Accidently posted in GD: I am breaking my boycott for one thread and one reason

[Tyler Durden]

That reason is my unqualified support of and solidarity with the GLBT community, and my sorrow at their being once again dismissed on the national stage.

In my years of political activity since carrying a sign supporting Robert Kennedy, I have celebrated the successes of citizens of this nation that I have worked to support; the homeless, the disabled, people of color, non-union workers, farm workers...all who have slowly achieved some modicum of political and social equality in this country. They have battles yet to fight, but they have had advances.

But now, as one of the groups I have supported and who has worked so hard with all of these communities in the past once again is left to be minimized and discriminated against once again, I am filled with a sorrow that may eventually end my participation in national politics forever.

I am tired to my bones of mourning the friends I have lost to the closet, HIV, suicide and anonymity.
I am sick to death of the tyranny practiced in this country by the failure of politicians to support the basic tenant of the Constitution: Equal Treatment Under The Law.
I am angered beyond rage to see the justifications for excusing these behaviors in so-called political "leaders."
AND I am appalled beyond my ability to reason when I see others who claim to represent causes I have worked, sweat, and in some cases bled over, dismiss these fellow citizens in their fight for equality.

It is not enough to regret tacit support for bigotry.
It is not enough to support "separate but equal" treatment.
It is not enough to allow participation but deny identity.

Nothing is enough, except Equal Treatment Under The Law, and anything less is one more step down the road to the eventual, and I now believe inevitable, end of the Republic as we know it.

Without Equal Treatment Under The Law, nothing else makes any sense.

Today, as the members of the GLBT Community on this forum vent their rage at the failure of both the country and their fellow citizens to grant them their most basic rights as people in this society, I cannot share their discrimination as I don't share their identity, but I CAN do what I always have done, everyone here should do and has not done:

I stand in solidarity and support of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Community, and I vocally, monetarily, and PHYSICALLY stand with you in your fight, which is most truly a fight for the rights of us all.

[zabet]

1. Excellent post!

:thumbsup:

[Tyler Durden]

2. Yeah, for all the good it will do....

Do you know this June it will be 39 YEARS since Stonewall???

June 28, 1969.

[caseycoon]

3. ABSOLUTE. EQUAL RIGHTS. FOR. EVERY CITIZEN!

There is no acceptable alternative EVER!

[Tyler Durden]

15. Goes back to something called "The Constitution," I believe.

But the politicians have used that as a shit rag for too long. You can't read it through the 1" thick layer of excrement.

[caseycoon]

22. Sadly true :o( n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Will you vote in November for a candidate who is stridently opposed to equal marriage?

I recommended your post (well written, by the way, thanks!) but I still have to ask:

At this point, the Democrats WILL be nominating someone who is on the record as strongly against equal rights and who supports Jim Crow marriage if and only if a state wants to implement separate and unequal. Does that factor in with your statement of solidarity to my community and my equal rights, and if so, how?

[Tyler Durden]

7. Don't you think this keeps me up at night?

I won't work for EITHER of them. I "HOPE" to use someone's BS phrase, that the convention deadlocks and they pick someone else.

Maybe it SHOULD be McCain. "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out."

[IndianaJones]

10. this post has really made me face some hard questions. nt.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. All the remaining candidates oppose gay marriage.

And all the Democratic candidates support civil unions.

What's your point?

[Tyler Durden]

14. The point is that the Rule of Law is past being on "life support,"

IT'S DEAD.

When NOT ONE SINGLE CANDIDATE in a national election will stand up for Equal Protection Under The Law as GUARANTEED by the Constitution, then the Rule of Law is truly dead.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. You reiterated my point correctly

All the remaining candidates oppose equal marriage. They are, as a matter of record, very much opposed to equal marriage. They support civil unions; since civil unions are not marriage, do not convey all of the same rights as marriage and cannot partake in any legal precedent with regards to marriage, civil unions are separate and inherently inequal to marriage, thus my use of the phrase "Jim Crow marriage." They are opposed to nationally mandated civil unions, and support civil unions only to the extent that an individual state wants to implement civil unions; if a state wants to remain in benighted bigotry, it is acceptable to all the remaining candidates.

What is YOUR point?

Edited for content.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. They are NOT opposed to nationally mandated civil unions.

Obama has said flat out that he would have DOMA struck down. Hillary would keep 'half' of it.

By striking down DOMA, the most liberal state's marriage or civil union law would have to be honored by all states. So if Massachusets allows gay marriage, then every state must honor that marriage.

If a state's civil union law is written to specifically mirror marriage law, then that is equality. But the key, of course, is federal law - specifically, eliminating DOMA. And only one candidate says he will do that.

[Tyler Durden]

18. SEPARATE but EQUAL is BULLSHIT.

All it takes is some State (LIKE MINE) to void the rights of "Civil Unions" as taking on the "appearance of Marriage."

Which they have.

The Constitution guarantees Equal Treatment Under The Law. PERIOD. Anything less is not acceptable. Would you accept "Mixed/Non-Mixed Marriage" status?

I thought not.

Clinton is wrong. Obama is wrong. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Myself, i don't believe the state should have any say in ANY

marriage. Everyone should have civil unions. If someone want 'marriage' they can go to a rabbi or a priest AFTER they have gotten the legal civil union. Furthermore, it should not be predicated on them having sex, of any kind. Two elderly sisters sharing a home and all living expenses should be able to file joint tax returns. A guy who is a live-in caretaker to his invalid mother should be able to file joint returns with her - or, for that matter, a person who is a live-in caretaker to someone completely non-related, but who is not there as an employee, should have the same rights.

I don't understand what the hang up on the word 'marriage' is - if, as I predicated above, civil unions are defined in law as being fully equal, with NO discrepancies in rights afforded to the participants, what's the difference?

BTW, my sister and her partner were married last year. They ARE married, but denied their equal rights because NC does not recognise their UNION.

The key is equal RIGHTS, not a fucking word.

[Tyler Durden]

20. Leave a pig wiggle room, he's out of the pen.

Leave any option for some bigots in some state, well, you get the picture.

There should be no options but equality.

[TechBear_Seattle]

23. For crying out loud, how often does this lie need to be slayed?

Ok, kiddies, listen up:

IN THE UNITED STATES, MARRIAGE IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN A CIVIL UNION.

If it were not, the First Amendment would make it illegal for any government entity to recognize marriage in any way, shape or form, in exactly the same way that government agencies are prohibited from acknowledging things such as baptism, confirmation and bar mitzvah. It would likewise be illegal for any law to regulate who may and may not get married or any law to regulate the hows and wherefores of the dissolution of a marriage.

If marriage were a religious thing, religious ceremony and/or recognition would be a requirement for marriage. It is not: many people in the US are married in civil ceremonies conducted by judges, magistrates, justices of the peace and other civil celebrants. If marriage were a religious thing, there would be no need to file any kind of civil papers such as marriage licenses with any kind of civil authorities, as such requirements would violate the First Amendment.

The facts that the government does recognize marriage, that the government does regulate marriage, does allow for entirely civil marriages and does require the filing of civil documents should be proof to anyone with a 5th grade education in American civics that marriage is, in fact, a civil union.

That religions and religious institutions use the same word to represent the perceived "sanctity" of that civil institution is totally and undeniably irrelevant to the matter of legal marriage.

Edited for grammar.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. Supporting a repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act is not the same as supporting a repeal of slavery

That Clinton and Obama would ask Congress to repeal a bigoted law that is inherently unconstitutional does not, in any way, imply that they support what that law was designed to prohibit. I dare say that the candidates' statements on the matter make that quite clear.

At a guess: you are straight and already have access to all the rights, benefits and priviledges that come from marrying your sweetheart (more than 2000 when you count federal and state laws, at least a thousand more when you figure in non-statutory benefits such as employer-provided benefits and court precedents.) Funny how that works out.

[theHandpuppet]

5. Thank you, Tyler Durden

Both for speaking out and for taking a stand.

:thumbsup:

[Tyler Durden]

8. I've been taking this stand for 39 years.

You'd think the rest of the country would have caught up by now.

[littlebit]

6. Great post

thank you

[JCMach1]

9. I agree 100%

[Tyler Durden]

11. And yet...where is the outrage from the masses?

The people HERE of all places who do not call or write on a daily basis their paper, their legislators, THEIR CANDIDATES.

The shame of this issue tears me up each time I contemplate it.

[JCMach1]

24. The same reason Hillary, Edwards, and Kerry voted for the IWR

they were AFRAID the electorate would like them less. It also the same reason Obama won't repudiate a fundamentalist homophobe just because he was a supporter and held the key to some votes in SC.

Progress on the issue cannot be made trying to please the indys and the Repugs... :(

That doesn't mean it has to be 'in your face' so to speak... but it better majorly move in the RIGHT DIRECTION.

Let me be the first to predict there will be NO gay marriage plank in the party platform.

[Little Star]

27. How right you are JCMach1. Everyone should read your post.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Thank you

A great post. Made my day. Peace.

[Bluebear]

25. With grateful thanks and affection to you.

[Little Star]

26. k/r

[Straight Shooter]

28. Hear, hear.

Eloquent.

[Silver Gaia]

29. K&R

In memory of my brother, whose life should not have been so hard and full of pain.

Thank you.

[terrya]

30. Thank you.

Recommended.