Prominent gay rights groups

[usmc4669]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Prominent gay rights groups are ready to issue an election-year pass to Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry even though he opposes same-sex marriage, settling for less than they want in hopes of avoiding a constitutional amendment they fear.

"It's always disappointing when we find elected officials or candidates who do not support us 100 percent," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign.

"But we understand that people are on a journey of becoming more understanding and more supportive of all that affects the gay and lesbian community."

Democrats have aggressively courted gay voters and their campaign donations in recent years. Exit polls showed Al Gore got 75 percent of the votes cast by self-identified gays and lesbians in 2000, compared to 25 percent for Bush.



The rest of the story.

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/front/story/1158315p-8070253c.html

[MAJMike]

Let's ALL get REAL homophobic!

[greensideout]

Fags and Dikes running down the street---don't they know they're disturbing my peace.

[usmc4669]

MAJMike:
Do you support Gays marriage?

Democratic rivals John Kerry and John Edwards voiced opposition to gay marriage on Thursday and agreed the issue should be left to the states rather than banned by a constitutional amendment as proposed by President Bush.

[tacoman]

as long as they leave me the hell alone

[tacoman]

but i am against it

[greybeard]

I don't know how-but those people are reproducing. They gotta be.

So now, if we actually have an opinion and voice it-we're homophobic? I can see it now. In 50 yrs (maybe less) all the gays & lesbians will be out in public swapping spit and the straight people will be in the closet.

[namgrunt]

MajMike

Please define your understanding of what "homophobic" means. To the best of my understanding, it means to have an intense hatred and/or fear of anything homosexual. If that is the meaning you ascribe to the word, then your usage seems imprecise when applied to the subject you attached it to.

One does not have to hate or fear homosexuals, of either sex, in order to see that the current controversy is designed by activists to flaunt an alternative to the traditional meaning of an institution, Marriage. Unless you are prepared to change the meaning of the term, as defined for countless decades, then there is no basis to apply it to same sex couples, at any time, nor under any guise.

The full weight of the legal system already allows for coverage of all the "restricted" functions which are being claimed. The only thing not done is to call such a union a marriage. Why is it necessary to use that term in order to "define" the relationship? What purpose does it serve, other than to thumb politically correct noses in the face of spiritual belief teachings and traditionally accepted mores, to call this supposed "necessity" a marriage?. A good lawyer can write a contract which would give each partner in a non-heterosexual union full legal rights. Why must it be called marriage?

I understand marriage to be the union of a man and woman for several purposes, amongst them, and unique to the relationship, is the possibility to join and concieve CHILDREN, without artificial means or surrogate methods. The addition of a child or children changes the designation of the new" married couple" to that of new "family."

For people who find themselves medically unable to have children, that doesn't mean it will never happen. Remember the story in the old Testament, where Abraham's wife Sarah, was barren. Yet, it is written, with supernatural intervention, she conceived through natural means, in her seventh decade of life, and bore Isaac. The potential was there even if the children were not. The same cannot be said for ANY same sex union, unless, through supernatural intervention, one sex was completely transformed into the opposite sex, then returned to original gender after conception is accomplished. Sounds like a good "Twilight Zone" story to me.

To achieve childbirth in a same sex union, somewhere in the mixture, an outside agency MUST interject itself, to cause an "unnatural" result. The couple, without that agency, could never concieve through the natural method, nor bear any children whatsoever. Oh, that doesn't mean they cannot adopt, or impregnate through "in vitro" insemination, or using a donor's genetic material, concieve life.

If both partners are female it might work. However, if that were the case, then female homosexuals would have an "unfair advantage" over male homosexuals, since one partner could actually carry the child to term. Neither male homosexual could carry a child to term, despite movies which toyed with the concept of male pregnancy. How would the courts or Congress deal with that inequity? Would volunteers be sought, or surrogate mothers assigned to the duty through some draft system?

Platitudes and wishes don't make a marriage, a man and woman do, when joined together in the Holy Sacrament. It is called "Holy" because it was mandated in our religious belief systems by the Almighty. It is impossible for that to apply to same sex couples, period! There is no "hatred or fear" involved here. There is a bioligical chasm which cannot be overcome in order to allow natural childbirth to ensue from the exclusive sexual union of same sex partners.

Homophobic is not the correct word to use in this case. Please find another word, and try again.

Semper Fi!
namgrunt

[cmbell]

All fags should be thrown out on a deserted island far far away from everyone else. Would that wipe out the whole population of San Francisco? I agree with your last post _Greybeard_ What will this world as we know come to?

[kentmitchell]

It isn't homophobia. It's painful economics.
Granting official marriage privileges means that a spouse is eligible for benefits--insurance, etc.
Insurance companies would have to double their payouts, expensive payouts, to marriage partners who have AIDS (mostly gay males despite what they claim), and maternity benefits to women who were artificially inseminated in some manner.
Who do you think will pay for that in the end as the premiums go up?
And that's just one wave of a huge ripple effect.

[LONEEAGLE]

Very interesting reading ya'll. I wish the Maj. would explain as ya'll do. I don't think I'm Homophobic. I don't dislike Gay/Lesbian people, I dislike their life styles. If God wanted two of the same sex to be partner's, wouldn't he have done it when he put Adam asleep and took a rib, or not take a rib, just made another Man and told Adam, "here's your mate, mate, go forth and have fun."
God didn't do this. We all have choices. Just like the Bishop of the Episcal Church who "CHOSE" this lifestyle. Leaving a marriage, children, to become a "HOMOSEXUAL?" Love the people, despise the sin. I also know and we've all seen this. A man for example...Shows more of the feminist side, than the Male side. Some sort of goof up in his genes. And he's attracted to men. So he lives a lifestyle like that. I'm not sure if that is wrong. He may not have a choice. But when a straight person goes and does this HOMO thing, I think therein lies the problem. I don't care if they want to be "MARRIED." How does this hurt me? It doesn't. The only thing I can see it may hurt is, our children seeing this at a tender learning age...."Daddy?" "Yes?" "Why are those two men/women kissing?" "I see you and Mommy kissing, is this a game Daddy?" What and how on earth do you say to your child, "Well Son/Daughter, ya see it's like this." "Uh,........I mean how do you tell them?" Later in life they will see this, and hopefully will come to their parents and ask. This is my main concern. Just like this junk music, hip hop, or gangster rap, talkin' 'bout killin', drugs, sex. How do we keep it away from our children? It's legal. I hate it that any candidate would support this. G.W. Bush....If he gets his way there'll be a Constitutional Amendment. But, the gay/lesbian lobbyist will hammer it to death with all sorts of suits, legal battles, from now on.
Our Society is becomin' so close to the Bible's, Saddom/Gamora, it isn't funny.......I hope all will find peace, happiness, and obey the laws of the land.....

[usmc4669]

BigEagle6


I don't care if they want to be "MARRIED." How does this hurt me?

[b]In your pocket book for one. Just imagine that we say OK you gays can get married in order to benefit on your income tax, you can claim children some that are yours (gay Lesbians can have children, but not by their sex habits). Then you as a single mother can also claim your children. Gay males cannot have children, even with a sex change. I often wonder haw a male could have been married to a woman for 20 years have children and grandchildren and all of a sudden say hey guess what, I am gay! I am guessing that one of the reasons for this rush into marriage is that the gays think that Kerry will get elected to the office of the Presidency and will repel the Bush tax plan, this way they will benefit more than you and I, Just a guess.

[usmc4669]

namgrunt

Please define your understanding of what "homophobic" means

{b]"Homophobia" irrational hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality n.--ho-mo-pho'.bic (-fo'bik) adj.[/b]

[usmc4669]

This will refer to married and single home owners, straight or Homosexual without children. In all of the States that I have lived in and have been a home owner; I have had to pay School Taxes even if I didn't have a child going to school. Then the ones who rented a home with a child going to school didn't have to pay School Taxes. Why do I have to pay for someone's else Child to go to School? I feel that it would be more fair to have a school Tax added to the sale Tax to pay for this, that way everyone would have to pay some part of the School Tax that only home owners are paying. The school Tax should be abolished from City taxes.

[namgrunt]

Gunny

Your dictionary definition is the one I'm familiar with. I think I used the correct words except for not including "irrational" in the sentence.

Either way, I don't support same sex marriages under any circumstance, Period. It is politics for power gain. Next thing you know, someone will show up with an Irish Setter or a Ewe, and want a marriage license.

To carry it to an extreme, what if someone is in love with their job? Can they "marry" their job, and force the company to keep them employed, regardless of their skills (or lack of) in performing that work? You would end up with a labor union shotgun wedding. Not a happy thought.

Where will the Politically Correct adjustments end? The cosmos would be the limit, if you could reach the edges.

Semper Fi!

[usmc4669]

Gay, joyous any lively; happy; lighthearted, bright; brilliant, given to social life and pleasures/a gay life, do you think that is why homosexuals want to be called gays?

[CAS3]

in my opinion,
Morality starts in the home. If you had parents doing their job, this issue would have never been raised. Marriage is for procreation.

Laws are based on morals as in ...you shall not kill, you shall not steal...
I believe gay marriages are a degredation to the US as a whole.

Look around at all the countries laughing their butts off at us now.
At one time, there was a rapid growth of parents marrying their children in the sence that they were "committed" to each other and would respect their bond.
Give me a friggin break.
MARRIAGE is an institution based on religious beliefs. All that is being done now is the politicians are stating their religious beliefs and views of gay marriage. It has never been supported so why start now.
If it aint broke don't fix it.
Next we'll be stuck with openly gay people in the military.
"Sorry Gunny I can't wear that uniform it doesn't go well with my flesh tones"...UGH....

[namgrunt]

CAS3
You said it so much better than I did, and with a lot less verbage. I guess I'm an old windbag sometimes. You've covered it like a blanket.

[usmc4669]

Queer; differing from what is usual or ordinary; odd; singular; strange; slightly ill; qualmish or giddy; doubtful; suspicious, having mental quirks; eccenyric; counterfeit; not genuine. Is this why we call homosexuals Queers?

[CAS3]

Tonight on NBC I was disgusted to see DATELINE had a portion of the program entitled "Scenes from a Marriage".
The husband went out and got a sex change and he is now a she and the wife is still married to the perv.
Again,
what is this teaching our children.
"It's okay little Johnny, go and wear mommy's undies and heels...." When you grow up you can be whatever you want to be!

[usmc4669]

Sounds like the Army, be all you want to be.LOL

[greensideout]

I saw that too Cass, at 5:17 pm---a time when the kids are sitting around the TV with the family.

The movement has moved into prime-time, just look (if you can stand to) at the evening shows. It's recruitment time as they go after the young minds.

I watch little TV now and a wise parent would pay close attention to ANYTHING that their children may see on the tube!

Better yet, they should read together, or persue the things in life that will bring rich memories and build a healthy mind.

[greybeard]

Is it just me, or do most of those lesbians seem to be--less than what would normally be considered attractive? See-I can be tactful when I want to be.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


You will kindly note I didn't say they were so dam ugly & fat they couldn't get a man with a baseball bat.

[namgrunt]

I guess I lucked out. I snoozed through the Dateline show. One of the perks of getting old.

Gunny:
I think the homosexual 'community' already owns the word Queer. It has taken over the word Gay. Now it is after the word Marriage. I hope it never gets the word Army. I would hate to go into multi-service combat situation with a battalion of 'new Army' behind me as reserves. I'm sure the Army wouldn't be happy either.

I believe in 'Live and let live'. However, I don't want an unwelcome lifestyle thrown in my traditional face, and for me to be expected to go along with it. I won't let someone's release from their 'closet' force me into a closet of political correctness.

Greybeard:
Geez, man. You crack me up. (baseball bat)

[jfreas]

They don't reproduce, they recruit. That's why I don't want them Teaching my Children or Grandchildren. I realize this is Redneck reasoning but Hey that's me. Wanting to marry the same sex just ain't right. OK, now ya can tell me how wrong I am. It ain't gonna change my mind.Grunt I love ya as a Brother but I ain't sleepin with ya.

[Catz1611]

FINALLY!!! People who haven't lost their minds!

I tell ya what, I can't STAND faggots and I get so tired of people telling me I'm being hateful for NOT being PC and for calling them what the really are QUEER!and for speaking against it..

They are Unnatural sex perverts..and I don't think they ought to be allowed to pass themselves off as normal when they are clearly NOT.

Jfreas I agree 100% with what you said..they DON'T reproduce..they can't ,so they have to recruit! and they do go after the younger people, in order to teach them that being a sodomite is right and not wrong..I said the very same thing on another board and I got ripped and called hateful and told I was wrong..I couldn't believe that. Thank God I'm not the only one who has these same thoughts.

[greybeard]

Naw-they don't recruit. & yeah, all those reports of em grabbin guy's things in bus station bathrooms is just homopobia bs. Never happens. They only have sex with known homos. And those 4000+ Catholic priests the Council of Bishops now admits had sex with young boys?-that's just more homophobia & nonsense.
NNaw- they don't recruit. Not much they don't. And exploit. And abuse.

[namgrunt]

One reason I gave up buying 'Spam', 'Dinty Moore Beef Stew', and certain other products is because I discovered that the guy who owns the parent company, 'Hormel Foods', is a high standing member of an organization called NAMBLA. That stands for 'North American Man-Boy Love Association'. He was also appointed American Ambassador to the Netherlands by the previous White House occupant. His name is James Hormel, and he is proud of his ignominous work. Now ain't that a kick in the head?

Gunny JFreas:
I think you may have misread my comments, if you thought there was some sort of acceptance of that lifestyle. 'Live and let live' means "they stay over on their side of the street, and I stay over here on my side." As long as I'm left to live my hetero life in peace, "They" can do whatever the law allows. Its when the law is changed for a special interest benefit, like same sex marriage, that I feel my traditional beliefs are being eroded for politically correct horse puckey. This is my side of the street, not theirs.

[usmc4669]

jfreas:


They don't reproduce

Wrong; Lesbians can reproduce (not with each other), but a lesbian can get pregnant and bare a child. I don't know if that child would grow up and become a homosexual or not. Do anyone know of a family (and I use the term family loosely), who have raised children that became homosexuals?

[greybeard]

""Wrong; Lesbians can reproduce (not with each other), but a lesbian can get pregnant and bare a child.""

Pun---or freudian slip? :D

But to answer your 'family' question, and I'm quessing you are referring to the outcome of homosexuals raising children. (Jeannnie & Janie/Rick & Dick) I don't know.

[usmc4669]

Now we are one darling.

[usmc4669]

When these homosexuals got married, who was the wife and who was the husband, or do they have a wife or husband?

[jfreas]

Grunt, I was just yankin your chain. I'm with you 110%.

[usmc4669]

By DAVID KRAVETS

(AP) California Attorney General Bill Lockyer speaks to the press about his stance on same-sex marriages...
Full Image

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In yet another setback to conservatives opposed to same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court declined a request to immediately stop San Francisco from marrying gay couples and to nullify the weddings already performed.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer asked the justices Friday to intervene in the debate while they consider the legality of the marriages. More than 3,400 couples have tied the knot since San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses two weeks ago under the directive of Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Lockyer told the justices it was a matter for the courts, not the mayor, to decide. He did not take a position on whether same-sex marriages should be deemed constitutional.

"The genius of our legal system is in the orderly way our laws can be changed, by the Legislature or by a vote of the people through the initiative process, to reflect current wisdom or societal values," he wrote.


The justices told the city and a conservative group that also asked the court to block gay marriages to file new legal briefs by March 5.

Regardless of the order, the San Francisco-based court did not indicate whether it would decide the issue. The seven justices usually are reluctant to decide cases until they work their way up through the lower courts, which this case has not.

Also Friday, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer refused a request for an injunction against gay weddings performed in the village of New Paltz, N.Y., noting that such a measure should be a last resort. He did not issue an opinion on whether the marriages were legal.

Twenty-five gay couples exchanged wedding vows Friday on the steps of the New Paltz village hall.

"What we're witnessing in America today is the flowering of the largest civil rights movement the country's had in a generation," said New Paltz' Green Party mayor, Jason West.


More than 30 gay couples in Iowa City, Iowa, were denied marriage licenses Friday by an openly lesbian county official who said she must uphold the law.

Earlier this month, a county clerk in New Mexico issued 26 licenses before the state attorney general declared them invalid.

This month's gay marriage push is rooted in a November decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriages violated that state's constitution. The court reaffirmed the decision this month, clearing the way for full-fledged gay marriages by mid-May.

The issue has sparked intense debate nationwide and spilled into the presidential race. President Bush, citing the Massachusetts decision and the parade of weddings in San Francisco, backed a federal constitutional amendment Tuesday to bar such marriages.

In statehouses nationwide, lawmakers are taking a closer look at their constitutions to see if they could be construed to permit same-sex marriages, even in states where laws now bar them. Massachusetts is one of many states where lawmakers are considering a constitutional amendment to bar the marriages.

The San Francisco mayor sued the state last week on grounds that California's marriage laws violate the state constitution's equal-protection clause. Pressure on Lockyer to act intensified when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger directed him to "take immediate steps" to halt San Francisco's marriage march.

Supporters of the marriages have criticized Lockyer for rushing the issue to the state's highest court, while gay marriage opponents have criticized Lockyer for not acting sooner.

The California Supreme Court has a history of addressing marriage and gay rights cases. It was the first state high court in the nation to legalize interracial marriage 56 years ago. Twenty-five years ago, the court upheld gay rights by saying businesses could not arbitrarily discriminate against homosexuals.

Meanwhile, Republican activists who helped mount the recall of former Gov. Gray Davis last year have announced plans to seek the removal of Lockyer, who they say has "neglected his duty" to enforce state marriage laws.

In another development related to the weddings, the Social Security Administration has told its offices nationwide not to accept marriage certificates from San Francisco as proof of identification for newlyweds looking to make name changes on Social Security cards.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer speaks at a news conference, Friday, Feb. 27, 2004, in Anaheim,Calif., about same sex marriages. Lockyer has been under fire from every side since San Francisco, under a directive from Mayor Gavin Newsom, began issuing marriage licenses to gays and lesbians and performing more than 3,400 weddings two weeks ago. (AP Photo/Jamie Rector)

See photo below.

[namgrunt]

Gunny Jfreas: <br />
<br />
Roger that. You'll find that I have a tendency to charge when my chain gets yanked. Its a common thing with us old junkyard dogs. No problem. <br />
I also know I get my wind up, and...

[usmc4669]

[QUOTE]For people who find themselves medically unable to have children, that doesn't mean it will never happen. Remember the story in the old Testament, where Abraham's wife Sarah, was barren. Yet, it is written, with supernatural intervention, she conceived through natural means, in her seventh decade of life, and bore Isaac.[QUOTE]

Are you saying that a gay man could bare a child with the help of the supernatural intervention?

[bobpage]

Now Gov. Arnold says he is not against gay marriage. He just thinks SF needs to conform to the law of the state. Agreed, they need to conform. But he ran on a conservative plank and now his real moderate side is out. No one should be fooled, California is the crash test dummy for all the minor groups to overthrow the majority. The constitutional amendment will certainly get hammered. (Praise GOD for a GOD fearing man in the White House.) Our judicial system has taken control of the country. It starts there. They are the ones allowing/causing this crap to persist. They are to interpret and rule whether it is lawful or unlawful based on the Constitution. Not make law. Liberal judges are appointed for life, so they have no check or balance. Where is the outcry against the 9th Circuit Court like there was against the Judge in Alabama over the 10 Commandments? There is none. Wanna know why? Because California has become the institution run by the patients. Not the other way around. My family lives in the Bay area, and it is so out of control it stinks. No wonder the state has seen monumental growth, yet all the Californians are leaving in numbers not matched since the 40's. Ther rest of the country feels "empowered" by Gavin Newsome's flagrant disregard for the law of the state. So if we do not stand now, GOD help us.

[usmc4669]

Liberal judges are appointed for life, so they have no check or balance

I agree, then Conservative judges are also appointed for life. They are the ones (judges that is), who really runs this country, we the People cannot vote them out, then it was some of our voters who put them in. In the coming election we as citizens need to look at the issues real close; which one of the so called patriots will lead this country so that our forefathers Constitution will be upheld, not sell us out to the U.N., win the war in Iraq without giving it to the control of the U.N. to give to one group so that they can control without freedom for all Iraqis as it was when Saddam Hussein was in power. No matter who's voted in as President he will not please everyone, ]color=red]liberals or conservatives, that's the American way of life, we thank more as to what can we get for ourselves more than the needs of the country[/color]. Bush didn't go to Vietnam and brag to being a war hero, Kerry did, Bush didn't protest the war, Kerry did, Bush don't recognize Gay marries, Kerry will, Bush is against higher taxes, Kerry is for higher taxes, Bush is for Christian beliefs, Kerry ??.