It should be quite simple for all to understand.

[TheBigotBasher]

It doesn't matter how you feel about it, whether you think it's ok, whether the thought of it repulses you, whether your god tells you it's ok or not, whether you think your kids will be negatively or positively affected by it. As United States Citizens, we don't have a choice on whether to accept or tolerate it or not. This is not about your choice or your vote, it's simply about the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states the following;

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That's right, all citizens have the right to equal protection, it doesn't say all straight citizens and it doesn't say all gay citizens, it simply says all persons born or naturalized in the United States, in other words all citizens. Now some people might argue that marriage is a church ritual that should not change to accommodate what they view as a sin, well the minute that marriage was given all the federal and state benefits that it now holds, was the minute it stopped being an exclusive right of the church.

Once rights are given to even just 1 person, those rights must be given to the other citizens as well, equal protection of the laws. If the government wants to restrict the rights of a certain group of citizens, or even 1 single citizen for that matter, then the only fair thing to do is to restrict the rights of all citizens that are currently enjoying the benefit of said law. In other words, take away all the federal and state benefits and protections currently afforded under the law regarding marriage and make it only a church ritual, only then can they call it their own.


JohnD @ the bigotbasher
http://thebigotbasher.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/its-all-quite-simple-really/

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. You got that right!

A BIG K&R!

:toast:

[HBravo]

2. Marriage is a privilege to all and for all. nt

[bluesbassman]

5. Did you mean to say "right" instead of privilege?

A privilege is conditional, a right is not. Just want to be clear.

[Berry Cool]

21. Maybe it would be better to say "Marriage is a privilege, but NOT a prerogative."

As in, marriage is not technically a "right" in the sense that if I can't find anyone who wants to marry me, I can demand the government find me a proper spouse. It's a "privilege," in the sense that only those who can find someone who wants to enter into marriage with them can marry. But it should NOT be a "prerogative," which is a right reserved exclusively to a person or group.

Of course, I doubt most people care about these subtleties of fact, or that they would make good slogans. Then again, the anti-gay-marriage bunch love to split hairs like that. They love to say "But everyone has the right to marry already. Even if you're gay, you have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex." *sigh*

[HBravo]

39. No I did mean privilege as in finding that one person. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Well put

[Jamastiene]

4. Thank you.

K&R

[dkf]

6. Fighting to keep other people apart is lame.

I wish everyone could get married and we could stop thinking we have a right to dictate how people live.

[TheBigotBasher]

7. I have been gay and straight married

and would not wish it on my worst enemy, however if people wish to get married and make a go of it - let them. No rapture fearing bigot should deny them.

[dkf]

10. Hey equal opportunity for misery too right?

[TheBigotBasher]

11. Indeed

Let everyone find their own way to heaven or hell.

[omega minimo]

8. "It should be quite simple for all to understand" that it ain't that simple for the other "all"

to understand.

Is there any nuance in this debate, at all, ever, anywhere? Any reaching out, from either side?

[TheBigotBasher]

12. Can they reach out to not trample on the rights of people

who just happen to be gay?

[skepticscott]

13. Sure there is

The same nuance as there is to the debate about whether blacks should be allowed to marry whites.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. You asking for nuance?

That is hilarious. You asking for nuance, but also screaming at people over words that offend you even when others thing you are nuts for taking offense. On and on over a word.
Yet you feel that in the face of Uganda, we should be 'nuanced'.
Homophobia is woven out of sexism, they are the same thing, and today you stand with the sexists. Nuance that.
Decades of honest outreach and progress was smashed to the ground and burned by Obama and DuBois using McClurkin and Warren and others. Much work had been done by many great people, but all of that was declared irrelevant so Obama could declare the divisions he needed to use. Nuance was destroyed by Joshua DuBois with great intention.

[omega minimo]

23. False

"That is hilarious. You asking for nuance, but also screaming at people over words that offend you even when others thing you are nuts for taking offense. On and on over a word."

Words matter. Perception matters. Education matters. I don't "scream"

"Yet you feel that in the face of Uganda, we should be 'nuanced'."

Who said that? Not me.

"Homophobia is woven out of sexism, they are the same thing,"

Yes it is; why isn't there more recognition and representation of that on DU?

"and today you stand with the sexists. Nuance that."

You have no reason and no right to claim that. You are projecting, with the same knee jerk hostility and BS accusations that some nuance might alleviate.

"Decades of honest outreach and progress was smashed to the ground and burned by Obama and DuBois using McClurkin and Warren and others. Much work had been done by many great people, but all of that was declared irrelevant so Obama could declare the divisions he needed to use. Nuance was destroyed by Joshua DuBois with great intention."

That has nothing to do with my question, except in your mind.

Nuance that.

[laughingliberal]

9. Rec nt

[cali]

14. Absolutely. So what are you doing in

your own country of Great Britain to change that?

[TheBigotBasher]

16. Backing the Liberal Democrats in the General Election.

[cali]

17. with how much you post here, it's clear that issues in your own country

aren't as important to you as issues here.

[secondwind]

18. very unfair of you to say this.

[secondwind]

19. OOPS......read the last post first..........I take that back, Cali!

:pals:

[TheBigotBasher]

20. Actually they are equally as important.

And it would be entirely wrong to sit back on the sidelines, especially after the last 8 years and think that what happens in the US does not affect what happens in the UK.

Should we not care about what may happen to gays in Uganda because we do not live there?

When Blair sold the US Congress the Iraq War should I have just shrugged my shoulders and thought oh well it is over here?

[liberation]

29. In other words: you do agree that gays should be discriminated against in this country

Either that or your red herring fishing expedition took you into another weird tangent... LOL

[LeftishBrit]

38. Hold on...

there are many UK and other international members of this forum. Some of us are here because we think that in this world our countries are strongly intertwined (esp on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but really on everything). Some of us are here because we have friends and relatives in both countries. I can't speak for the Bigot Basher, but I'm here for both reasons.

There is no reason why people can't post on this forum and be active in our own country (I am very active on issues relating to British education in particular: always my strongest local issue - as well as several other issues). In fact, greater knowledge of issues overseas - e.g. different education systems - can help us be more informed and effective in dealing with local issues.

You have always been one of the posters I've respected the most; and I would never have regarded you as isolationist about other countries; and I am disappointed that you seem to regard international posters as unwelcome.

[DutchLiberal]

40. You're a jerk.

But then again, I already knew that.

[Hissyspit]

42. One does not follow the other - logical fallacy.

Where in the 14th Amendment does it say that non-American citizens can't point out to Americans that we have a 14th Amendment?

[flvegan]

45. Note sig line irony. n/t

[winyanstaz]

22. No one is free and equal...

until we are ALL free and equal.

[StarfarerBill]

24. K&R

[Odin2005]

25. +1! Human rights are NON-NEGOTIABLE.

[anonymous171]

26. Is the US government under any obligation to secure US citizens' human rights?

Marriage is a civil right. That's the only argument I need.

[Fearless]

27. +1

:kick:

[Angry Dragon]

28. K&R

Very nicely said with few words

[AuntPatsy]

30. Agree, I just cannot understand how denying someone their civil rights is not illegal?

since when did only some citizens become eligible for certain rights? Makes no sense, I have yet to find a reasonable response from any why this is even an issue that requires anything other than a court to decry that refusing to marry citizens of this country is illegal simply because they are in effect attempting to deny them their civil rights, people go to court all the time and win when their civil rights have been violated, so what is the problem?

[defendandprotect]

35. kick

[Number23]

31. I do believe that I have rec'd just about every post you've ever made

And this one is no exception. :)

[TheBigotBasher]

33. Thank you

and thanks for the invite the other day, I spent a whole day learning an awful lot on the African American board. he AA history month topic was a treasure of new information.

[roody]

32. The Portuguese legislature is ready to

legalize same gender marriage.

[butterfly77]

34. Kick &Recommended..

[undergroundnomore]

36. thank you for posting this

While I am not gay myself, I do have a nephew whom I love deeply who is. I have a gay couple who have lived with each other for over 15 years and they love each other completely.

Where in the HELL do people get the CRAZY idea that they can deny American citizens their constitutional rights. Wait put that aside, their BASIC HUMAN right to love whom they want to love. It makes me so very angry.

[Delphinus]

37. Love the sign!

But too many of what we call human rights in this country (health care being among them) are lost on the powers that be.

[Beregond2]

41. This is exactly why there should be no special rights and privileges

for married people. Allowing gay people (of which I am one) to participate in an unjust and unconstitutional institution is not the solution. I have no desire to address oppression by joining my oppressors.

[Earth_First]

43. +100 n/t

[Solly Mack]

44. k/r

[Skelly]

46. Not just a state issue

Ask anyone living in a state that recognizes same sex marriage. The FEDERAL government doesn't recognize the rights of gays to marry. Even if your state DOES, you will not be able to receive the same benefits of heterosexual couples if it has anything to do with the federal government (IRS, IRA's, government retirement and insurance plans, etc). Human rights are not something to vote on. The supreme court needs to declare DOMA unconstitutional.