Archive for Sunday, November 16, 2008

Across nation, gay activists protest Calif. marriage ban

November 16, 2008

Advertisement

— Gay rights supporters waving rainbow colors marched, chanted and danced in cities coast to coast Saturday to protest the vote that banned gay marriage in California and to urge supporters not to quit the fight for the right to wed.

Crowds gathered near public buildings in cities large and small, including Boston, San Francisco, Chicago and Fargo, to vent their frustrations, celebrate gay relationships and renew calls for change.

"Civil marriages are a civil right, and we're going to keep fighting until we get the rights we deserve as American citizens," Karen Amico said in Philadelphia, holding up a sign reading "Don't Spread H8".

"We are the American family, we live next door to you, we teach your children, we take care of your elderly," said Heather Baker, a special education teacher from Boston who addressed the crowd at Boston's City Hall Plaza. "We need equal rights across the country."

Connecticut, which began same-sex weddings this past week, and Massachusetts are the only two states that allow gay marriage. The other 48 states do not, and 30 of them have taken the extra step of approving constitutional amendments. A few states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships that grant some rights of marriage.

Protests following the vote on Proposition 8 in California, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, have sometimes been angry and even violent, and demonstrators have targeted faiths that supported the ban, including the Mormon church.

However, representatives of Join the Impact, which organized Saturday's demonstrations, asked supporters to be respectful and refrain from attacking other groups during the rallies.

Seattle blogger Amy Balliett, who started the planning for the protests when she set up a Web page three days after the California vote, said persuasion is impossible without civility.

"If we can move anybody past anger and have a respectful conversation, then you can plant the seed of change," she said.

Balliett said supporters in 300 cities in the U.S. and other countries were holding marches, and she estimated

1 million people would participate, based on responses at the Web sites her group set up.

"We need to show the world when one thing happens to one of us, it happens to all of us," she said.

The protests were widely reported to be peaceful, and the mood in Boston was generally upbeat, with attendees dancing to the song "Respect." Signs cast the fight for gay marriage as the new civil rights movement, including one that read "Gay is the new black."

But anger over the ban and its backers was evident at the protests.

One sign in Chicago read: "Catholic Fascists Stay Out of Politics."

In San Francisco, demonstrators took shots at some religious groups that supported the ban, including a sign aimed at the Mormon church and its abandoned practice of polygamy that read: "You have three wives; I want one husband."

Demonstrators in Washington marched from the U.S. Capitol through the city carrying signs and chanting "One, two, three, four, love is what we're fighting for!"

Comments

TacoBob 6 years, 9 months ago

You are the one who is clearly picking and choosing. There is a vast difference between spirtual and ceremonial law in the Old Testament, and if you study the Bible, context, and apologetics, you will understand that. Ripping verses out of context and saying they support certain things is way too simplistic. Any scholar of the Bible knows the history and meaning of what is written and if there are issues, can take their arguments to a much higher level than the surface assumptions.I'm not 'in your face' on your beliefs. Just saying you should dig deeper here. Dismissing the Bible based on a cursory skimming of the text does not create credibility. There are many debates to be had, but start with some real study and education of God's word. Start with the gender of God, as a suggestion.BTW, only God can damn someone, and it is his criteria not yours. It is not a sin to call 'sin' sin. If you know what I mean.I encourage you to dig in and dig deeper. God bless.

AjiDeGallina 6 years, 9 months ago

The interesting thing is that my fellow Christians claim this as their Biblical issue, but marriage was a civil matter and a product of the state and only became a product of the church in the 14th century.Most Christians who teach segregation and hate and judgement in the name of the the loving Mother/Father God are actually false Christians.It was told that near the end of days there would be a multitude of those claiming to speak for God, but actually bearing false witness, they will be the voice of the anti-christ.

jonas_opines 6 years, 9 months ago

AjiDeGallina: Well, perhaps an accurate comparison. After all, historical study shows that equality generally gets conferred at an intervaled distribution. Slavery -- Reconstruction -- Economic Inequality -- Separate But (un)Equal -- Equal. At least, I assume the continuum continues on to equal. At this point, I don't have concrete observation of that occurring, but it seems like it could, ideally.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

ljworlduser (Anonymous) says: "Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:..."Only two littel problems there, user:1) There is no 'right' to marriage that's being restricted or denied.2) A gay man has exactly the same 'right' to marriage as I do - he can marry any woman he wants and that'll have him, same as me.

grammaddy 6 years, 9 months ago

Say what you want, it's only a matter of time, this is the next step in the civil rights movement.

Jcjayhawk1 6 years, 9 months ago

The voters have spoken. Perhaps they should have done a better job.

TacoBob 6 years, 9 months ago

AjiDeGallina, check your Bible. The plan was laid out in Genesis. Been around for more than several hundred years. Also, there are many nations that are definitely not Christian that did not and do not support gay marraige. If you don't like the religous aspect....Good point Notajayhawk. Both points are dead on.And don't forget - the vaunted Mr. O. does not support gay marraige. Kinda hard to reconcile in some ways. Perhaps he is expressing his personal views and is not 'close minded'? Massive support for him in all aspects, that's for sure.

tinytim 6 years, 9 months ago

It would have been nice if the Journal World or the Kansas City Star would have covered the very large protest in Kansas City. It was very well attended, and speakers included Missouri State Senator Jolie Justus and a Kansas City school board member. The Heartland Men's Chorus sang. It was a fantastic event. You can see more at the blog: http://hopeandpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/11/500-brave-cold-to-protest-prop-8-in.html .

Christine Anderson 6 years, 9 months ago

Hmmm, I don't know. I used to be absolutely against this. I fly in the face of my fellow conservatives by saying this. But, I have observed gay couples who treat one another better than most heterosexual married couples I know. So I guess why not let them get married? Should have seen the dirty looks I got four years ago when I was attending a church led by a person who is frequently quoted on their anti-gay views. Uff-dah!

ljworlduser 6 years, 9 months ago

  1. Clearly there will need to be some education efforts across the country about what civil rights are. Brown v. Board of Education declared that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. You are saying marriage is not a civil right. Are you also saying education is not a civil right? Bus seating is not a civil right?2. Again, clearly there needs to be education about the definition of discrimination. Limiting the right to marry based on sex or gender is the very definition of discrimination.

TheOriginalCA 6 years, 9 months ago

Let them protest if it makes them happy. They are just getting laughed at and lampooned by the majority of the American people.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 9 months ago

Bowhunter earlier posted this...Using the words of Elton John who I believe is a pretty good 'expert' on this subject matter:"We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.""I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off."You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

AjiDeGallina 6 years, 9 months ago

notahawk, you have the right to marry the person you love, I do not. You have the right of live, liberty and the persuit of happiness, it is being denied to me. Equal access under the law is being denied to me. You are betraying the Constitution as our Soldiers are dying to defend it, you are the enemy within, you are as big a threat to America and what it stands for as Al QuadaTacoBob,The Bible and books of many other faiths has been used to support slavery, prohabiition of interracial marriage and many other things. Pick and choose, but unless you follow it 100% (shellfish, polyester cotton blends can send you to hell), I am not interested in you picking and choosing for me.Marriage was not a product of the church, they did not bother with it until it became political in the 14th Century. That is a fact you can pretend does not exist because it is counter to the point you want to make, but it is false witness, you are telling lies and using God and the Bible to do it.And if you want to argue the Bible with me, please explain why Abortion is a sin, yet the Bible instructs priests to give herbal abortions to adulterous women? Pick and choose?And why that is never mentioned by the Christian Supremicists?My walk with God is mine, not yours and you will be DAMNED if you try to force my path.You have failed God, and I expect you to get out of my face about your relationship with God, and leave my realationship between me and and my mother/father God.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

ljworlduser (Anonymous) says: "And again, limiting the right to marry based one one's sex or gender is the very definition of discrimination. You might as well be saying you want to limit the ability to marry based on skin color."And again, the 'right' to marry (which is not a right anyway) is NOT being limited based on gender or sex. Both men and women have the same right to marry. They both have to choose a partner of the opposite sex or gender. Pretty simple, actually.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 9 months ago

Aji: "Tangental likes separate but equal, probably wants different water fountains for blacks and whites as well."Aji's clueless. I am not a separatist; I do not draw boundaries. I ran socially with overtly gay friends for half a decade. Ironically, they were the ones to draw a line, after I introduced them to my future wife. Go figure.

ljworlduser 6 years, 9 months ago

Re: notajayhawk commentsAnd again, limiting the right to marry based one one's sex or gender is the very definition of discrimination. You might as well be saying you want to limit the ability to marry based on skin color.

tunahelper 6 years, 9 months ago

the majority won. get over you whiney leftists.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

ljworlduser (Anonymous) says: "Again, clearly there needs to be education about the definition of discrimination. Limiting the right to marry based on sex or gender is the very definition of discrimination."Maybe it's you that needs the education, especially as to the definition of discrimination. There is a fundamental difference between a ban on same-sex marriage and one on inter-racial marriage, user. In the latter, you are saying this group of men can marry these women, but that group of men can not, they can only marry those women. I.e., the two groups of men are being treated differently. THAT is the definition of discrimination. But a ban on same-sex marriage does not discriminate at all - both this group and that group of men can marry any woman, neither this group nor that group of men can marry any man. That is the very definition of nondiscrimination, of equal access.Now, before you start up with one group being able to marry someone they love and the other not, see my post above to Aji about "What's love got to do with it?" The government's defintion of marriage, and the benefits associated with that definition, have nothing at all to do with love. The government has always restricted the 'right' to marry certain ineligible potential partners (e.g. those who are under a certain age, related by blood, are already married, or are of another species, for example), regardless of whether the couple is in love.

AjiDeGallina 6 years, 9 months ago

notahawk,you are also not an American, not a Christian and not a good person.You are a bigot, and have failed your family, America and God.You are a failure.

AjiDeGallina 6 years, 9 months ago

Tangental likes separate but equal, probably wants different water fountains for blacks and whites as well.

ljworlduser 6 years, 9 months ago

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

theatre_fan 6 years, 9 months ago

Would you rather I married your daughter?

classclown 6 years, 9 months ago

I was thinking the same thing tangential.

TacoBob 6 years, 9 months ago

The people spoke. We are majority rule, not minority (unless you are Nancy Pelosi). If we want minority rule, we can also go for a monarchy.Even Mr. O is against gay marriage - he supports civil unions.As far as the argument to let gays in because of the divorce rate, that's lame at best. No reason to further dilute the institution. The downward spiral of morals and 'tolerance' of affairs and taking the easy way out of relationships rather than actually investing in them is shameful. Don't hang that on the institution, blame those that don't believe in anything absolute.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 6 years, 9 months ago

"Civil marriages are a civil right, and we're going to keep fighting until we get the rights we deserve as American citizens," Karen Amico said in Philadelphia, holding up a sign reading "Don't Spread H8". And I remember when the message was "Don't Spread H4."( Of course, that was in Rome. )

geekin_topekan 6 years, 9 months ago

Ad the wrath of GOD is burning the LA area for implementing this ban.

ljworlduser 6 years, 9 months ago

The Court held to the "separate but equal" doctrine for more than fifty years, despite numerous cases in which the Court itself had found that the segregated facilities provided by the states were almost never equal, until Brown v. Board of Education (1954) reached the Court.

jonas_opines 6 years, 9 months ago

Unfortunately, at some point the gay community will have to realize, likely, that they simply won't, for the time being at least, be able to call it marriage. Repackaging the idea, at this time, is the only way to move it forward.

9070811 6 years, 9 months ago

What gives if they're being laughed at? Do you think laughing stops them? Do you think trying to push them down makes them fall? Here's a thought for anyone against gay marriage...If you don't agree with gay or lesbian marriage, DON'T GET ONE. Gay, straight, black, white; marriage is a civil right.

notajayhawk 6 years, 9 months ago

AjiDeGallina (Anonymous) says: "notahawk, you have the right to marry the person you love, I do not. You have the right of live, liberty and the persuit of happiness, it is being denied to me. Equal access under the law is being denied to me. You are betraying the Constitution as our Soldiers are dying to defend it, you are the enemy within, you are as big a threat to America and what it stands for as Al Quada"Wow, quite a load of crpola there, Aji.To quote Tina Turner, "What's love got to do with it?"See, this is the part of the pro-same-sex marriage argument that always seems to fall apart. Is it about love, or is it about money (e.g. taxes, health insurance, inheritance, etc.)? The two things are not interdependent. People (including gay people) have been marrying for reasons other than love as long as people have been getting married.If it's about love, Aji, nobody is saying you can't love whoever you want, that you can't express that love, that you can't share that love, with anyone you want. You don't need a marriage to do that. A great many people share their lives together in a loving relationship without the paperwork (including heterosexual couples). So you do have the 'right' of "live, liberty and the persuit of happiness" just as anyone else does (which, incidentally, is not a Constitutionally bestowed 'right' at all). But if it's about the money (which is where the "Equal access under the law" part comes in, after all), then, as I said, you have the same access to those benefits of marriage as I do or anyone else does. You just have to marry one currently unmarried person above the age of consent who is of the opposite sex. In other words, you have the same right to access those benefits, as long as you qualify for them the same way I did. (And many gay people have availed themselves of that access, as I'm sure you're aware.)As for the rest of your post, it remains crpola. Maybe you can point to the part of our Constitution that I'm betraying, Aji, the part where it says people have the Constitutional right to marry the person they love? Maybe you're aware that if Romeo and Juliet were real people and living in this country today, they wouldn't be allowed to marry in most places?

bizarre 6 years, 9 months ago

I totally support Gay marriage!Why shouldn't a gay person, or person of color, or person with a strange religion, have the same rights as every one else?Anybody who doesn't agree with being gay should stay straight.But they should not have the right to discriminate against others!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.