Not Quite Done Being Pissed Off About Maine

[Toasterlad]

Here's a response I wrote to a friend of a friend regarding his religious views on marriage and why teh gay shouldn't be allowed:

In case anyone doesn't understand this: marriage is not a religious ceremony, according to the state. Two straight people can go down to city hall with nary a witch doctor in sight, and get just as married as Carl and Cathy Catholic can in their big marble church. Marriage is a legal contract between two people, that carries NO religious weight whatsoever. You are not married by a priest, or a minister, or a rabbi, or an Elvis impersonator. You are married when your marriage license is filed at city hall.

Now, if you religious types want to make sure that we hell-bound homos don't piss all over the sanctity of your sacrament, which slightly less than half of you believe is unbreakable by god or man, then I suggest you come up with your OWN fucking word for your voodoo ceremony. We have as much right to the legal word marriage as you do, and a far better rationale for keeping it.

If you still have a problem with the gays usurping "traditional marriage", I suggest you take it up with King David and his dozens of wives and hundreds of concubines.

[Deep13]

1. Plus you should not have to suffer for other people's religious prejudices.

If religious people want to deny themselves normal, human happiness then they are free to do so. They have no right to impose that standard on you while remaining married themselves.

[Warpy]

2. The powerful majority will always vote against the rights

of any relatively powerless minority. Hell, given the chance, they'd also vote against voting rights for women, and we're the powerless majority.

This is why we got the Bill of Rights with the equal protection clause. It keeps the majority from doing just that.

This will eventually be decided by the USSC, but it will be a very long time coming given the present makeup of the court. They will also have to decide on the constitutionality of civil liberties votes in those states that allow them.

I hate it as much as you do, but those are the facts.

[SoCalDem]

128. This is why referendums should not replace legislation

Why bother with a legislature anyway, if the "will of the people" can overturn legislation anytime a group of well-funded zealots collect enough signatures?

How "bout that "civil rights stuff", if referendums had been the choice of action, instead of legislation?

referendums in Calif have made the legislature's work almost impossible.

[Ineeda]

3. I just don't get it, Never have, never will.

Has anyone, ever, answered the prime question? How does any marriage, straight or gay, diminish anyone else's, in any way?:hug:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bullwinkle428]

8. Separation of church and state - LEARN IT, LOVE IT, LIVE IT.

[TwilightGardener]

9. There's nothing wrong with it--as long as there's true separation

of church and state. Anyone can believe anything they want about anybody, but you can't use legislation to turn your beliefs into action against a particular group, unless they are harming somebody. Which is why Maine shouldn't have given that opportunity to the citizenry.

[eShirl]

11. A law is not a personal opinion

but you knew that.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

12. Marriage is not a religious institution. I got married at city hall in Chicago

If your church wants to discriminate against anyone, fine(Although I am against tax exemptions for all churches for exactly this reason). But the LAW has nothing to do with religion.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

18. They can believe whatever they want, but the LAW should not be based on their beliefs

That goes for anyone from teabaggers to Obama that uses their beliefs to form the basis of law.

[kctim]

42. All of the laws

or just those which go against your own beliefs?

[fascisthunter]

48. that poster was talking about RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

it's called Separation of Church and State.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

49. Is there any LEGAL reason to deny marriage equality?

Any reason whose basis isn't "I think it's icky" or "it goes against my religion"? No? Then there is no legal argument against it and it should legal.

[kctim]

86. You answered a question with a question

I happen to agree, but you have written that pushing beliefs onto others through laws is wrong and I am not sure I buy that you really mean that.

[piratefish08]

25. Again, slower this time.

People can form ANY religious views they want.

They DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to legislate them.

Stop playing dumb.

[Toasterlad]

40. I Don't Think He's Playing.

[underseasurveyor]

13. Because as the OP said... now pay attention here

Marriage has NOTHING to do with religion! N-O-T-H-I-N-G!
Marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT between two persons.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

19. People had deeply held opinions that African Americans weren't humans (in the strictest sense)

They had deeply held beliefs that miscegenation was wrong. They had deeply held beliefs that women shouldn't work. They had deeply held beliefs that a man couldn't rape his wife. This did not change the reality of what was right and what was wrong.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. They can believe what they want. They can join up with a church that believes that shit.

But they have no legal basis to argue that marriage is not a right granted to all people. Nobody has a legal basis for that.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toasterlad]

36. There Are Many States That Have OUTLAWED Civil Unions, Mr. I Have Not Heard.

Maybe you should spend a little more time listening, and a little less time typing.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

24. Marriage is the legal term. Let the churches invent some other word if they want to.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

31. Because marriage is the legal word. I got married in city hall and my marriage certificate says

marriage.

Civil unions are inviting separate but equal status upon us.

This is no more about a word than Brown v. Board was about a building.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

37. No thanks. I don't think we should have to change legal words and definitions to suit bigots.

The fact is that they'll be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[raw oysters]

96. If you want to change the word, you will have to convince the bigots to do it too.

They won't consider it, they want exclusive rights to the term. We are willing to share it, they being bigots are not.

[Toasterlad]

34. We Are Fighting Over Whether Or Not To Capitulate to Bigotry.

Changing the definition of marriage to suit bigots is wrong. Period.

Not to mention the thing that you bigot-appeasers NEVER GET: THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT MARRIAGE. They don't want ANY recognition for gay couples, on ANY level. That is why so many states have outlawed civil unions for gays in addition to marriage.

THEY DON'T LIKE GAY PEOPLE. That's all this is about. They don't give a shit about marriage.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toasterlad]

44. If You Are Not Going To Listen To People, It Is Pointless For You to Be On the Internets.

There are is a legal framework in place for marriage that would not be there for civil unions, locally, federally, or internationally. Not to mention that the word marriage has a societal, historical, and moral significance that gay people are JUST as entitled to as straight religious freaks.

It has been explained to you many times why it is unreasonable, impractical, and immoral to change the definition of marriage to appease bigoted assholes. Either you are being willfully ignorant, or you are, in fact, stupid.

If it's "just a word", then YOU AND THE BIGOTS CAN CHANGE YOURS.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. Do you suggest a law that prevents churchs from calling a

same sex union a marriage, if that church so desires? Because many do so desire, and in your imagined world what would you do about that? I can go to a church right now, and have a marriage ceremony with my partner if I want, that is already possible, due to religious freedom, you see. It is the State that does not honor our marriage.
So what do you suggest? Laws forbidding some religious ceremonies? Or what?

[piratefish08]

38. Let them pick a new word or phrase. The legal one is marriage.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underseasurveyor]

So let the churches have 'religious unions' then

Keep your religion out of my marriage.

[ThomCat]

78. The law alrady owns the word Marriage.

To give it to churches would require re-writing thousands of laws.

To force the law to implement civil unions as an alternative is to push us back to Separate and Unequal. Though you really don't seem to have any problem with that, as long as your church comes out ahead. That is really sad.

Keep your churches out of the law. How hard is that?

[Bluenorthwest]

71. It seems you are playing games with words to avoid saying

what you mean. This practice is forbidden by the the teacher Jesus. The very way you speak and spin is a breaking of the very Goddy God law you claim to be in devotion to. You do this to defend the idea that religious people are allowed to hurl judgmental stones at others, when that teacher explicitly said the first stone can only be thrown by one without sin. Is that you, or your religious pals? And if not, why do they throw stones that Christ refused to throw himself? Are you that much better than your object of worship? Really?
And I wonder what you and your religious friends are doing to bring an end to laws allowing divorce, again forbidden by Jesus your savior. Are you doing anything to stop it? Or is your religion a mere mask for your personal bigotry? The religion forbids divorce. To protect your Sacrament, that fight should have been waged for years now, but divorce is fine by Christians. In spite of being forbidden in your 'scriptures' your 'Word of God'.
An apostate sack of hypocrisy and hubris, this is the 'faith community'.

[eShirl]

26. And there's nothing stopping them from having the type of marriage they believe in, is there?

:banghead:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

27. Example: The Catholic Church believes that marriages must be performed according to Catholic rules

to be valid. Fine. But this is not law.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

33. No. The government should not change the legal term because churches want to be bigoted

Some churches didn't want to marry interracial couples. They didn't get to keep the word marriage while the government had to devise a new word.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

46. And black people were defined as 3/5 of a person. Why didn't they just redefine black people as

"paople"? That would have made everyone happy.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toasterlad]

47. Not Supporting Marriage Equality Is Against DU Rules

I am so done with you. Either you shut up with this crap, or I'm telling.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toasterlad]

52. The Right For Gays to MARRY Is the Policy, Specifically.

DU: love it or leave it. There's the door.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toasterlad]

55. You Cannot Continue To Spread Your Freeper Talking Points, No.

You are in violation of DU policy. Which, technically, so am I. But I'll happily go down to take you with me.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toasterlad]

62. You Are Not Discussing. You're Posting Bigot Talking Points.

You don't belong here, and I can't imagine you'll be allowed to stay long.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toasterlad]

110. It Is, And I Apologize.

I regret saying that. I should not have let you get under my skin. I have removed you from ignore, and I am asking the mods to delete this subthread, and any other instances where I let my temper get the best of me.

I don't know whether you came here to purposely cause trouble or whether you really believe what you're saying, but I shouldn't have risen to your bait either way.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NMMNG]

109. Silly you

It's the same fucking water. Why are you complaining just because someone wants you to get it from the "F*gs Only" fountain? How dare you try to taint the centuries old institution of straight water with your gay cooties?

[Toasterlad]

117. I'm Sorry. I Forgot My Place.

[fascisthunter]

54. That term is a religious definition of marriage(probably your own as well)

it is therefore irrelevant, legally speaking.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Toasterlad]

61. If You Have To Change The Word, It's Not EQUAL

If gays don't get the same legal status that straight people have RIGHT NOW, it's not equality. Changing the system to make bigots happy is not equality.

You are, like, the total encapsulation of every stupid, fucked up reason why I don't have my rights. I hate you SO MUCH.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eShirl]

59. Wll then why don't churches use a word they already have: matrimony?

Does the phrase "holy matrimony" ring a bell?
That way they get to have a special word they don't have to share with anyone else.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eShirl]

74. But you keep saying it is about a word. Since they already have the word 'matrimony,' and civil law

uses the word 'marriage,' this is a solution that should make everyone happy and we will all be 100% equal. See, something for everyone. You're welcome.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. You seem to assume all churches agree with you

they do not. Many wish to and do perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples right now, and they would like that to be honored by the State. You claim you can 'let the churches have the word' but you do not address what you would do to stop the churches that do and will call such unions marriage from doing so. Remembering that we have religious freedom. What you suggest is the dictating by the State to Churches what they can and can not do. You do understand that, don't you? That is why it is best for all if the two institutions are separate. Your faith does not belong in my house.

[Toasterlad]

82. Congratulations, Blue: You Made It Go Away.

Well done.

I don't know what it was about that one, but it really got under my skin.

[Veruca Salt]

107. THANK YOU for bringing this exact point up!

:thumbsup:

[underseasurveyor]

58. There is something spiritual about joining two lives together.

But not everyone has or is religious so therefore why does it need to be included in all ceremonies just because people are so indoctrinated with that's how it must be?

We need to get religion out of everything and let the ones that want it they can keep it but they need to get and keep their religion outta every aspect of life and outta my life.

The word of an invisible sky being is not for everybody and I certainly don't subscribe to it.

Welcome to DU BTW:toast:

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[underseasurveyor]

84. From what I've read your proposal is bigoted

and it's not fair or equal. Changing the wording does not make it equal.

[fascisthunter]

45. and what is wrong with a reply to that ignorant opinion

which is based upon bullshit propaganda?

[Zoeisright]

94. This isn't an opinion. These nutbags are denying rights to Americans.

You can hold whatever opinion you want, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's life.

[NMMNG]

111. Hold any opinion you want

Just stop trying to force it on others. Religion should be a means by which you guide your own life, not a weapon with which you bludgeon other people.

I don't imagine you'd enjoy it if other people used their "deeply held beliefs" to force you to adhere to religious principles not your own. So why the fuck do you expect others to bow down and accept it when you do it to them?

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NMMNG]

118. How, pray tell,

does it affect you or "your country" in any way if two people of the same gender get married?

[ZombieHorde]

112. Arbitrary supernatural beliefs are a foolish base for opinions. nt

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ZombieHorde]

119. Not all religious beliefs are arbitrary, and I admit some disbeliefs may be arbitrary. nt

[Mari333]

6. federal law. marriage should be considered a civil right for all people

gay bi straight, and it should be federal law. Im tired of seeing mobs of assholes voting away people's rights to civil rights. fuck that. fuck that.
sorry, my blood pressure is up. I get so goddamned mad.
oh yeah, on edit, fuck those assholes who voted against it in Maine. I wont be going there anytime soon. They can take their traditional bullshit values and maple syrup and stick it where the sun doesnt shine.
Make it FEDERAL LAW, GAY PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CIVIL RIGHTS OF MARRIAGE AND SEND IN THE NATIONAL GUARD TO SECURE IT JUST LIKE THEY DID DURING THE 60S. AND IF THE BIGOTS DONT LIKE IT, ARREST THEIR ASSES AND THROW THEM IN JAIL.

[theHandpuppet]

10. I like your way of thinking

"Make it FEDERAL LAW, GAY PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CIVIL RIGHTS OF MARRIAGE AND SEND IN THE NATIONAL GUARD TO SECURE IT JUST LIKE THEY DID DURING THE 60S. AND IF THE BIGOTS DONT LIKE IT, ARREST THEIR ASSES AND THROW THEM IN JAIL."

Right on!

:thumbsup:

[Toasterlad]

14. You Go, Girl!

[eShirl]

16. If only someone had the power to do that, to send in National Guard to secure civil rights.

Can anyone think of someone who might have the power to do this?


edited to add: :sarcasm:

[Mari333]

20. it was done in the 60s during segregation

and the PRESIDENT SENT THE TROOPS. They stood and protected children who wanted to go to school. black children. and the bigots yelled and screamed and had hissy fits. But the troops went in and protected those children from the bigots.

[Toasterlad]

28. He Knows That, Mari. He Was Being Facetious; Playing on Obama's Inaction.

At least, I THINK that's what he was doing. You can never be sure on the internets.

:freak:

[Mari333]

72. I know, I was just re iterating

so many people had spines once.

[Bluenorthwest]

77. Get it said!

!!!!

[VMI Dem]

75. Some Presidents think that marriage is between a man and woman.

Some Presidents think the states should decide your civil rights.

[Orsino]

79. Save some outrage for the other forty-nine states...

...in which forty percent or more would also vote to enshrine discrimination.

[Toasterlad]

80. I'm Not Pissed Off AT Maine, I'm Pissed Off ABOUT Maine.

I have no doubt that a similar vote in my state of Pennsylvania would yeild even more unpleasantly lopsided results.

I don't blame the state, I blame the voters.

[Orsino]

108. I must admit that the Maine vote has me particularly angry, too.

It's a symptom, and not a referendum on anything other than America's bigotry, prudery and broader ignorance.

[depakid]

81. The lesson from Maine and Washington should be to focus on civil unions

e.g. civil rights.

In Oregon- and very likely in Washington, couples have most of the same rights with domestic partnerships that accrue in marriage. That's a major step- particularly in Oregon, where the legislature overruled an initiative banning gay marriage (which won handily).

Now there's talk of putting another gay marriage initiative on the Oregon ballot- and that worries me, because the response will be a counter initiative to take away the rights couples already have and fought long and hard for. That battle may well be lost.

Fact is, a lot otherwise reasonable people get short circuited when the word "marriage" is added into the mix. Ten years down the line, maybe not- but that's where it stands today in most states.

Seems to me activists should be concentrating on basic rights- once those are in place throughout the states, the ceremonial aspects will follow along in time.

[Toasterlad]

83. Sweet Jesus. SERENITY NOW!!!

[depakid]

88. It's a matter of practicality and politics

In some respects- especially here in Oregon, activists can be their own worst enemies. Keep your eyes on the goal- and recognize that couples in Oregon can and likely will- lose what they've got in what at the moment would be Quixotic fight that the fundies and the bigots would just love to egg on.

[Toasterlad]

89. It's a Matter of Bigotry and Equality.

After arguing with now-ignored asshole for hours about this, I have no intention of going over the same ground with you. You're wrong. If you want to know why, read the other posts upthread.

[depakid]

91. The trouble with folks who are all pissed off is that they lose their perspective

and end up screwing themselves and others over. Hopefully, good sense will prevail in Oregon- more often than not it does.

[Toasterlad]

93. No Offense, But I Am Sick of Fucking Pragmatic Crap.

I KNOW THE FUCKING REALITY, okay? I know how the political system works, I know how craven politicians are, I know how stupid and self-centered voters are.

None of that changes the REAL reality: bigotry and discrimination are wrong.

Fucking PERIOD.

Don't ask me to be satisfied with your civil union water fountains. Don't ask me to accept them as a milestone on the journey, or whatever flowery phrase you want to dress up your separate but equal horseshit in. There are no doubt couples in Washington and Oregon who are thrilled to get whatever rights they can, and I am genuinely happy that their lives have been improved. But I will NEVER settle for second best, and I will NEVER stop screaming about the injustices done to me and mine due to this government's continuous and immoral withholding of my inalienable fucking rights.

I hope they DO continue to fight for full equality in Oregon. And if they fail, it will not be the fault of the people that tried to do the right thing. It will be the fault of the ignorant, mean-spirited fucktards who insist on preventing us from being treated like anyone else.

I don't BELIEVE in settling for separate but equal, not even as a half-measure. Separate but equal INSULTS me as a person, and YOU insult me when you sit there and sadly shake your head and tell me that I'm cutting off my nose to spite my face.

I will not make concessions to bigotry, and I will not stand for concessions made on my behalf.

Please don't lecture me about perspective. You know EXACTLY how far the climb is when you're at the bottom of the hole looking up.

[theHandpuppet]

95. I'll second that!!

:thumbsup:

You're not alone, Toasterlad.

[depakid]

98. Considering the OP- that's a pretty strange vent

On the one hand, you make the claim that the marriage ceremony isn't important- that it's just a deal before a judge- and now you're claiming that a domestic partnership with the same civil rights is some half measure.

:shrug:

[Toasterlad]

100. Are You Crazy?

Who's talking about CEREMONY? I'm talking about the state of being married. Which is different from the state of NOT being married, no matter how many of the same rights you might have.

That's called DISCRIMINATION. That's what this is about.

[depakid]

104. What you seem to be pointing at looks more like semantics

and philosophy.

What I'm talking about (and hoping that activists don't blow) is equality under the law in Oregon. Lots of folks have worked damn hard for this for a very long time. Both on offense and on defense.

[theHandpuppet]

90. Can I join you in that?

I think if I read one more ignorant post in this thread I'm going to go Krakatoa.

[depakid]

92. Yep- some of your allies are ignorant for telling you not to blow it

Put gay marriage back on the Oregon ballot and IT WILL LOSE. Not only that- but the initiative the bigots have already written to repeal domestic partnerships WILL get on the ballot in another form- and it WILL pass, leaving couples with nothing.

I know in their anger, some don't really care about that- they'd rather go Krakatoa.

[Tesha]

85. I wish everyone would learn to qualify their terms as "civil marriage" and "religious marriage".

I think the bad churches benefit when we allow them to conflate
the two terms under the unqualified rubric of "marriage".

Tesha

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starry Messenger]

99. .

[Starry Messenger]

97. Why is this so difficult for people to get?

Churches already have their own words--holy matrimony, etc. We have separation of church and state in this country and religious laws have no place in our country. It's fucking bullshit what is going on. Getting married is no more "religious" than getting a driver's license.

[spoony]

101. Not done being a prat, either, I guess.

"for your voodoo ceremony"

You made it very clear in a previous thread that you consider all Christians your enemies, and have continued to post nasty flamebait after nasty flamebait. It's fucking enough already. If you want to shit on the people who DID THIS TO YOU, then go somewhere else and do it because WE aren't your fucking enemies whether you THINK so or not. So cut the divisive asshole act because it's the fucking definition of COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

[Toasterlad]

102. And Here We Were Getting Along So Well.

I do, in fact, consider all christians my enemies, because christians have made it clear that they consider all gays THEIR enemies. The money collected by christian churches goes to fund anti-gay initiatives, anti-abortion initiatives, abstinence-only missionaries, etc. There are no "innocent" christians.

Sorry you're offended. I know it must be tough to oppress people if they keep screaming at you to stop all the time.

[spoony]

103. So go vote in my new poll

I want to know if you speak for anyone but your own warped self.

[Toasterlad]

105. I'd Be Delighted To Vote In Your Poll

Where is it?

[spoony]

106. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6935992

I don't think many are going to agree with you. I honestly want you to get this. I want you to change your mind.

[Toasterlad]

113. Voted. See My Remarks In That Thread.

I'm aware that most people do not agree with me. I'm comfortable standing on my own. I'm also aware that you - and thousands of christians like you - don't hate gay people, and are not actively working against us. Unfortunately, I believe you to all be guilty by association, as I explain in my remarks to your poll.

[Egnever]

121. Actually the screaming makes it much easier.

[Egnever]

120. Maybe this should have been a clue to you

That attacking people is not the way to get them to vote for you. Sad as it is in this country your rights are dependant on the other 90% of society respecting you enough to want to give those rights to you. It's terribly tragic but its reality.

[Neecy]

122. And being nice has gotten us what, exactly?

Personally, I think it's time to start civil disobedience in a serious way. Fuck letting every moron in the country, every half-wit illiterate and nutbag, vote on MY human rights. Time to take it to the streets and burn the motherfucker down.

[Egnever]

123. Good luck with that

You are a lot closer to your goal today than you were ten years ago despite the recent setbacks.

[Neecy]

124. I'll send you a postcard

Actually, no, we're no closer to ANY goal than we've been in the last three decades. If anything, these ballot initiatives are a huge drain on our resources and every one of them sets us back years.

I don't know what the answer is. But it isn't begging like a dog for an occasional crumb.

[Toasterlad]

126. I Tend to Attack Those Who Attack Me. I'm Funny That Way.

Gay people didn't start this war.

If you think I'm going to kiss your ass while you vote away my rights, you can mother-fucking think again.

[theHandpuppet]

127. "Please, sir, can I have some more?"

We're sick and tired of being made to grovel to convince bigots to "give" us rights, as if basic human rights are theirs to give.

[kathrynjoy714]

125. What are our rights anyways?

As long as there is law in this country, there will always be opposition...whether you are in the minority or majority…there will always be opposing views. When it comes to things like gay marriage, people seem to concern themselves with being so against this issue that it becomes more about what they DON’T believe than what they actually DO believe. In my opinion, everyone just needs to calm down about the gay marriage thing. When it comes to marriage, let gay people do what they want, let straight people do what they want and keep religion out of it. As long as we are taking rights away from people, we are not holding to something that founded our country in the first place. So, separation of church and state is essential, but almost unlikely. It’s impossible to think that those who devote themselves to being against gay marriage will change their views to deviate from what they learn from church on Sunday. So, what are we to do? As a country, I think we all need to take a good look at how important rights of all men and women are, and then decide how we feel. We must take ourselves out of the position we are in as a Christian, or a straight or a gay person, and just try to see the other side of the story. If we are truly being humble to the opposing view, that is when we will achieve happiness for all in this country, whether gay or straight, black or white, male or female.