Mobilize! Stop Anti-Gay Amendment!

[xita]

In the mood for a little activism? Here are some ways you can help and help protect the rights of all human beings. Marriage = love



I've picked up a few links that some kittens have posted. Feel free to add any links that might be helpful but please keep discussion to the already existing threads.





ACLU fax your congressman in 2 clicks



Human Rights Campaign Fundraising



1,000,000 for Marriage - Petition

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

Edited by: xita  at: 2/28/04 8:11 am

[Puff]

DontAmend.com



Has a petition and information.

---

So, the day started and I knew my name and had my pants on. So far, so good. Yay.
Amber Benson

[puddytat]

www.hatecrime.org/mary/



Write an automated letter to Mary Cheney... she's supporting her dad's stance on the marriage amendment.

[Gatito Grande]

www.democrats.org/glbt/ac...40001.html



The above is a petition sponsored by the GLBT Caucus of the Democratic Party (and celeb spokesperson, Margaret Cho). By signing, you can send a message to Bush, and also underscore to the sometimes-less-than-completely-committed Democrats the importance of this issue.



GG They'll probably try to hit you for $ eventually---of course, that's true of most of these (worthy) organizations! Out

[puddytat]

*moved here



Any articles can be posted in that thread, this thread is for links to any actions/petitions/letters etc.

Edited by: Repost Moderator at: 2/29/04 4:41 pm

[WebWarlock]

Keep it mind, this is the site for the opposition. (I got this from the HRC).



www.protectmarriage.org



If you want to know how to fight you need to know what they are doing.



Besides, they have a huge database of phone numbers and addresses of elected officials, please use it to let them know how you feel.



And for your reference,

The US Constitution

Amending the Constitution

And for full reference, The Declaration of Independence



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

"Razzle, dazzle, drazzle, drone, time for this one to come home." - The Replacements, "Hold My Life"

[WiccanSpud]

this ad is pretty cool...



Million for Marriage Ad



-spud

“If you kiss my girl I’ll rip your lips off,” Willow said sweetly. “In a precise, methodical manner. Then I’ll tell Anya why you’re lipless.”

“Welcome back,” Xander grinned.-Instruments Available Season 6 by Jixer

[WebWarlock]

This is different enough from my post above to merit another post.



Here are the various canidates running for various offices points of view on GLBT issues.



Again, make of them what you will.



John Kerry, Democrat

George Bush, Republican (not needed I am sure, but informed is armed)

Ralph Nader, Green(?)

Michael Badnarik, Libertarian

Gary Nolan, Libertarian





Senate (sorry, I live in Illinois so these are the people I have a choice of) one seat will be vacant in 2004.

Jack Ryan, Republican and Ex-Husband of actress Jerri "Seven of Nine" Ryan

Barack Obama, Democrat



The republicans are predictible in their stance, but the democrats are all over the place. Obama has the best track record GLBT, but Pappas has the best for women.



Hope some one can get some use out of these links.



ETA: Added the Libertarian canidates.

ETA2 (3/16): Primaries in IL, dropped the losing Senate canidates.



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

"Razzle, dazzle, drazzle, drone, time for this one to come home." - The Replacements, "Hold My Life"

Edited by: WebWarlock at: 3/16/04 7:57 pm

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

I have written the following letter to both the leaders of the major parties in Britain and Scotland (where I live). I hope I got the tone right.



GAY MARRIAGE – WHY IT SHOULD HAPPEN





There has been a great deal of media time given over to the question of whether Gay couples should have the right of marriage. I would like to present my reasons as to why they should.



It is my position that it is not so much a case that a clear argument must needs to be made to allow gay people the right of marriage, but that there is no clear cut argument to bar them from it. The most common arguments used to bar same-sex marriages are as follows:



a)        Religious

b)        Moral

c)        That it attacks the sanctity of marriage

d)        That it opens the door to deviant behaviour being made acceptable



I will now explain my reasons as to why none of the above arguments actually hold any credence in this debate. My argument is specifically aimed at the British legal system but I feel it applies in spirit to the American situation too.



RELIGIOUS



Many of the anti-gay lobbyists mention that the chief reason for denying marriage is that it is not accepted by the major religions. There are several points to make on this:



1)        Whilst it is true that the Jewish and Muslim faiths have a clear line on homosexuality, so do the Wiccan and Buddhist faiths. They see homosexuality as a natural, not a deviant, state and do not consider being gay to be wrong or sinful in any way. I find it particularly interesting that those religions with an omnipotent deity have a problem with gay people whilst those religions that deal with spirituality and of being at one with nature do not consider being gay as an impediment.



2)        Christianity, the biggest religion of the west, can’t even formulate a coherent policy on homosexuality. From the rights and wrongs of being gay to the ordination of Gay priests, the Christian church seems split down the middle on this issue. However, it is interesting to note that those who rail against homosexuality most are those who are considered “right-wing” by the general populace whilst those who see no problem with homosexuality (such as the Desmond Tutu) are more open-minded and world-revered for their passionate understanding not only of the words, but the meanings behind the Bible. It seems clear to me that whilst this split exists, the Bible cannot be used as an accurate source on which to lay a claim of barring gay marriage.



3)        More importantly, the vast majority of the populace in the Western world are non-denominational, not following of any one faith or are out-right atheists. Therefore religious arguments hold even less credence as they are followed by only a handful of the general population.



As can be seen, the religious case is tentative at best but others use the general moral case to oppose marriage.



MORAL



Homosexuality is seen as immoral to many people and any concession is seen as an erosion of morals by the state. However these moral arguments do not stand up to close scrutiny. Indeed the erosion of marriage by immorality is already a fact of life. As these examples show.



a)        We have read of many cases where the age gap between the couple is large. Indeed as the Anna Nicole Smith case showed, sometimes there might be other reasons, i.e. money, that contributes to the marriage. Indeed there is the great urban myth of someone marrying an elderly millionaire with a dodgy heart and not much else going for them. We there is often a grain of truth to the claims of women (and men) who will only marry if the person earns a certain amount of money (gold-diggers exist). Whilst these relationships may be morally dubious, they are legally allowed.



b)        Then there are the many cases of people marrying someone from this country (or indeed in an EU country) in order to be able to live and work in this country. Whilst the marriage itself is clearly duplicitous morally the marriage itself is binding and legal. The couple would still have to go through a divorce or annulment before they could marry again.



c)        Meanwhile, a gay couple who have lived together as a couple for X number of years are denied the right to make that relationship legally viable to the court and the state due to a draconian system of discrimination.



One must ask, where is the justice? When so many abuses of marriage occur, why should we deny the right of marriage to those who would wish to make it sacred again?



THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE



This is the most common used argument against same-sex marriage but, ironically, the most flawed for several reasons.



1)        The idea that allowing gay couples to marry weakens marriage as a concept is, frankly, absurd. Opening up marriage to gay couples strengthens the case for marriage rather than weakens it. It states by this action that the Government believe in marriage, the coming together of two people who love each other and wish to live together in a legally bound, State-recognised position of life-long monogamy, as so important to the strength of the nation that they are willing to allow marriage on the basis of that love and strength and depth of feeling and not put artificial barriers (which disallowing gay marriage is) to stop it. Providing that the relationship is legal (see below about this) then the Government should hold no bar against those who are in love from seeking full recognition from the state. This of course, is the reason why Civil Partnerships are wrong morally, as they bar full recognition for gay couples.



2)        Other detractors believe that marriage is for procreation, and that by default gay couples should not get married because they cannot naturally procreate. Yet this is a meaningless standard to argue on. Many couples, who have reached the twilight of their years get married even though they cannot have children. Also there are many people who get married where one or the other (sometimes both) are infertile and this does not bar their marriage. This argument, oft used, is a smoke and mirrors distraction from the real issues, which are equality and justice.



3) Indeed, if you look at the legal situation here in Britain, the barring of gay

        marriage is absurd. It is perfectly legal to be gay (to the point where there is anti-

        discrimination laws in place), the ages of consent are equal for both heterosexuals

        and homosexuals and being in a homosexual relationship isn’t illegal either, it is

        simply not recognised fully as a relationship by the state. As it stands the asking

        for gay marriage is less of a leap across some dark chasm as it is a small skip over

        a crack in the law which common sense and decency tells us can only be fixed by

        the legalising of gay marriage.



Again this takes us back to the argument surrounding Civil Partnerships. Whilst any recognition is welcome, it is not far enough as it still, by it’s very nature, looks upon gay couples and gay relationships as second-class citizens. In a so-called civilised society, accepting gay relationships but then demoting them to second-class is offensive and shows a clear lack of understanding to the problem. Civil Partnerships are better than nothing, but they are nothing but a stepping stone, not the end of the matter, and it is a foolish politician who believes that this will quieten the cries for equality for any considerable time.





SEXUAL DEVIANCY



One of the most sickening arguments used is that by allowing gay people to marry you are opening the door for those who commit child abuse, incest, bestiality or wish for bigamy and polygamy to made legal will have won a moral victory. This argument comes from those who see homosexuals in the same category as these other sexual deviants. This argument of course has no merit for the obvious reason that in this country being gay is legal, whilst the others are illegal. This argument is again another attempt to hide the truth of the matter within a spin of emotive language designed to hide the facts under a cloud of fear by instilling the notion of criminals gaining credibility by this action.



Bigamists in particular are considered to be interested in this law but again they miss the point. Gay people only wish equality and inclusion. That marriage only exists between two people they believe in as fundamental to the vows they exchange.



In summation, the fears and prejudices and arguments used to bar gay marriage simply do not hold water. There is no single argument that cannot be dealt with if the people viewing the arguments do not close their minds to the facts, and ignore the cringe-worthy rhetoric of the opponents.



If politicians truly believe in equality, in justice, in fairness and in the idea of freedom to be as we are then they will support Gay marriage. To not do so is a fundamental betrayal to all the aforementioned principles.

TARA AND WILLOW 2GETHER 4EVER!!! BLESSED BE ETERNALLY!!!

[justin]

Thanks AmbersSecretAdmirer. Not only was that a detailed and well laid out argument but I also learnt something new from it. Since I hadn't known that the age of consent for heterosexuals and gay men had been equalised.

Postel's Prescription: Be generous in what you accept, rigorous in what you emit.

[Lt Sticks]

that was beautiful, everything i felt about this issue, summed up in a long post.

0-100 Members, 23/2/04...the strength has returned...

I'm Under Your Spell, nothing I can do, you just took my soul with you...

JediBites.Com Forums

[The Partisan]

Excellent summation, AmbersSecretAdmirer; I do have a question, though.



You say,

Quote:

---

3) More importantly, the vast majority of the populace in the Western world are non-denominational, not following of any one faith or are out-right atheists. Therefore religious arguments hold even less credence as they are followed by only a handful of the general population.

---

Are you sure on that vast majority claim? The surveys I've looked at indicate around 80% Christian for the USA, 70% Christian for the UK, 80% Protestant and/ or Catholic in Germany, and so forth...Even if you assume that a lot of those numbers are Christian in name only...it's still a big stretch to call them non-denomination in my eyes, let alone, a vast majority thereof.



Other than that, excellent work, but that one point really stuck out as odd to me.



Cheers.

[GiftofAmber]

Another minor change: Judaism is also very divided on the subject of homosexuality. So much so, that for years, I wasn't even aware that there were sects that actually had a problem with it.

[tyche]

Mass Equality are leading the fight against amending the Mass. constitution to prevent gay marriage, and they need money to run TV ads. If you want to check out their website, they have a whole load of news and links about gay marriage.

[Edited to remove dodgy link - see post below.]

Links via Atrios.

Edited by: tyche at: 3/11/04 2:14 pm

[Sally McFine]

Another thing to do is to vote in the 2004 elections, and all the primary elections. Many of the 23+ states that are considering state constitutional amendments (in addition to the nefarious federal amendment) have a long process wherein the state legislature must pass the proposed amendment twice in two consecutive sessions.



Utah's House and Senate have already passed an amendment and it will be on the ballot this fall, in 2004. Wisconsin's Assembly passed theirs, and the Senate will vote this week - likely it will pass. Michigan's House is set to vote this week, and it's too close to call. The Georgia amendment is on the brink of passage. And that's just 4 states - there are 19 more.



And speaking of the bad federal amendment (the Musgrave Amendment, we've taken to calling it, because calling it the 'Federal Marriage Amendment' gives it too much credit) - there could be as many as four other versions in the hopper. Senator Hatch of Utah is drafting one that is different and might get more support - since it would appear to leave open a door for civil unions. VERY dangerous because members of Congress somehow think that they can still appear moderate by supporting civil unions. And they're not!



If we can vote out the people who vote in favor of these amendments on Election Day, Nov. 2, 2004, then in 2005 if they take them up again hopefully we'll have a majority who opposes them.



So it's important to register to vote in most states - if you've never been registered, or if you have moved since you last registered. And also, take the Pledge to Vote while you're at it - make a commitment that you will vote in 2004.



You can do both of these things at:



www.hrc.org/campaign2004



Or if you're already registered, and you're sure that you're registered, you can take the Pledge at:



www.hrcactioncenter.org/actioncenter/pledge_to_vote

[Sally McFine]

...there seemed to be something amiss with that link to the matching donations page in your post, tyche - not sure what the problem was but it came up a 404.



You can get to the Matching Donations Page through:



www.hrc.org/massequality

[vix84]

A current forward going around, I think it expresses a lot of the confusion we are feeling.



(A letter from Bette Midler to President Bush - apparently she handed it out at her concert...one person making a difference...)



Dear President Bush,

Today you called upon Congress to move quickly to amend the US Constitution, and set in Federal stone a legal definition

of marriage. I would like to know why.



In your speech, you stated that this Amendment would serve to protect marriage in America, which I must confess confuses me. Like you, I believe in the importance of marriage and I feel that we as a society take the institution far too lightly. In my circle of family, friends and acquaintances, the vast majority have married and divorced - some more than once. Still, I believe in marriage. I believe that there is something fundamental about finding another person on this planet with whom you want to build a life and family, and make a positive contribution to society. I believe that we need more positive role models for successful marriage in this country - something to counteract the images we get bombarded with in popular culture. When we are assaulted with images of celebrities of varying genres, be it actors, sports figures, socialites, or even politicians who shrug marriage on and off like the latest fashion, it is vitally important to the face of our nation, for our children and our future, that we have a balance of commitment and fidelity with which to stave off the negativity. I search for these examples to show my own daughter, so that she can see that marriage is more than a disposable whim, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.



As a father, I'm sure you have faced these same concerns and difficulties in raising your own daughters. Therefore I can

also imagine that you must understand how thrilled I have been over the past few weeks to come home and turn on the

news with my family. To finally have concrete examples of true commitment, honest love, and steadfast fidelity was such a relief and a joy. Instead of speaking in the hypothetical, I was finally able to point to these men and women, standing together for hours in the pouring rain, and tell my child that this is what its all about. Forget Britney. Forget Kobe. Forget Strom. Forget about all the people that we know who have taken so frivolously the pure and simple beauty of love and tarnished it so consistently. Look instead at the joy in the beautiful faces of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon - 51 years together!



I mean, honestly Mr. President - how many couples do you know who are together for 51 years? I'm sure you agree that

this love story provides a wonderful opportunity to teach our children about the true meaning and value of marriage. On the

steps of San Francisco City Hall, rose petals and champagne, suits and veils, horns honking and elation in the streets; a

celebration of love the likes of which this society has never seen.



This morning, however, my joy turned to sadness, my relief transformed into outrage, and my peace became anger. This

morning, I watched you stand before this nation and belittle these women, the thousands who stood with them, and the

countless millions who wish to follow them. How could you do that, Mr. President? How could you take something so

beautiful - a clear and defining example of the true nature of commitment - and declare it to be anything less? What is it

that validates your marriage which somehow doesn't apply to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? By what power, what authority

are you so divinely imbued that you can stand before me and this nation and hold their love to a higher standard?



Don't speak to me about homosexuality, Mr. President. Don't tell me that the difference lies in the bedroom. I would never

presume to ask you or your wife how it is you choose to physically express your love for one another, and I defy you to stand before Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and ask them to do the same. It is none of my business, as it is none of yours,

and it has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage". I'm sure you would agree that marriage is far more than sexual

expression, and its high time we all started focusing on all the other aspects of a relationship which hold it together over

the course of a lifetime. Therefore, with the mechanics of sex set aside, I ask you again - what makes a marriage? I firmly

believe that whatever definition you derive, there are thousands upon thousands of shining examples for you to embrace.



You want to protect marriage. I admire and support that, Mr. President. Together, as a nation, let us find and celebrate

examples of what a marriage should be. Together, let us take couples who embody the principles of commitment, fidelity,

sacrifice and love, and hold them up before our children as role models for their own futures. Together, let us reinforce the concept that love is about far more than sex, despite what popular culture would like them to believe.



Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society, for the sake of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the guise of protection, do not support divisiveness. Under the guise of unity, do not endorse discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity, do not devalue commitment. Under the guise of democracy, do not encourage this amendment.



Bette Midler

~*@.......We are the weirdest person in the world.......@*~

[Gatito Grande]

Wow: it's like watching a game of telephone come back around.



vix84, falsely attributed forwards circle through email all the time, but it's pretty amazing to see one that originated very close to here.



The letter is not by Bette Midler, rather it's by the girlfriend of a Kitten (GODisTigger pub106.ezboard.com/btheki...istigger). Posted to her blog, www.livejournal.com/users...004/02/24/ it's already become an urban legend, as detailed here: www.snopes.com/politics/s...midler.asp



The important thing is the sentiment, sure (and I have little doubt Bette Midler is on the right side of the issue ), but let's give credit where credit is due!



GG Kittens Rule (and our gf/SOs are pretty kewl too)! Out

[Urn of Osiris]

Interestingly enough I am one that generally dislikes forwarded emails for this reason. Vix84 and I read that and were inspired by the message. In fact on this issue I am a forwarding whore. Formal apologies to those in my contact list.



I forwarded it to just about every human being that I know, and a dog in Maine. He's an activist for sure. Little rainbow booties and quite the parade supporter. Anyway...



Thanks for clearing that up GG. I now must post apologies to my contacts and clear it all up. Do I have to send a letter to Bush the Bigot?

Urn of Osiris"Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story." Max Ehrmann Desiderata

[xita]

No worries urnie, that's why urban legends are fascinating. I'd love to know where the bette midler connection was made though, seems pretty out there.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

Edited by: xita  at: 3/11/04 7:06 am

[emma peel]

xita, perhaps someone saw it on the blog, copied it, and gave it to Bette at one of the stops on her "Kiss My Brass" tour. Maybe she read it to the audience or something. When she was here in Atlanta a few weeks ago, she had a few choice zingers on JayDubya.

Edited to add that I received the mailing two days ago. I emailed my friend back the link attributing it to Stephanie.

Kittens are everywhere!

Thanks for those links, GG. Much appreciated!!

Edited by: emma peel at: 3/11/04 11:07 pm

[Gatito Grande]

. . . stranger things have happened. {new urban legend starting as I type}



You're welcome, emma peel, but it really wasn't my doing. I'm just doing the copying thang. maudmac reported the urban legend link (which contained the original blog entry by Steph), and of course GODisTigger had the original story here on the K (noting the weirdness of the BM attribution, which had already started).



But I can contribute something new here: the following site reports that 34+ Senators have committed to opposing the amendment: making it DOA!



www.democraticunderground...04x1163292



But Don't Let Up the Pressure!



GG Can't believe one of mine, Carl Levin, isn't on the list (Must.Write.Again.) Out

[mandyanyone]

In speech class we had to give a persuasive speech. Today i gave my speech on Same-sex marriage. I thought i would share it with you all. (Be aware my grammar is bad..heh)



Thank you.

Mandy



*****************************************



Picture this…your best friend and companion is in the hospital. But instead of being by their side, you are denied access to see them. Why? Because legally your relationship isn’t accepted. Hospital visitation is one of thousands of spousal rights that are being denied to same sex couples. Social Security Benefits are another. How about those who fall in love with someone from another country? They have no rights that allow that person to come live with them to achieve citizenship. We have all heard of Family leave, if your loved one was ill, and you need to stay home to take care of them. Same-sex couples are not granted this right and it could cost them their jobs.



Answer me this…When you get old, growing older with the person you love, and perhaps need to go to a nursing home…Who do you want by your side in those last few moments? In todays world it would not be your loved one, same sex couples are denied this right too. They cannot even live together in nursing homes.



Same-sex couples deserve the same rights as hetero couples. This is why I would like you to Vote No on the Constitutional Amendment, stating that marriage is a union between ONLY a man and a woman. And that same-sex rights, even the rights they now have, should be dissolved.



Representative John Lewis or Georgia said and I quote:



“We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.”



End quote. The Boston Globe November 25, 2003.



Research over the years has proved that sexual orientation is not a choice, it is not a disease, and it cannot be changed. You are attracted to who you are attracted to. You cannot help that it is a part of you like your bone structure and your eye color.



Many people say that in the eyes of God it is a sin. If that is your belief then so be it. My point isn’t to change your beliefs in god, But to perhaps open your eyes a bit wider. Man interprets the bible.



The framers of our constitution established the separation of church and state. To many people, Marriage has a significant religious meaning. But it is also a legal contract. And it is that specifically that is being debated. Not the religious acceptance of same sex unions. However, there are many religions that have begun to accept, allow, and even perform same sex marriages.



Columnist David Brooks of the New York times wrote: quote



“We shouldn’t Just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage.” End quote



Over the last 200 years the US constitution has been amended 17 times. All except one, was to extend rights and liberties to the American People, not restrict them.



Three million one hundred thirty six thousand nine hundred and twenty one.



According to the US Census in 2000…this was the number of Same sex couples living in the United states. 99.3 percent of counties Nation wide, is a home to at least ONE same sex couple.



In 2001 the Netherlands became the first country to allow same sex marriages. Two years later Belgium. But it is restricted to citizens and residents only.



In June 2003, Ontario became the first Canadian province to allow same sex marriages. In July 2003, British Columbia…becoming the first place American same sex couples could get married.



In February 2004, San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples after the mayor declared that the state constitution forbade him to discriminate.



Between 1 million and 9 million children in the US are being raised by same sex parents. Among the highest percentages of states with same sex parents….The South. Mississippi Having one of the highest.



In 2002 16.7 percent of hate crimes were against victims based on their sexual orientation. In 2001. 13.9 percent.



In 1998 there were a reported 2,552 sexually discriminative hate crimes…in only 16 different cities across the country.



February 1, 1993

Mobile Alabama

A bisexual man was beaten by three sailors who attributed the assault to their anger about president Clintons plan to end the ban on gays in the military.



June 18, 1993

Auburn Alabama

A gay man allegedly was taunted and beaten at a restaurant. Wayne Johnson was convicted of harassment, fined $100 and court charges, then given a 30-day suspended sentence.



February 19, 1999

Sylacauga Alabama

Billy Jack Gaither, 39 was abducted, beaten to death with an ax handle, and set afire on burning tires in a remote area. One of his assailants, Steven E. Mullins, 25, pled guilty to beating him to death with an ax handle…for allegedly making a pass at him.



October 12, 1998

Laramie Wyoming

Matthew Shepard, 21, an openly gay student at the university of Wyoming, was savagely beaten to death, burned and tied to a wooden fence and left to die.



The amendment under consideration will single out gay and lesbian Americans for discrimination. How many more people have to die, get beaten or abused, before we stop telling them discrimination against gays and lesbians OR ANYONE is ok?



Please take a moment to think. Then urge your members of Congress to oppose the federal marriage amendment, or any constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. Write your congressman. Go to the website I have here. (http://www.hrc.org http://www.millionformarriage.com) Do what you can to take action against this discrimination. Talk to your friends, share what you’ve learned with friends. Your voice will make a difference.



***************************************

"Introductions are tricky in a lesbian relationship. It's a word game. To my friends she's my lover, to strangers and family members in denial she's my roommate, to Jehovah's Witnesses at the door she's my lesbian sex slave, and to my mother she's Jewish and that's all that matters." ~~~Denise McCanles

Edited by: mandyanyone at: 3/31/04 10:58 pm

[The girl who talks but do]

Heysies,

That is an amazing speech! I totally agreed before, but if I didn't, I would now! lol

I've never been badly abused because of my orientation, but I used to get snide comments, y'know "lemon!" or "dyke!" which didn't bother me much, because it was usually cos I was with my girlfriend at the time, but when I'm walking through town by myself and some girl from school that I've never spoken to shouts "LESBIAN!" at me it's kinda disturbing...it probably only hurt as much as it did cos I was single by then I don't really get it much now, I've found that once you're out and have been out for a while they get bored lol

I couldn't believe it when I heard about the amendment, but then I thought 'George Bush' and suddenly I believed it what a jerk

love'n'hugs

cath

[kpmuse]

It's time to call Your Senators Kittens:



Republicans Schedule Vote On Anti-Gay Amendment

by Paul Johnson

365Gay.com Newscenter

Washington Bureau Chief



Posted: June 18, 2004 2:29 pm ET



(Washington) The Senate will vote on a proposed amendment to ban gay marriage the week of July 12. The announcement was made today at a Capitol Hill news conference.



The vote will come just two weeks before the start of the Democratic national convention, July 26 in Boston, and is seen as a way of embarrassing Democrats most of whom are opposed to the amendment.



"It demonstrates the disgusting nature of the GOP leadership, specifically doing this in an attempt to embarrass Democrats. But its the Republicans who should be embarrassed," John Marble a spokesperson for National Stonewall Democrats told 365Gay.com.



Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) denied scheduling the vote to coincide with the Democratic convention.



"This was an issue that was thrust upon us by the Massachusetts Supreme Court," Cornyn told reporters. "We didn't pick the battle, we didn't pick the timing."



More than a dozen court cases are either pending or being prepared challenging laws barring same-sex marriage.



"We must not stand still when the courts are being used to challenge and distort civilization's oldest, most venerable social institution," Cornyn said.



Word began circulating on Capitol Hill earlier this week that the Republican leadership was anxious for a Senate vote. (story) Republicans not only want to use the issue in the election, but also to energize the GOP.



Conservative Christian activists have been pressing for a July vote, sending out mass emailings to supporters calling on them to lobby their senators to support the amendment.



"Force your senators to take a public position before voters go to the polls this fall," the Christian Coalition is telling its supporters.



President Bush this week in a satellite address to the Southern Baptist Convention's annual meeting in Indianapolis reiterated his call for Congress to vote on the amendment. (story) A week earlier he called on the Pope to step up the Catholic Church's opposition to gay marriage (story)



But even Cornyn, and the amendment's chief sponsor in the Senate, Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Col.) admit they are not even certain they can get the measure through.



"We're not certain we'll be successful in this effort," Cornyn said.



Democratic presidential contender Sen. John Kerry has criticized the proposed amendment as an effort to drive a political wedge between Americans. He has supported civil unions and said the issue of marriage should be left to the states. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., a possible running mate, has expressed a similar stance.



The Human Rights Campaign was critical of the GOP for scheduling the vote.



"Congress should focus on the real priorities of the American people: jobs, the economy and the war in Iraq," said HRC spokesperson Steven Fisher.



Amendments to the Constitution require approval by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.

[Gatito Grande]

Hey people, this is the week! The Senate is debating this NOW (the vote is predicted for Wednesday, July 14).



It's thought to have not near enough votes to pass, but let's not take a chance, 'kay? *Even* if you've done it before, CALL OR EMAIL YOUR SENATORS (both of 'em) ASAP!



GG Check the start of the thread for info on how to find, call, and/or email them. Out



ETA: And what could be easier than clicking this link, filling in your personal info, and BINGO! Emails sent to *both* Senators and your House Representative?



Please, folks, I just heard a 'phobic Senator chortling about how "we're all hearing from our constituents about how they want to defend marriage!" Just do it (contact them, using the above link, or some other way) NOW! (Or do it again!)

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 7/12/04 10:23 am

[Willowlicious]

I heard on OutQ Radio (on Sirius Satellite) that HRC is begging people to CALL their senators today. Just go to http://www.hrc.org and they have posted the main Senate phone number, plus a link to all the individual senators' lines. Apparently, those who think the amendment SHOULD pass are calling their senators at a 2 to 1 margin over those who think it should NOT pass.



While there is little chance this amendment can pass, it is important to defeat this proposal by as large a margin as possible in order to put a stake in it and keep it from rising again (and again and again...those 'phobes are persistant if nothing else). So, please call your senator and try to beat this thing and beat it big.

[Livelomaniac87]

Well, in one week we'll know the outcome whether it be good or bad ( please be good).

I wonder though... if the amendment were to pass (it better not!) what do you think will happen? What will the majority of the older gay population do? Fight harder? Not care? Move to Canada? (hehe) Just curious... It's a pick between Canada and fighting to me, but that's because I like Canada.

What would you do?



"I wait for you to understand, 'cause we need each other, we gotta love each other..."

[BBOvenGuy]

THE BILL IS DEAD!!!



Well, for this year, anyway.



The Senate Republicans who had hoped to put a bunch of Democrats on the spot and embarrass the Kerry/Edwards ticket couldn't even get their own act together. Republican support for the amendment bill crumbled so badly that now they can't even muster enough votes to pass the procedural matter of ending debate and conducting an actual vote on the bill. Today John McCain - last week's darling of the Bush reelection ads - told the Senate that the amendment bill was nothing but a waste of time. There simply weren't enough Senators who were willing to talk about sexuality on the Senate floor, and the general public doesn't think the amendment issue is important enough.



I'm sure there will be another attempt next year - although, of course, how far that attempt will get depends on who wins the White House and the Senate in November...

"The stories we tell - that's us explaining how we think the world works. Once we speak it, once we say it aloud, that makes it real for us - and real for everyone else who hears it too. When we tell a story, we invite people to visit our reality. We invite them to move in. Our stories are the reality we live in." - David Gerrold, The Martian Child

Edited by: BBOvenGuy  at: 7/13/04 8:40 pm

[WebWarlock]

Yup.



Here is the Trib's take. Remember the Chicago Tribune is a conservative Rebulican paper (why do I read it then? Well it still has better news than the alternatives here in town.)



www.chicagotribune.com/ne...i-news-hed

Quote:

---

Republicans in muddle on gay marriage

Amendment splits party in Senate



By Anastasia Ustinova

Washington Bureau

Published July 14, 2004



WASHINGTON -- When Senate Republicans recently announced their intent to vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, it seemed to be a political coup likely to divide the opposition, embarrass Democrats and put presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry in a tough spot.



But with a vote on the amendment scheduled for Wednesday, it is the Republicans who find themselves in disarray and scrambling to salvage something out of the fight. As the debate has progressed, it has become clear that supporters would fall far short of the votes needed for passage, potentially signaling the political weakness of their cause rather than its strength.



The original amendment, proposed by Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.), is garnering so little support that some Republicans have proposed a more moderate alternative. That has split GOP senators into two factions.



On Tuesday the Republicans found themselves blocking a vote on their own proposal, simply to keep it from facing an embarrassing defeat.



At least eight Republican senators are expected to vote against the marriage amendment, and the debate has showcased a division within the party between social conservatives and those who take a more libertarian, hands-off approach.



"Polls show that a majority of Americans oppose both gay marriage and a constitutional amendment," said Stephen Hess, a senior scholar at the Brookings Institution. "They went ahead with a constitutional amendment that could suggest prohibitions beyond the simple act of marriage. But as they read the signs, they started to pull back."



That is a far cry from the situation just a week ago, when Republicans were looking forward to a vote on their amendment declaring marriage to be a union between a man and a woman.



Over the weekend President Bush pushed for the amendment in his weekly radio address. He said that legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that the amendment can protect it.



Republican leaders never expected to get the 67 votes required to push forward a constitutional amendment. But they hoped the debate would show they are more in touch with the values of ordinary citizens.



The same-sex marriage debate erupted last year, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared that gays must be allowed to marry under its state constitution. In February, San Francisco and other cities sanctioned gay marriages until the courts stopped such nuptials.



Bush stepped into the fray in late February, calling reporters to the White House to announce his support for the amendment.



When Senate leaders announced they would hold a vote on the amendment, Democrats angrily complained that the sole intent was to force them to take a tough vote two weeks before their national convention.



Most Democrats--including Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.)--say they oppose gay marriage but feel the issue should be left to the states.



Debate reveals weakness



But as the debate has heated up this week, it has become clear that the amendment could go down to a major defeat, perhaps garnering little more than 40 votes and signaling that banning same-sex marriage does not have overwhelming popular support.



The original proposal for the amendment states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."



The second sentence of the proposed amendment has been taken to mean that states cannot be required to approve gay civil unions, which confer many of the same rights as marriage without the formal title.



In order to gain more votes, some Republicans tried to drop the reference to civil unions, but Democrats used procedural maneuvers to prevent that, apparently aiming to keep the amendment more restrictive and less likely to garner votes.



Further complicating the Republicans' position, Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, voiced apparent opposition to the marriage amendment Sunday, telling CNN that states should have authority over marriage laws. One of the Cheneys' daughters, Mary, is a lesbian.



A constitutional amendment would require approval by two-thirds of the Senate and the House, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. It is not clear whether the House will consider the marriage amendment this year.



Republicans trooped to the Senate floor Tuesday to extol the sanctity of marriage. Although most Americans oppose gay marriage, they said, judges are moving toward forcing it on states, and that's why the Constitution must be amended.



"Article V of the Constitution says we have a right to amend the Constitution when things have gone too far," said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a key backer of the amendment. "And things are going too far."



Democrats skip debate



Democrats stayed away for much of Tuesday's debate. But toward the end of the day, they showed up to make the case that the Constitution should not be amended unnecessarily and that the Senate has more important things to discuss, such as terrorism.



Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) accused the Republicans of playing politics.



"The `good reason' that is being given for this debate is to change the Constitution," Durbin said. "That's not the real reason. The real reason is to change the subject of the presidential election campaign."



Fearing that the amendment might fail to get even 50 votes--far fewer than the 67 needed to approve a constitutional amendment--Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) now plans a simple procedural vote Wednesday on whether to shut off debate and hold a vote.



Republicans are likely to lose the procedural vote, which requires 60 votes, and the issue would die. But they may get enough votes--if they can win a majority of the Senate--to declare a face-saving victory.



White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated Bush's position Tuesday, saying, "The president has made it very clear that he believes it's important to protect the sanctity of marriage."





Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

---

Other stories



GOP Pushes Gay-Marriage Amendment



Charges Tossed Vs. Gay-Marriage Ministers



Mass. Judge to Decide on Marriage Law



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

Me: I think I'll have a mid-life crisis and bring home a little red convertible Vette.

My wife: Fine, as long as you don't bring home some little red-head.