it a longing....before. It was extremely powerful and if I wasn't single at the time, I would have most likely been a Mom right now.

I even contemplated becoming a single Mom, but was too scared. My loss, I'm certain. :down:

Let's not forget that biology and science helps heterosexual women get pregnant too. Do you think Mother Nature would object to that?

Meanwhile, if anyone else has any questions that I might be able to answer, post away (or PM me). In California, I would imagine that most of you already know someone who is gay...but I can't help but think this is a wonderful opportunity to discuss the issue. My thought is that the more you know a gay person, the more likely you are to understand our want/need to belong and be equal.
 
4walls - I think your question is a great one. It made me realize I don't know the difference either. So, I googled around. Here is what I found.

“Same-sex marriage” means legal marriage between people of the same sex.

* Massachusetts issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples (since 2004). On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. When the ruling goes into effect in June 2008, California will be the second state to legalize same-sex marriages.

-------------------------

“Civil union” is a category of law that was created to extend rights to same-sex couples. These rights are recognized only in the state where the couple resides.

* Vermont (since 2000), Connecticut (since Oct. 2005), New Jersey (since Dec. 2006), and New Hampshire (since 2007).

-------------------------

“Domestic partnership” is a new category of law that was created to extend rights to unmarried couples, including (but not necessarily limited to) same-sex couples. Laws vary among states, cities, and counties. Terminology also varies; for example, Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries law.” Any rights are recognized only on the state or local level.

* Statewide laws in California, Hawaii, and Maine, Oregon, Washington, and district-wide laws in the District of Columbia, confer certain spousal rights to same-sex couples.

--------------------------------------------------

From GLAD:

What is a civil union?

A civil union is a legal status created by the state of Vermont in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word “marriage.”

What are some of the limitations of civil unions?

Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences:

Portability:

Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will be treated in other states. GLAD believes there are strong arguments that civil unions deserve respect across the country just like marriages. But the two appellate courts that have addressed the issue (in Connecticut and Georgia) have disrespected them based on the fact that their states do not grant civil unions themselves.

Ending a Civil Union:

If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in Vermont and filing for divorce there. This has already created problems for some couples who now have no way to terminate their legal commitment.

Federal Benefits:

According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:

Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling out forms:

Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union don’t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:

Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.
 
Trooper said:
Regarding all of your comments on children, I can understand where you are coming from. Time is the only thing that will ease people's minds on this issue...the more visible we become, they more you can see us and understand us. We've been bearing and raising children for decades, just in a closet. You never knew us....but eventually, you will. To my knowledge, there have not been any major studies done on children of gay parents.
Click to expand...

I found this long, interesting journal article looking at

The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children.
 
the geniuses over at protectmarriage.com got enough signatures to put a proposal on the November election to "define" marriage.

Last night, one of the spokesperson talked about getting support from the churches and conservatives.
 
Yes, we knew it was coming. The Mormon Church, Focus on the Family, et al., paid "signature gatherers" to stand in front of supermarkets, malls, gas stations, etc. in order to obtain signatures. Who knows how many actually knew what they were signing, or didn't just sign because they felt uncomfortable not doing so (those folks can get aggressive, they get paid for the amount of signatures gathered, NOT by the hour.....I'm assuming about half of the signatures are not legit, but even so, they had enough to qualify for the ballot).

Again, all I can ask is that you put yourselves in my shoes. We just want to marry the people we love, just like you.

Please urge all that you know, to vote NO on this ballot measure. Don't write hate into our Constitution.
 
Hey Trooper!

I agree with you 100% there are a lot of haters out there. But I hope you don't think everyone who has reservations about gay marriage is a hater. Like you and I discussed there are people who are pro-gay but with reservations with respect to children and gay marriage. Religious folks may not be "pro-gay," but that does not make them haters either, just people with a different viewpoint. Neither one of us agrees with that viewpoint, but I know many people who have that viewpoint and I certainly wouldn't say their motivations are based on hate. There are also people out there who have little or no experience with openly gay folks and just don't know what to think and thus stick with the status quo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top