Revised: Precious Gay and Lesbian Brothers and Sisters: How can we Help?

[Mike 03]

My heart goes out to you. I despise the fact that these propositions passed.

It's unfair.

It's unConsitutional.

And it will be resolved in a court of law.

Beyond that, the reason I hate these propositions and how they have hurt you is because THEY ARE CRUEL.

They are simply cruel. They were not written out of conviction or passionate belief in the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. They were only written to hurt you.

They were constructed to send the message: Your love for each other is not as serious as heterosexual love, so we will deny it exists. We will torment you by denying you this right, and acknowledgement that your love is serious and exists.

That's not right. It's just plain wrong. And the bottom line is: these propositions are cruel.

But please be fair: I don't think most of the people here at DU have not been insensitive, dismissive, casual, crass or any of the above.

I think there has been an outpouring of compassion. Maybe a few people have been insensitive or dismissive, but many of the posts (that I've seen, and I've not seen all) have been kind and heartfelt.

But it's obvious from reading your posts that the pain is intense, more intense, I'm ashamed to say, than I expected or can possibly imagine. I was wrong. It must hurt like hell.

Just had to say that.

ON EDIT:

You helped us win, what can we do to help you???

[av8rdave]

1. Let me tag on to Mike03's sentiment

Any time we still have a group in this country legislatively discriminated against, we have a wrong that should and could be rectified with the stroke of a pen.

I too am saddened and disappointed by the passage of these propositions. It doesn't say much about the citizenry as a whole.

[thunder rising]

2. The fundies targeted (and wedged) a group of Dems that they think posses no threat of retaliation

I think putting a little risk in their position would help immeasurably.

[fasttense]

3. Well said.

Social injustice saddens me and erodes all our rights.

[Ian David]

4. Donations are still needed to fight this injustice...

http://www.eqca.org

[Mike 03]

5. Thanks for the link! NT

[mitchtv]

6. thanks mike,

Sorry I can't celebrate this historic ,election, all i feel is hate and sadness, and resentment. If there is not real quick passage of important pro gay bills in the house there will be even more hard feelings.

[Mike 03]

8. I know, I can tell that all the joy of Obama's victory has been crushed by the passage

of these propositions.

It makes me sad. I woke up to how much these issues meant when CNN played a clip of Ellen Degeneris talking about this issue and it brought tears to my eyes.

Some people take it too lightly.

It's not a light issue to the people it affects.

[yardwork]

7. That's kind of you, but it's impossible for Florida's law to be overturned in Florida.

Florida's law institutionalizing gay people as undeserving of rights can only be overturned at the federal level now, and that's not very likely to happen. But thank you for your kind thought.

[Mike 03]

9. If that happens, it should go straight to the Supreme Court

Maybe I'm delusional, but I don't see any way around the fundamental truth that any attempt to ban Gay Marriage is just plain unConstitutional.

Obama will nominate Justices who will never, ever turn their backs on anyone or misintrepret the Constitution.

Equal Rights. Guaranteed to all. Regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation...

[Mike 03]

10. Maybe the question I should have asked is: How can we help?

What can we do?

Who can we give to?

Who can we email?

[FreeState]

11. Give money and attend a protest

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4407747

Also talk with your family and friends - let them know what happened why it is wrong - encourage them to talk to their friends about it as well.

[Mike 03]

14. Thank you.

I talked to six people I know who live in CA and not one of them--not even the one Republican I know--voted to ban gay marriage.

I am very shocked and saddened that it passed.

We had a similar proposition here in AZ.

[Mike 03]

12. We couldn't have won without you. What can we do in return? NT

[Swede Atlanta]

13. Thank You!!!!!

As a gay man I have not had the same passion for the right to marry as long as my relationship provides the same rights and corresponding obligations of marriage under the law and in society. I am by no means a critic of those of my brethren and sisterhood that believe passionately in this cause and are fighting for this change. I opened my wallet generously for the No on 8 effort. I will continue to fight for equal rights. For some that is the exact same as marriage whereas for me I would accept, at least for now, civil unions.

I actually believe we need to separate the legal trappings of "marriage" from religion. A marriage performed in a religious setting absent a state license is given no legal effect. Many couples choose to marry without the blessing of a community of faith. Their relationships are legally recognized. That is what I find so difficult to understand. Under our laws only the state can confer legal rights and obligations. It has nothing to do with a person's personal religious beliefs.

The propositions and laws that in my view are even more harmful are those that deny gay couples the right to equal protection under the law in terms of housing, employment, etc. Further those that would deny a child the opportunity to be nurtured in a loving home simply because the putative parents are not married. The reason they didn't go down the path of "homosexual" is a certain equal protection challenge. So they use the argument that only two individuals that are married may adopt or foster children.

That means that even if you have the meanest most despicable married couple (they would of course need to fool the state agency responsible for home inspections, etc. which is easy to do) can foster or adopt. They may have hidden financial, emotional, dependency, violence, etc. issues from the state agency. But they can take the child into the home and beat the crap out of it or otherwise abuse it.

But a loving couple who could be homosexual or heterosexual but not married aren't deemed fit. That is not only cruel to those who would otherwise want to adopt or foster but cruel and heartless to children who are desperate for a loving home.

One day, and it may not come in my lifetime, these inequalities will fade. I hope the advocates for equality don't bring the CA loss before the U.S. Supreme Court right now. We lack the votes to sustain our rights. The hate-mongers Scalia and Thomas and those whose religion has glazed over their eyes, Roberts and Alito, will see to it that no two men or women may enjoy the rights they enjoy. No, we must bide our time. We must continue the fight to elect right-minded candidates including the President, to create a coalition committed to eliminating one of the remaining pockets of discrimination.

[peruban]

15. My sentiments exactly.

We had amendment 2 here in Florida and I voted against it on moral basis, meaning that I didn't think we needed legislature to define marriage. I'm a Catholic and, though I may not think it's right for a same sex couple to be married by the Catholic faith, I have no issue with anyone expressing devotional love to anyone else in ceremony sanctioned by any other belief, non belief, or respective governing body.

I certainly wouldn't want anyone in government telling me that I can't be married to a woman by a priest just because they thought it was distasteful or they had decided it was unlawful. I would say fuck them and that liberty entitled me the right to marry the woman of my chosing in full accordance with my particular religious Roman Catholic rights. I'm saddened to think that a southern state that I thought was more progressive accepted so willingly a constitutional amendment to make such a religious interest a government sanctioned limitation on personal freedom.

It's not just about deciding who you want to spend the rest of your life with, or the cosmos of having them reciprocate the sentiment - it's about society respecting you and your happiness. If they do not acknowledge your choice of life mate then they are making a statement against your person by restricting your rights and legal entitlements. Please forgive my use of the word entitlement as it is a major buzzword for the "haves" right now.

What I mean is that it is a disrespect of your devotion, of your secret heart filled promises. I have been married, I have felt devotion to someone that was incomparable to law, it was only something that as an Iberian ("hispanic") descendant I can only call Honor (using the Platonic ideology). If someone had called into question my choice of life mate at that time I would have just as happily driven a roman sword into their solar plexus. But I allow my prose to advance too far beyond my reasonable permitations...

Let's not suppose I am recommending violence, that would be the main point here. Where do we go?, though we are swept aside by conventional custom (I am assuming that I am treated the same as a LGBT) do we attempt to change spiritual faiths of tradition that have dispatched with what we grown to be or do we follow into the new age of mankind which merits a person by their abilities and distinctions? I think it's quite obvious.

Although I am quite liberal in some respects, I am whole-heartedly conservative in others. I am, however, steadfast when it comes to how I want my government run and what I believe those sacred documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments say about who we are as a nation, how we are to relate to the rest of the world, and who we allow ourselves to become within the limits of natural development.

That natural development was a premonition to the founding fathers but is being tested now by rigid conservatives who don't know the difference between church and state. I simplify here. It's really a difference between prescription and proscription. Where is the balance of what to not do and what to do? What exactly do they think they'll lose by having two MARRIED gay guys (or gals) parade into a South Beach restaurant, anyway?

Back on point, I wish things had been more progressive for my LGBT bretheren. I must again point out that though as Voltaire I may not approve of you or your "transgressions" (not his words) I do not agree with laws to alter or inhibit them. Call me a liberal Catholic who is densely influenced by a conservative interpretation of John Stuart Mill.