The Gay Fray

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Jul 28, 2004.


I am . . . .

  1. Homosexual

    25 vote(s)
  2. Heterosexual

    201 vote(s)
  3. Bisexual

    31 vote(s)
  4. Other (I would have complained if there wasn't an "other" option)

    16 vote(s)
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    There is little I can say right now; it is an expected decision, yet the moment itself is still surreal. Maybe I wasn't really expecting the decision until Monday.

    Much reading to do; the opinion is available↱, so there's my evening and weekend.

    This thread has run for nearly eleven years, and the whole time the point has been to create something of a record, so that when today arrived we would have something to look back at in order to remember that it wasn't actually a bad dream.

    My beloved America takes a step forward, breaks some of the chains that bind it to shame.

    And today I raise a toast to my traditionalist neighbors. Really, we could not have come this far without you. Indeed, your determination to inflict harm against my community over the last quarter-century is exactly the reason we have reached this threshold.

    Every time you asked people to look, they did, and often with new eyes. With each new request to harm people, fewer and fewer could look their friends and family in the eye and say yes.

    And then one day they looked at us, and what we were asking for―basic human rights and dignity―and said yes.

    And this happened millions of times, individual hearts and minds. This nation, transformed by hatred, rises to say no.

    Columbia smiles. Columbia shines.

    We made it, friends. We made it through this insanity, and today the whole of our nation can claim victory. This isn't just a gay rights victory, it is a triumph for the whole of these United States of America.
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    And so it begins..

    Nearly 11 years, and finally, we think we have reached the end of this thread.

    In theory, we should have. This should be the end of that fight in the US at least.

    Sadly, that is not the case. The story of this thread continues.

    A county clerk in Texas is refusing to issue gay marriage licenses, and pretending like she has a good reason. Denton County Clerk Juli Luke issued two statements today, the first saying that she’s refusing to issue the licenses because state law now conflicts with federal law, and the second claiming that actually it’s a “vendor issue.” Right. Rightrightrightrightright.

    Texas has always had a little trouble with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution—the one that says federal law supersedes state law—and today is no different. Here are Luke’s two statements, via North Texas Daily, the University of North Texas’ student paper:

    I took an oath to uphold the laws of Texas and the United States. It appears this decision now places our great state in a position where our state contradicts federal law. Based on this new conflict, I will be deferring to my legal counsel, District Attorney Paul Johnson, for guidance.

    And the second statement, a few hours later:

    I have no intention of defying today’s Supreme Court decision. The requirements on the application for a marriage license are both specific and state mandated. The application and license currently used by Denton County are generated by our software vendor. As previously stated, i took an oath to uphold the law and Section 2.012 of the Family Code states that it is a criminal offense not to comply with this subchapter.

    I have asked for additional clarification from the District Attorney’s office and I am awaiting their response to assist in speeding the process.

    Essentially, I feel a responsibility to take the time to ensure these licenses are issued properly and legally so that they are valid.

    And then this, also posted on a door to the office:

    Due to the changes that must be made through our vendor, this office is not issuing same sex marriage licenses today (6/26/15). We are sorry for the inconvenience.

    Juli Luke is a conservative Republican.

    She is not the only one trying to find a way to ignore the SC ruling.

    Elsewhere in Texas, both Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton are running their tiny lil feet off trying to figure out a way to not have to comply with federal law. Abbott issued a memo to all state agencies this afternoon, directing them to protect their employees’ religious liberties, i.e., let them decline to give out same-sex marriage licenses and say it’s a religious thing:

    I expect all agencies under my direction to prioritize compliance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Article I of the Texas Constitution, and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. All state agency heads should ensure that no June 26, 2015 Page 2 one acting on behalf of their agency takes any adverse action against any person, as defined in Chapter 311 of the Texas Government Code, on account of the person’s act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief. This order applies to any agency decision, including but not limited to granting or denying benefits, managing agency employees, entering or enforcing agency contracts, licensing and permitting decisions, or enforcing state laws and regulations.

    Paxton, meanwhile, also called it an issue of religious liberty, issuing a lengthy statement saying that he’ll always believe marriage is between one man and one woman and no mean liberals can make him think otherwise:

    But no court, no law, no rule, and no words will change the simple truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Nothing will change the importance of a mother and a father to the raising of a child. And nothing will change our collective resolve that all Americans should be able to exercise their faith in their daily lives without infringement and harassment.

    “We start by recognizing the primacy and importance of our first freedom – religious liberty. The truth is that the debate over the issue of marriage has increasingly devolved into personal and economic aggression against people of faith who have sought to live their lives consistent with their sincerely-held religious beliefs about marriage. In numerous incidents trumpeted and celebrated by a sympathetic media, progressives advocating the anti-traditional marriage agenda have used this issue to publicly mock, deride, and intimidate devout individuals for daring to believe differently than they do. This ruling will likely only embolden those who seek to punish people who take personal, moral stands based upon their conscience and the teachings of their religion.

    I guess the Conservatives in Texas haven't caught on to the Federal Constitution and it's bit about religious liberty is about the State not imposing a religious belief on the populace just as yet.

    Thankfully, many other clerks in other districts in Texas are ignoring the Conservative call to break federal law and are issuing same sex marriage licenses.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member


    Couples, gay and straight, can get married anywhere in the country now—anywhere, that is, except Pike County, Alabama, where one judge was apparently so perturbed by the landmark Supreme Court ruling that he pulled the plug on weddings all together .

    Wes Allen, the probate judge in charge of issuing marriage licenses when he’s not quoting scripture on Twitter, did not explain whether he merely wants to prevent gay people from marrying or whether his is a more general issue with love and happiness and cake.

    Allen’s Pyrrhic victory, via the New York Times:

    The Supreme Court’s decision, Judge Allen said, had not voided a provision of Alabama law that says “marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate” in the state.

    “The word ‘may’ provides probate judges with the option of whether or not to engage in the practice of issuing marriage licenses,” Judge Allen said, ‘and I have chosen not to perform that function.”

    The Conservative horror show continues.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    meh, I just want front row seats to the pastor who threatened to light himself on fire if this passed... I got marshmallows, let's light this baby up and have a bonfire!

    honestly surprised it passed - angry and sad it was just 5 to 4,but glad it passed. it is a fight that shouldn't have had to be fought... sadly we have far too many fundies who want to stoll feel relevant
  8. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Anti-Humanity fundies should be exiled to the country of origin for the religion they're so zealous about.
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Well, these are the United States of America. We would be better served, anyway, if we figured out a Constitutional means of setting meaningful expectations for intelligence.
  10. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    I also am disappointed it was 5 to 4.
    It is insane that some claim their rights are infringed by this.
    I wonder if they want it to be illegal for atheists to marry.
  11. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Critical thinking should be a mandatory part of America's national curriculum. At every school level.
  12. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Logic with Dick and Jane and Spot?

  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    And Look at What This Dumb Stunt Got Him

    To the one, Rick Scarborough has taken back his promise.

    To the other, I'm surprised at how seriously even a magazine and website like Christian Today took his words. Indeed, when I blogged a link about Scarborough yesterday↱, I put it this way:

    • Another headline, this one somewhat overstated: "Texas Pastor Says He Will Set Himself On Fire In Protest Over Gay Marriage"

    To the beeblebrox, there is tragic irony afoot. Today the Most Read list at fell in behind a very sad headline from last year: "A Texas minister set himself on fire and died to 'inspire' justice"↱. Last year, retired Methodist minister Charles Moore, age seventy-nine, set himself ablaze in Grand Saline, Texas. Consider how many people rushed to read about Rick Scarborough suggesting he would die by fire if the Supreme Court found for the Obergefell petitioners―a suicidal protest because gay marriage was constitutionally protected―and found this tragic report from Lindsey Bever, instead:

    The Tyler Morning Telegraph obtained a copy of the suicide note from Grand Saline police. In it, Moore lamented past racism in Grand Saline and beyond. He called on the community to repent and said he was "giving my body to be burned, with love in my heart" for those who were lynched in his home town as well as for those who did the lynching, hoping to address lingering racism.

    In his letters, obtained by The Washington Post, he called his death an act of protest. He said he felt that after a lifetime of fighting for social justice, he needed to do more.

    "I would much prefer to go on living and enjoy my beloved wife and grandchildren and others," he wrote, "but I have come to believe that only my self-immolation will get the attention of anybody and perhaps inspire some to higher service."

    Those who knew him call it a tragedy.

    "It would have been nice to have had some sort of counseling, somebody to point out that his life had mattered, that he hadn't failed," Renfro told the United Methodist News Service. "He had done plenty."

    Moore had gone on a two-week hunger strike in the 1990s to move the United Methodist Church to remove discriminatory language against homosexuals. While working with the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, he stood vigil in front of George W. Bush's governor's mansion to protest more than 100 executions. He served in the slums of India, Africa and the Middle East.

    Moore had "a conviction that if the Bible stood for anything, it stood for radical inclusiveness," the Rev. Sid Hall, a former colleague, told the Dallas Morning News. "If you ever were on the side of powerlessness, if you were ever on the margins yourself and were looking for someone to help you, Charles was the person."

    But for Moore, it wasn't enough.

    "I have no significant achievements to offer from that period so that my influence on contemporary isTexas Pastor Says He Will Set Himself On Fire In Protest Over Gay Marriagesues might have a significant impact," he wrote, "so I am laying down my life here today, in order to call attention to issues of great human concern." He seemed particularly disturbed by capital punishment, racial discrimination, prejudice against the LGBT community.

    Since his death, some news accounts described him as a man who seemed troubled. One asked if he was a "madman or a martyr."

    But Moore seemed to anticipate the response.

    "There is one thing I have absolute control over: that is, the manner of my death," he wrote. "History will decide whether my offering is worthy."

    I do hope the good Reverend found his peace.

    Or, you know, as they say, God rest his soul.

    And it really is a striking contrast: The one who ventured forth, regardless of what we think of faith or insanity, did so as a protest against human cruelty. The one who stayed, who said he didn't mean to suggest he would self-immolate when he said, "We are not going to bow. We are not going to bend, and if necessary we will burn"―come on, really, how does that not fit with their apocalyptic dreams of victimization, that Christians are the next Holocaust victims?―got himself into this mess complaining that he would not be allowed to be so cruel as he wishes toward other people. The one who burned sought one last chance to strike against cruelty. The one who stayed is a petty coward, regardless of what he thought he was on about. And because of his tantrum, a lot of people are now recalling a tragic tale from Texas, and considering the contrasts. Of the one, courage or insanity; 'tis a fair question. Of the other, hatred and cowardice; 'tis a fair assessment.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    "Pastor Rick Scarborough says he didn't mean he would set himself on fire after US Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage". Christian Today. 27 June 2015. 27 June 2015.

    Cabrera, Irene. "Texas Pastor Says He Will Set Himself On Fire In Protest Over Gay Marriage". Headlines & Global News. 24 June 2015. 27 June 2015.

    Bever, Lindsey. "A Texas minister set himself on fire and died to 'inspire' justice". The Washington Post. 16 July 2014. 27 June 2015.
  14. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    1 aspect of this is the same as interracial marriage was until 1967. Another is the same as businesses refusing to serve blacks. Regardless of religious beliefs, it is all destructive unfair discrimination that those who commit it would never want turned on them.

  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Um ... Huh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    "I know a lot of people, actually a lot of people who are friends of mine in the gay community, who also think it was a bad decision."

    As soon as you're finished laughing ... er ... ah ... right. I don't know. I mean, really, what the hell am I supposed to do with that?


    Kaczynski, Andrew. "Republican Sen. James Inhofe: My Gay Friends Think Court Ruling Was Bad". BuzzFeed. 27 June 2015. 29 June 2015.
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Indeed. And the screech of a million hateful harpies can be heard as the music of LGBT street parties dies out. Has it not finally been proven how absurdly irrelevant and out of touch religion has become in our day and age? A belief system so delusional and selfish it can only rally support for itself by opposing the rights and freedoms of other human beings?
  17. Bells Staff Member

    If you look at the language the religious conservatives and conservatives themselves are using is that they see any equality of rights as being an infringement on their rights. To these people, gays being allowed to marry or women having access to birth control and abortion, for example, is an infringement on their beliefs. They argue from a position of absolute privilege.

    This has been an extraordinary week for conservatives, when you think about it. Gay marriage is now legal around the US, Obamacare remains in place, laws in Texas that forced abortion clinics to close have been ordered to stop forcing them to close, putting into question forced closures in all States, and the Confederate flag is coming down across the South. After decades of their saying they are not bigots or racist, the Conservatives are now showing their true colours and just how far they are willing to go to protect their religious privilege, from their revolting comments and protests about their supposed loss of rights because LGBT can now obtain a marriage license, to protesting and demanding that a flag that represents the worst in the US when it comes to bigotry and racism, continues to flies because it represents their history. These are people who claim they don't hate gays and don't hate blacks, but they are literally standing with members of the KKK to protect a flag that represents absolute bigotry and white privilege. It would be akin to public buildings in Germany flying the Nazi flag under the guise that it is a part of their history, while ignoring the horror that flag represents.

    Of course, they view arguments for gay marriage as being part of a "gay agenda". Such language sets the tone of something evil and bad, an agenda against them. Not to mention that conservatives view gays being able to legally obtain a marriage license as somehow affecting how they practice their religion. I was reading this article the other day, about how God will be angry and along the lines that the Supreme Court of the US went against God in that ruling, etc, because America allows gays to marry and this brings to mind another form of privilege and self obsession, as though God itself stems from America. Their fight against this decision and their protests against it reeks of religious imagery. Texas, for example:

    On Sunday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton irritably issued the announcement that “Friday, the United States Supreme Court again ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist….

    There seems to be this inherent belief that God was somehow involved in the writing of the US Constitution and in the founding of your country.

    But more importantly, look at Paxton's comments and think about what he said, for a second. The US SC has manufactured a right that did not exist.. Now think back to what other rights the USSC had conferred, or to use Paxton's moronic reasoning, under the Constitution. Loving v Virginia (1967) springs to mind.

    These people don't care about equality or equal rights. To these people, equal rights = their losing their absolute privilege.
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  18. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The vast majority of Americans supported Gays and Lesbians couples receiving all the secular benefits of marriage. This could have been done with Civil Unions, which would have passed easily with a feeling of good will.

    The problem appeared when the homosexual community tries to help legislate religion, by forcing a definition of marriage that was contrary to ancient religious teachings. This went beyond the core needs of full secular benefits, into a violation of church and state, which is what caused the prolonged backlash.

    There is separation of church and state, which does not allow the state to teach religion or define how religion should be taught. If the ancient writings do not say, such and such, the state can't just add words to form its own version of any religion. The result was a backlash, that went beyond the practical needs of gays and lesbian, into protecting against a breech of religious liberty. The homosexual community become unknowing pawns, for powers to be who wished to undermine religion freedom. You guys and gals got caught in the cross fire, as a front line of pawns, serving the back line democratic strategists, who suffered nothing.

    The best strategy for the gay community is to accept their victory and let sleeping dogs lie, since if you continue as mercenaries, for a religious war, it can backfire. Their back is against the wall and turning the other cheek may not be an option. This is not your fight, but is being induced by back line atheists, who need pawns to suffer attrition, for public spectacle and spin.

    If I went into a Democratic party presidential rally, and I expected them to accept and fund me, for my conservative ideas, as candidate, if they showed me hate and then showed me the door, this would not be considered hatred and bigotry. The unspoken rule is I can't impose my views on their views, since their views goes beyond reason, all the way to basic core principles; their religion. This type of political bigotry is allowed, even for shady behavior.

    It may be good for all, if the homosexual and religious communities use the tactics they have learned, to assault and break down the walls of political parties first, by making this form of unspoken segregation behavior have an attached social taboo; reverse PC sanitized. I believe the legal end of political partisanship, will dry up the false positive reflex, in religion and politics.

    Say political parties could not discriminate, based on opinion, but rather each had to fund all? There is no longer any political party to sacrifice pawns for power. Without pawns for threat, peace begins.
  19. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    I have an objection to part of that. History is being buried in the rush for "correctness", as evidenced by this bit of vomit from USA Today.

    I'm from the deep south, from being the operative word here. I can't fucking stand racists, including my own kin. I respect that flag, because damned near everyone I grew up with had a grandfather whose brother or father died in that damned horrible war.

    You can't fix a problem by hiding it and pretending it doesn't exist, and that's what this current rush-to-PC is as far as I'm concerned.
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    "The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, military benefits, veterans benefits, burial and inheritance rights, and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them."======
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    This is absolute bullshit on two levels:

    (1) It is historically inaccurate.

    (2) The first time we tried separate but equal, the one justice on the Supreme Court who said no was also the former slave owner; we spent the next fifty-eight years trying to save the separate but equal standard, but in the end it failed to achieve anything remotely resembling equality.​

    Your argument is the classic lament of dying supremacism: We could have been happily equal if only you would have accepted being a second-class citizen.

    We might also note―

    ―that this is ahistorical, as well. Between Stonewall and about 1990, gay marriage was nowhere on the map. Indeed, the concept was first introduced to me by Christian zealots who asked that we should vote to use the state to ostracize homosexuals specifically, because if we didn't, who knows, maybe next they will want to get married.

    Gay marriage didn't hit the map until a Hawai'i court made the apparent mistake of actually paying attention to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, had Baehr v. Miike found resolution before 1996, the case might have gone the other way. Originally filed in 1991, the case was dismissed on 1 October; the appeal process carried on until 1993, when on 5 May the Hawai'i Supreme Court remanded to trial, testing the evidentiary burden. With Romer v. Evans working its way through the courts, a legislative commission recommended in December 1995 that the state should open marriage to same sex couples. Romer, a powerful gay-rights victory, came down in May 1996; Judge Chang conducted the trial for Baehr v. Miike starting 10 September. The state failed to meet its burden, and on 3 December Judge Chang found for the petitioning couples.

    And ever since then, social conservatives have been scrambling to close the hole blown open by their zeal.

    And every time they lost at the ballot box, they made so much noise and conducted themselves so terribly as to make the point; more and more people found it harder and harder to look the increasing number of identifying homosexuals among their circles and take part in the hatred. And every time the soccons won at the ballot box, they made so much noise and conducted themselves so terribly as to make the same point.

    Certes, there is some humor when I raise a glass to the hatemongers, but it is also sincere; we really could not have come so far so fast without them driving the discussion, without their terrible cruelty to make such a convincing argument that this is what the face of hatred looks like.
  22. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Not only is our back NOT against the wall, but we have torn the wall down that was built over the centuries by the religious homophobia and bigotry of you Judeo-christian haters. The battle is over, and you have lost miserably. But the war, as we now see, is far from over. At any given time we may hear on the news some new case of discrimination against us, as in a christian-run bed and breakfast, a christian employer, a christian bakery, or a christian florist. Your pathetic hate continues to foam and rage in your congregations, where we are weekly demonized and damned by priests and ministers in the name of God. Which is fine. You can tie yourself up in knots with hate all you want. You just don't have the right to act on it. Such is the inconvenience of living in a free country where equal rights WILL be respected and protected.
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Looks like this homophobic bakery here in the Portland area is going to have to fork over the dough big time. We'll see how they try to wiggle out of it this time.

    "Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

    Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation.

    Bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein cited their Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage in denying service. The case ignited a long-running skirmish in the nation's culture wars, pitting civil rights advocates against religious freedom proponents who argued business owners should have the right to refuse services for gay and lesbian weddings.

    Avakian's final order makes clear that serving potential customers equally trumps the Kleins' religious beliefs. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a news release.

    "This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage," Avakian wrote. "It is about a business's refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal."===

    • Sweet Cakes final order: Gresham bakery must pay $135,000 fo[…]
    • Date Accessed: July 03, 2015
    • Author: George Rede | The Oregonian/OregonLive
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2015

Share This Page