<p>The extremely few who committed acts of violence in churches should not be extrapolated to represent an entire sexual orientation as if they are part of a community that has monthly meetings or some such.</p>
<p>Every formal GLBT organization has denounced those incidents.</p>
<p>^ Exactly. It reminded me of 'Hey, Muslims bombed the towers, hence, all Muslims are terrorists'</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote:
States rights. Prop 8 is neither unconstitutional, nor a violation of 'human rights'. Quit whining.
Equal protection clause anyone?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. My Pennsylvania LTCF (License to Carry Firearms) isn't valid in DC or NYC or Wisconsin. How about that? There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage being a federally related or enforced activity, while the 2A protects RKBA. Stop making up 'human rights' as you go along.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wouldn't worry too much about it. If history is any indication, homosexuals will soon have equal rights...</p>
<p>From abolition to women's rights to civil rights to environmental justice, we are always a country moving forward toward "a more perfect union". It's just a matter of time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Abolition and women's rights didn't just happen automatically - people had to fight for them. We can't just sit back and wait for this to happen on its own.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Abolition and women's rights didn't just happen automatically - people had to fight for them. We can't just sit back and wait for this to happen on its own.
[/quote]
Exactly. This is why Americans should be contacting their legislators to influence votes, as the Dems might want to be too disciplined with their majority. Get a few Republicans on board and then gay rights in Congress and Senate won't be so taboo. Right now the politicians may (rightly) be preoccupied with the economic problems, so if nobody persuades them to act on this, nothing will happen.</p>
<p>I repeat: federal senate and congress have central websites with office addresses and phone numbers, but State legislatures have members' e-mail addresses on State-specific sites.</p>
<p>I bet somone already said this, but I couldn't read through the whole thing:</p>
<p>Marriage should not be a legal institution for ANYONE. Marriage should only be a religious institution. What we think of as the rights one gets when they are married (visitation, shared accounts/taxes, wills, etc) should be governed by CIVIL UNIONS which are given by the state. Gay or Straight, the state should only be granting civil unions. Now, in addition to the civil union, if one wants to be MARRIED under some sort of religious law (this could be where the ceremony would play in) a couple can do that, and at that point, it is up to the individual minister or rabbi or whatever to determine if he feels like marrying a homosexual couple is a violation of religious law.</p>
<p>There would be two licenses: civil union license (which anyone gets through the state) and marriage licenses which are controlled by the church (for which each church can have its own requirements) The second license is legally useless, and only serves to satisfy religious customs.</p>
<p>@86: Yes, it has been stated. The idea is fine, but for now the message needs to be universally emblazoned that implicit and explicit state-endorsed discrimination against homosexuals is unacceptable.</p>
<p>Well folks
Let's hope some of these protests spark an uproar!
Or wait...I guess protests are uproars lol.
There are already efforts in California to repeal the Prop 8...I hope it works.
Cross your fingers!</p>
<p>well it's officially going to the courts.
let's hope the justices don't let these threats of "recall" cloud their judgment...</p>
<p>The escalating violent reaction to Prop 8 is a disappointment. What are the major differences in rights between civil union and marriage?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The escalating violent reaction to Prop 8 is a disappointment.
[/quote]
Half-Ditto. I recall an event in which some people marched every day of some winter, but that was in an opposing community. They shouldn't be marching in West Hollywood. The marches, which should be supplemented with outreach and activism etc, need to be taken to Orange County and the continental communities. Hopefully a two-year boycott and some TV/Internet outreach will see a smaller resistance to a prop 8 repeal on the ballot in 2010.</p>
<p>The criminal and lesser offenses that have occurred are indeed setbacks that one may discourage. It is good that they are scarce, but any damage incurred is fuel for a backlash and wide negative publicity.</p>
<p>I wouldn't consider it too much of a disappointment, though, as it would be a better, in a narrow and admittedly ethically compromised sense, if people are surgically afraid of expressing homophobia. This, of course, has not happened outside of Castro and Burgess.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What are the major differences in rights between civil union and marriage?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All federal rights and procedures - and they number over a thousand and include international operations. There are more restrictions in certain states, but NJ and CA have state-level equivalence. The zeal over Prop 8/ CA Marriage Amendment is a (likely idealistic) rally cry for the rest of the US. Wanda Sykes' comments are fitting here. For now, the fight for the word "Marriage" is seen as a muster point for the alleged and/or brutal social distinctions made on sexual deviances, a prep for supposedly inevitable Federal recognition, and a recoil at the barriers engaged by terminology (expounded at length in the Connecticut ruling).</p>
<p>What are some specific examples of rights granted to a California marriage but not to a California civil union? I wasn't aware that there were major differences regarding federal rights. What are these federal rights we're looking at?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What are some specific examples of rights granted to a California marriage but not to a California civil union?
[/quote]
None, as far as California is concerned. All, as far as the Federal government and most states are concerned.
[quote]
I wasn't aware that there were major differences regarding federal rights. What are these federal rights we're looking at?
[/quote]
All. See DOMA. Legal</a> and economic benefits of marriage appears as a result in Googling <federal marriage="" rights=""> . Civil</a> union in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is a short article with relevant information.</federal></p>
<p>bumpp!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>So Jeremy, you think it's ok for the gays to force their way into a church, which is by law private property & a private enterprise though tax exempt, and assault the elderly in order to show their unhappiness with a law? </p>
<p>What if I don't like a law passed here in Colorado, lets say it's on smoking in a public park, can I come to your home or business in.... let's say Delaware, trespass, and then beat you up because I don't like it? Is that any more or less right than the gays in Denver having protests because of what happened in california?</p>
<p>^ no, I assume he just says that these actions were not supported by majority of gays, and you can't generalize and think that they represented all the gays in the U.S.</p>
<p>@95--No!! I think that wasn't right what they did, I really don't :-\
It's good that people are so passionate about this and back up their beliefs by protesting! However, violence just isn't the answer.<br>
But I think the "civil disobedience" that Ghandi was promoting when he was still living was the best way to go about it. Maybe a little more enhanced, like protesting with demonstrations but...to beat up people won't accomplish anything (good.)</p>
<p>Doesn't matter Jeremy. Because there will always be those that see violence as the way and the means to accomplish what THEY want. THE best way to satisfy both sides, and I'm confident you'll agree, is through peaceful means. The homosexual community won't get everything they want, and neither will the heterosexual community. </p>
<p>Truthfully, there is nothing Constitutional that gives homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. If it's over their life, liberty and (I really forget what the third quality specified is), there is nothing that says that a man making love to another man is a Constitutionally protected right. If you want a license, unless you can point out a Constitutional violation you gotta dance to the state's tune. If they say tap dance, you tap dance. If they say disco, then it's disco. If they say disco and you say "No! I want Country & Western Line Dancing instead!", then you'll have to change your flavor or not get a license.</p>
<p>The same people who voted for Prop 8 voted for Obama.</p>
<p>The "pursuit of happiness" is the third quality, Topolover.</p>