STOP PA's "Marriage Protection Amendment.

[Fallen Goddess]

That's right maize. That's also why Focus on Family felt it was important to set up shop in canada, to help us make the correct civil rights decisions, too.

That is wonderful Mr. Guy. I hope the people of Canada will welcome their efforts to bring civil rights to everyone there.:rainbow1:

 

[mr.guy]

That is wonderful Mr. Guy. I hope the people of Canada will welcome their efforts to bring civil rights to everyone there.:rainbow1:

??!!??

 

[Green Gaia]

That's right maize. That's also why Focus on Family felt it was important to set up shop in canada, to help us make the correct civil rights decisions, too.

FoF isn't interested in anyone's civil rights, they are only interested in proselytizing and pushing their religious agenda.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

I see your point, but "ring-wing" and "radical" are hardly inflammatory, especially when it's the truth...

...

I for one, get kind of annoyed when people get so bent out of shape over that....

My point, which doesn't seem to bother anyone else, is that the writer of the petition is clearly using those terms to demonize the people who support the Amendment. I would have hoped that a group that wanted to protect equal rights would rise above such pettiness and present the petition as the right thing to do.

When I look at the number of states that have passed laws and/or amendments to their state constitutions restricting legal recognition of same sex unions and the wide margin by which VA's House of Delegates, it would appear that the opinion against SSM is not radical but the mainstream opinion at the moment in America.

I have posted many times that I support equal standing for SSM as hetero marriages. My comments were from the standpoint of how could this petition better influence the mainstream opinion instead of just confirming what people who already support the petition know to be true. I'm sorry they were not accepted as such.

 

[Ardent Listener]

That is wonderful Mr. Guy. I hope the people of Canada will welcome their efforts to bring civil rights to everyone there.:rainbow1:

I think Mr. Guy was just being sarchastic when he made his statement about focus on the family. You really don't get involved in political issues much, do you?

 

[Green Gaia]

I have posted many times that I support equal standing for SSM as hetero marriages. My comments were from the standpoint of how could this petition better influence the mainstream opinion instead of just confirming what people who already support the petition know to be true. I'm sorry they were not accepted as such.

OK, I get ya now. Point well taken. Umm... the only thing I can offer at the moment is perhaps they use that langauge to prod people into taking action that they think might not otherwise if they used less colorful langauge because even moderates are afraid of the "radical right-wingers" taking over but may not be concerned if gays are denied equal rights. I dunno.... that's just my guess.

Tell me if there is anything inflammatory in nature in this text (just for my own curiousity and because I recognize my own bias):

Today, on the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, Virginia House of Delegates is likely to debate and give final approval to the so-called “Marriage Amendment”, voting to enshrine discrimination in the Virginia Constitution on a day dedicated to the memory of a great man who fought against injustices of all types.

“While we celebrate the life and lessons of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. today, our elected officials are choosing to consecrate the day with continuing the longstanding Virginia tradition of trying to marginalize entire groups of people from being able to fully participate as equal members of society,” said Dyana Mason. “It is a sad day for all Virginians, for all Americans, who believe that each person has a fundamental right to be treated equally in the eyes of their state and country.”

The House of Delegates has fast tracked the second, and required, approval of the so-called “Marriage Amendment” during this legislative session – preventing any real dialogue and debate over the very real consequences amending the Constitution would have on every Virginian. Far from just defining marriage as between a man and a woman, the current proposal would prohibit any legal recognition for all unmarried couples – gay and straight. The measure, HJ 41, was heard in the House Privileges and Elections committee literally minutes after the committee members were named, and the amendment was the first floor debate of the session on Friday, January 13.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...Tell me if there is anything inflammatory in nature in this text (just for my own curiousity and because I recognize my own bias):

... the longstanding Virginia tradition of trying to marginalize entire groups of people from being able to fully participate as equal members of society...

I wouldn't call this inflammatory, but it comes off as unnecessarily sarcastic.

I realize the choice of verbage is a minor detail, but I really am thinking of ways for supporters of SSM to reach out to 'moderates' instead of potentially prodding them to retreat and support 'right wingers'.

 

[Master Vigil]

As another PA resident, I signed, and will have anyone I know sign as well.

 

[godfree1]

[font=Arial, Helvetica][font=Arial, Helvetica]On a side note: On January 13th, by a vote of 73 to 22, the Virginia House of Delegates passed an anti-gay constitutional amendment to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples and to prohibit civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other legal arrangements between same-sex couples. Next it goes to the Senate.
:banghead3[/font][/font]

Virginia is for ... different-sexed lovers!

Thanks for the link, Fallen Goddess! :rainbow1:

 

[jeffrey]

Not that it would have done any good, but I wish the Rev. Jackson was half the man Dr. King Jr. was. I can't help but think Dr. King would have put his 2 cents worth in, where as the Rev. Jackson remains silent.

 

[Green Gaia]

I wouldn't call this inflammatory, but it comes off as unnecessarily sarcastic.

See, I saw that comment as showing the level of frustration and anger we have towards the state right now.

I really appreciate your wanting to reach out to moderates. I think a lot of it comes back to still needing to break down stereotypes and misconceptions many people have about BGLT people. And they need to hear from our straight allies too. We need to communicate on a person to person level, "see, I'm not so different from you".

 

[pdoel]

My point, which doesn't seem to bother anyone else, is that the writer of the petition is clearly using those terms to demonize the people who support the Amendment. I would have hoped that a group that wanted to protect equal rights would rise above such pettiness and present the petition as the right thing to do.

When I look at the number of states that have passed laws and/or amendments to their state constitutions restricting legal recognition of same sex unions and the wide margin by which VA's House of Delegates, it would appear that the opinion against SSM is not radical but the mainstream opinion at the moment in America.

I know where you stand, and for that, I am thankful. However, I don't really see those terms as being offensive. I'm often called a liberal, when in fact, I'm really not. Maybe when it comes to homosexuality, but in most cases, I'm quite a bit conservative. Does it bother me when people assume or call me liberal? Not at all. It's just a term, it does not define me.

I don't see terms like radical or right-wing as being offensive.

And as for the "mainstream" being what's driving this. Sorry, but there was a time where the mainstream thought it was perfectly acceptable to own slaves. There was a time when the mainstream thought it was perfectly acceptable for women to keep their mouths shut in public, to keep their faces veiled, and to only speak at home, and to never argue with their husbands.

Thank God we have often risen above the "mainstream" way of thinking.

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't see terms like radical or right-wing as being offensive.

Maybe not, but they are polarizing and I think that's what CX was talking about; Using langauge that gets the importance of this issue across without the polarizing terms.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Pdoel and I have known each other for a little while, so if we poke at each other a bit, it's good-natured.

...Thank God we have often risen above the "mainstream" way of thinking.

I agree, and the only reason I mentioned it was that the cause of gay rights is going to be a little tougher that women's suffrage or racial healing. Women make up a bit more than 50% of the US population, and Martin Luther King, Jr. was an eloquent spokeman for the Civil Right's movement.

Right now, the people who oppose SSM are in the majority, and the GLBT community represents maybe 10% of the US population, so IMHO, there are 2 choices to advance the cause of equal treatment. One is to sway people's opinions so they understand that banning SSM is inherently unfair, and as Maize said better than I did, I believe it is important to get the message across with out using polarizing terms. The second is to get a case to the Supreme Court so they can overturn DOMA. We discussed how this might work at some length on another thread, so I have some reading to do.

I'm not a Pennsylvania resident, but I added this comment.

I implore you to vote against this amendment because ratifying it will not augment any rights that current or future married couples have. As a married 'moderate' Republican, I strongly believe, as many Republicans do, in individual responsibility and personal freedoms. If you step back and read the Amendment, I believe you will find that it restricts both. Constitutional Amendments have historically defined how government should act to protect our God-given rights. Before you vote, please ask yourselves how this Amendment will actually protect marriage. I have been researching this subject and have not as of yet found an answer.

Best I can recall, Republicans hold majorities of 30-20 & 110-93 in the state Senate and House respectively, so hopefully my words will have some sway with some of them. What can I say...I'm an optimist.

 

[pdoel]

One is to sway people's opinions so they understand that banning SSM is inherently unfair, and as Maize said better than I did, I believe it is important to get the message across with out using polarizing terms. The second is to get a case to the Supreme Court so they can overturn DOMA. We discussed how this might work at some length on another thread, so I have some reading to do.

Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. I've debated this topic many a times, without using any derogatory terms. I have, however, had to listen to derogatory terms from the majority, describing me. I can debate with people, explain my views, ask them where their views come from, etc. It does no good. The majority of the majority is not going to change their view. They don't like gays, and that's that. They can't give valid reasons for the hate or dislike. More often than not, the answer is simply, "Because it's wrong" or "because God says it is wrong".

But they can't give valid reasons as to why allowing something such as gay marriage would be a bad thing, or give examples of how it would ruin society.

They just don't want it. I can be as sweet as peaches, I can give valid points, I can give proof, I can list studies, it doesn't matter. In fact, I've done all those things. It's still not going to change their opinions.

 

[Fallen Goddess]

I think Mr. Guy was just being sarchastic when he made his statement about focus on the family. You really don't get involved in political issues much, do you?

I guess I'm simpliste (overly simple or naive).

 

[opensoul7]

I signed , and wrote "marriage is between two human beings , it is a bond of love , and is not defined by sexual orientation." Intolerance and fear are dangerous wildfires that if not watched can consume all compassion and reason. The shame is Hate is a bandwagon that people jump on without any thought. The lessons that should have been learned in Salem are lost still today , just the word "witch" is replaced.

 

[Pah]

Maybe not, but they are polarizing and I think that's what CX was talking about; Using langauge that gets the importance of this issue across without the polarizing terms.

It does no good to use unpolaized words when the mind of who is to hear it is aleady polarized.

I have just come fom the Virginia Senate Committee meeting where the Virginia mariage admendment was voted out of committee. Testimony for each side was originally scheduled for 15 minutes total. Due to questions from the committee, the "debate" was extended to about 1 hour for eliminating/softening the amendment. One hour follks! and that at the largress of the committee chairman. One hour for something that requires lengthy debate to reach the "imparied".

Passage was a foregone conclusion. Something other than playing by civil rules needs to be done. Something needs to be done to get more middle of the road Christians off the fence and energyized. The opossition to marriage equailty is Christian based - there is no doubt about that. And those Christians need to be fought in the political arena by other Christians.

 

[Divine Androgyne]

If the state were considering outlawing football, I'm rather certain that the football fans would be less than polite in their response to those who were pushing that agenda. Should we expect gay people to be only polite when their civil rights are denied? I think not.

 

[opensoul7]

Regardless of your agenda , to attack or be rude or offensive, detracts from the purpose of your cause .It creates ammunition and distracts , i.e all this conversation about how things should be said ,instead of people supporting the cause .To be derogatory in any way is to be low brow , and creates a chasm in wich those who oppose your points of view can change focus away from the issue at hand. let your enemy be as rude and derogatory as possible , take the higher road , be the bigger person. People will notcie , and respect your actions, your words , and your principles.