White House, Congress reach deal on repeal of DADT.

Saying that the two parties have "reached a deal" on DADT, sounds like there is some sort of compromise. THERE SHOULD BE NO COMPROMISE!! FUCKING REPEAL THE DAMNED DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE!! Congress is willing to repeal DADT only if the Pentagon's review of the policy comes out in favor of repeal. I HAVE NO FUCKING FAITH that the MOST HOMOPHOBIC BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT is going to come out on the right side of this issue! It's like asking the KKK to recommend desegregation and integration in the 60s. If we let the discriminators decide when THEY are ready to be rational and non-discriminatory, we'd still have separate drinking fountains for blacks. The ignorant need to be forced into rationality sometimes. Having gays in the military does not harm the military or threaten or weaken our national security any more than allowing a black man and a white woman to marry does!


-ry


Read the CNN article HERE.

x

IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THE LAW!

This is what i filled out for a form for a website that asked me to help repeal anti gay marriage laws. It asked me to fill out an "About Me" and a "What marriage means to me." I had nothing to say about me, but each section only 1500 characters and it takes more than 1500 characters to even briefly explain what marriage means to me so i had to utilize the "About Me" section to write a semi-description of how i felt.

[website is: http://www.signforequality.com/ i tried to sign up thru Safari, but it wouldn't work so i opened up Firefox to sign up successfully]

Though i never plan on getting married and am atheist, this is not about love or religion for me; this is about equality! If i had my druthers, i'd not let the state "marry" gays--OR straights! Marriage seems more suited for religious institutions. But alas, the issue it seems, is already married to government. This is the kind of shit that happens when church and state mingle. If it really is about "protecting" the institution of marriage, then relegate it to the church. Then we shall see how many back down and how many bigots are still resistant to equal rights for the LGBT community. Like i said, this about EQUALITY. Civil Unions are the LGBT's "colored only" water fountains. We learned from Brown v. Board that SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL. SEGREGATION IS WRONG. DISCRIMINATION IS EVIL. Civil unions are NOT totally equal, in fact. All this does is make us 2d class citizens! This is not India, damn it! I will NOT be relegated to a lower caste! This is America, founded on idea of equality. Though Equality did not originally apply to all, America has come to realize it's wrongs and been corrected and the general poulation has come to see such decisions as right. Women, Blacks, Irish, Amer-indians, Catholics, children (by proxy), the un-unionized et al. have had to fight and struggle to show America as a whole the right path. This is OUR cause, OUR future path. We must again show America the correct path.

They say ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law! I say that the law is no excuse for ignorance! People must be set straight!

For the religious objectors, i say, we are not trying to change your religion! You may continue to believe and practice whatsoever you may wish. Religious organizations are private organizations and if you wish to be discriminating, that is your prerogative. All we ask is that you not ask our government, which should represent ALL of the people, to discriminate based on your religious sect's beliefs and values, which represent only SOME of the people of the nation. Surely you cannot deny the logic in this statement if you exist in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. We do not ask you to live our "life style," as you call it, we ask that you live and let live. Two people in love and wishing to express that love through a government sanctioned institution should not be denied such an opportunity. The government grants certain rights, benefits and privileges to those married. All we ask is for the same rights, benefits and privileges, for we pay the same taxes. Actually we pay more taxes, because we do not share the same rights, benefits and privileges as married folks. That's right, some of us pay more to be discriminated against! Oh, the privilege of that!! >:o(  

We do not seek to degrade your institution, indeed i think that heterosexual actions such as incest, polygamy, rape, spousal-rape, adultry, and divorce have already done enough harm to the institution. Outlaw such things; but not love!

Ferguson’s Folly Re-formulated from Fear of Fags

So the deed is done! seems that chickens got more civil rights out of the last California election than gays. But gays are not chicken-- they will fight on! Not only does the California Constitution now prevent an entire minority from enjoying a civil right of the rest of the populace, but due to the election we have Plessy v. Ferguson reincarnate.

Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 537 (1896), of course, being the 1896 US Supreme Court case upholding the "separate, but equal" doctrine regarding separate facilities for whites and blacks. Well this is exactly what we have here in California: Marriage for heterosexuals, civil unions for homosexuals. Those who support civil unions for gays as opposed to marriage would say that civil unions offer the same rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage under the law, so why complain? Those who oppose civil unions in favor of marriage for gays say that all rights, privileges and responsibilities are not quite the same. I've not studied these claims personally, but I need not in order to be opposed to this separate, but equal mentality of the state.

First, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka 347 U.S. 483 (1954) stopped nearly sixty years of de jure discrimination by overturning Plessy. This case was decided, in part by psychological evidence that determined that separate facilities for blacks and whites, made black children feel inferior to whites, as, in most cases, black facilities were inferior to white ones. An experiment determined that black segregated schoolchildren preferred to play with and attributed more positive characteristics to white dolls than black dolls. (Kenneth and Mammie Clark doll experiments)* [see footnote below] Aside from that, the fact that the government of the people as a whole, can make separate laws and/or provide separate facilities for said people based solely on race being inherently discriminatory also led to this landmark overturning of codified segregation. Substitute 'Gay' for 'Black' and the vehicle of discrimination from schools to marriage and here we prove the old adage that history repeats itself.

As I have said before, governments should unite and protect the people, not discriminate and separate its people. Yet, this is what is happening now. Instead of race, it is sexual orientation. Gays can no more change their sexual orientation, than blacks can change the color of their skin. Government should not punish, denigrate and/or discriminate against people in their natural state. Blacks or Gays are unlike, say, drug users or murders, in that the latter may be treated through psychology and/or medical science and become productive members of society. The former are born as such and are natural occurrences. The latter are social deviants and products of their environment, rather than their being being determined by genes or chromosomes. Skin bleaching or so-called sexual orientation conversion centers, do not truly change the person inside. One's skin may be lighter or one may be brainwashed to no longer outwardly manifest homosexual behavior, yet they remain black or homosexual inside. The former are how God or nature made them. They cannot change and though one need not embrace them, one must accept them for who they are and let them live and enjoy the same rights of the population at large. ** [see footnote below]

Segregation is wrong. Separate is not equal. Discrimination is evil.

Secondly, with concern to the amending of the state constitution, I think it is a travesty to let such an important document be altered by a simple majority of the people. The constitution should be the most revered document of the people. The constitution is not to be taken lightly. It should not be changed on a whim. It is the ultimate law of the land. It should stand for generations to come. A constitution is written for its people, place and time and it is true that some constitutions of the states of the world may contain discriminatory passages, these will be amended once society realizes the wrongs of its past. The law of the land, the law of the people, should not discriminate against any of its natural-born people. It is the ultimate authority over people and law. It is written and decided upon a vast majority of people or else it would not be much of a mandate for law and governance. Simple majorities mean a society is too divided on an issue. For a document to be the final word in a society, it should be accepted by the vast majority of people. Although 51% of the population are in support of something, that leaves 49% unhappy. This is too great a discrepancy for a stable democracy. Further debate, compromise or investigation is needed. To change the ultimate law of the land, a super majority should be required. Sixty-six percent would be better, but may I suggest 80%? Unanimity would be ideal, but in an un-ideal world, and on such a large scale, unanimity is unreasonable.

One cannot please all of the people all of the time. But if the vast majority approves of something, then that gives the remaining minority something to think about. Maybe then the minority is wrong, or maybe they know in their hearts they are right and need to migrate to another land that accepts their beliefs (because everyone deserves the right to live and think free, even their opponents). Or perhaps, they feel they are so in the right that they rebel against their oppressors for the greater good of the human race. Thomas Jefferson said that a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing.

The recent amending of the California constitution was the result of a simple majority. This leaves too many people (based on percentage of registered voters who cast ballots) unhappy and risks civil unrest. My position is clear. This is discrimination 100%. Though I don't advocate immediate civil unrest, I support and have and will continue to protest. If the discrimination is not overturned in the next 4-6 years, and definitely if it grows, I deem it time for major civil disobedience. Yes, if 80% percent of the people passed the amendment, I'd not have such a strong will to protest as I would the urge to move to a different state or country. Yet I might still protest given my still uninhibited right of protest and my belief that I am morally right. But as it stands, a simple majority is too simple a solution for a complicated debate. A super- or ultra super-majority should be used to vote on a proposal to amend the constitution. Much like Massachusetts, I believe that there should be a waiting period of at least one election to have a second confirmatory vote. Also, I would have the state legislature confirm the vote as well--maybe even a review after 10 years or so time.

Keep government honest and healthy: protest or revolt!!!

*critics of the doll experiments note, that children of integrated schools, as well as children of intregrated schools who originally came from segregated schools also preferred white dolls to black dolls.

**there is research showing that birth order may determine a gay man's sexual orientation. The research shows that the more males to which a mother gives birth, the higher the chance of the male being homosexual. The thinking is, a male entity is a foreign one to a female body and therefore, the female host bombards the male entity with female hormones or chemicals, much like the human body bombards foreign viruses with antibodies to purge then from the host. The more males a mother has, the more the female body recognizes it and thus, sends an increasing amount of hormones or chemicals to the fetus as it develops, increasing the chances of it becoming homosexual or sexually confused. (as described in "For the Bible Tells Me So," documentary directed by Karslake, Daniel G.) Likewise, drug addicted mothers who are using during pregnancy will likely pass an addiction on to their babies. These are a couple of ways, in contrast to my argument, in which being gay or a drug addict may be a product of environment rather than being innate or natural.

Heterosexual Tendencies Let the Gays Be Institutionalized

So i read an article recently about how preachers are telling their congregations to vote in favor of Prop 8. Why must these and other pro-8 people force their belief on the whole of society? I fail to understand how limiting marriage to heterosexuals protects the institution of marriage. Seems to me, that heterosexuals have been doing a fine job of disgracing the institution of marriage themselves. The divorce rate was near 50% before states like MA and CA started letting the gays marry. The real threats to the covenant of marriage are "lack of communication, infidelity, domestic abuse and economic pressures." I'd be interested to know just how many of the thousands of homosexual couples who have already married are directly affecting any of these pro-8 people. Whatever happened to live and let live? ....

I'm also sick of these TV ads saying that marriage will be taught in schools. I don't ever remember learning about marriage in school. What the hell are these people talking about? Contrary to some people's beliefs, the gays are not after our children. I've never heard of an organization that is trying to convert heterosexuals into homosexuals. No one is out to teach our kids to be gay. Some people are just so damn afraid of the unknown, that they prefer not to know; to remain ignorant. They have some false sense that they can protect their kids from anything that does not fall in line with their own beliefs. Children know about the gays--they watch TV too, they surf the net, they hear the news, and, oh yes, they may even already have gay friends! Keeping children ignorant, leads to prejudice and hate! Knowledge is power! ....

Interracial marriage used to be illegal. Now that it isn't, tell me how it has negatively affected you personally; the institution of marriage; society as a whole. California used to discriminate against an entire group of people, but how did the Japanese internment camps really help us? Codifying discrimination is wrong! ....

The bottom line is, if government is going to be in the business of granting marriage licenses and doling out benefits tailored specifically towards married couples, then it ought not to discriminate against who can marry and who cannot. Government should be here to protect us and unite us, not discriminate against us and divide us into first and second class citizens. All you religious sects and private organizations can discriminate against other humans all you want, I didn't wanna join your stupid club anyway! Just don't ask my government to do it!