Speaking as a registered Independent, I am not thrilled with either political party right now. I think they are all letting us down, at a time when we can least afford to be let down. There's serious stuff happening in the world that needs dealing with, and IMO they're playing around, posturing for each other and/or being afraid of their own shadows.

I just wish that the gay community had someone like Martin Luther King to wake us up and make us stand up for our rights.

I wish we all had someone to wake us up -- gay, straight, and everything in between. Maybe we're just going to have to wake ourselves up.

The thing about Dr. Martin Luther King was that he knew the potential consequences to himself, and he still spoke out and took action. That's called integrity and having the courage of your convictions, and seeing that there's a higher purpose than just your own personal concerns.

So far, I haven't seen very many people in the US who have the courage to do the same; certainly not the political leadership. They're all too worried about their political careers and their pocketbooks. Which means it's going to be up to "we the people". Maybe that's as it should be. That's why it's kind of neat to see how important the Internet and blogging in particular have become.

Kitty

OK, Nickolasjames, since you're obviously talking about our little political banter in the chatroom tonight, I went and found a few examples you were looking for, although I still think that if you are going to so vociferously defend the current administration in its stance on the "gay issue," you may want to be more willing to inform yourself of the 'facts' (as you say), rather than demanding that others do it. All it takes is a quick trip to Google to find a few relevant examples ... and these are just a sampling. There is already quite a significant paper trail which shows how the current administration has back-tracked on gay rights.

1) In 1995, Pres. Clinton issued an executive order stating that sexual orientation could not be used as a factor in issuing security clearances to government employees. This was a big step forward for homosexual federal employees. In late 2005, George Bush issued a new executive order, changing the prior one, and stating that for homosexuals, "security clearance cannot be denied solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual." This means that sexual orientation CAN be a factor used to deny security clearance, although not the only one ... this leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and is a step backward. In the law, subtlety can have major consequences.

2) The new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, wrote in several memos that he did NOT agree with the Supreme Court ruling in "Lawrence v. Texas," which decriminalized sodomy. (Source: Washington Post, August 26, 2005, Page A02)

3) New Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito, while serving as an appellate judge in 2001, provided the ONLY dissenting opinion in the case "Saxe v. State," which regarded a school district policy that would prohibit harrassment against gay, lesbian, and bisexual students. Despite Judge Alito's assertion that the school district policy was unconstitutional, he did not win, and gay students were protected by law against harrassment because of their sexual orientation.

The most worrisome issues are the two new Supreme Court justices and how they will rule on gay rights issues, as the Supreme Court is now tilted in favor of a socially conservative agenda. They will continue to influence our lives long after George Bush is gone from office. These men serve for LIFE and cannot be removed. Both of these men received strong recommendations from numerous anti-gay groups.

Anyway, if that's not enough, Nick, you're welcome to go look around for more stuff. There is a long paper trail of court cases, declassified memos, etc. that show in black & white how the current administration's policy's towards gays has been bad. Would the Democrats do better? Maybe not, but they would most likely not erode previous rights that we have obtained like Bush has gone back and attempted to do (see example #1).

If you still want to debate, that's up to you, but as for me, case closed. You are entitled to your opinion, and in the coming years, with a number of important gay rights issues already scheduled to come up before the "new" Supreme Court, we will see where the chips fall, so to speak.

OK, Nickolasjames, since you're obviously talking about our little political banter in the chatroom tonight, I went and found a few examples you were looking for, although I still think that if you are going to so vociferously defend the current administration in its stance on the "gay issue," you may want to be more willing to inform yourself of the 'facts' (as you say), rather than demanding that others do it. All it takes is a quick trip to Google to find a few relevant examples ... and these are just a sampling. There is already quite a significant paper trail which shows how the current administration has back-tracked on gay rights.

 

1) In 1995, Pres. Clinton issued an executive order stating that sexual orientation could not be used as a factor in issuing security clearances to government employees. This was a big step forward for homosexual federal employees. In late 2005, George Bush issued a new executive order, changing the prior one, and stating that for homosexuals, "security clearance cannot be denied solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual." This means that sexual orientation CAN be a factor used to deny security clearance, although not the only one ... this leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and is a step backward. In the law, subtlety can have major consequences.

 

2) The new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, wrote in several memos that he did NOT agree with the Supreme Court ruling in "Lawrence v. Texas," which decriminalized sodomy. (Source: Washington Post, August 26, 2005, Page A02)

 

3) New Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito, while serving as an appellate judge in 2001, provided the ONLY dissenting opinion in the case "Saxe v. State," which regarded a school district policy that would prohibit harrassment against gay, lesbian, and bisexual students. Despite Judge Alito's assertion that the school district policy was unconstitutional, he did not win, and gay students were protected by law against harrassment because of their sexual orientation.

 

The most worrisome issues are the two new Supreme Court justices and how they will rule on gay rights issues, as the Supreme Court is now tilted in favor of a socially conservative agenda. They will continue to influence our lives long after George Bush is gone from office. These men serve for LIFE and cannot be removed. Both of these men received strong recommendations from numerous anti-gay groups.

 

Anyway, if that's not enough, Nick, you're welcome to go look around for more stuff. There is a long paper trail of court cases, declassified memos, etc. that show in black & white how the current administration's policy's towards gays has been bad. Would the Democrats do better? Maybe not, but they would most likely not erode previous rights that we have obtained like Bush has gone back and attempted to do (see example #1).

 

If you still want to debate, that's up to you, but as for me, case closed. You are entitled to your opinion, and in the coming years, with a number of important gay rights issues already scheduled to come up before the "new" Supreme Court, we will see where the chips fall, so to speak.

Here's the problem, Little Buddah........

Defense of Marriage Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--H.R.3396--

H.R.3396

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act'.

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.

( CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.'.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

( CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

This bill was supported by Democrats and Republicans.....President Clinton (D) signed this piece of garbage. My point in chat was that that Bush is no worse than Clinton was when it comes to gay rights. I haven't heard any of Clintons supreme court nominee's come out and say they were in favor of gay marriage. It's all the same, and I have no respect for anyone who chooses to support either one of the two "Republicratic" party's when it comes to gay rights.

Speaking as a registered Independent, I am not thrilled with either political party right now. I think they are all letting us down, at a time when we can least afford to be let down. There's serious stuff happening in the world that needs dealing with, and IMO they're playing around, posturing for each other and/or being afraid of their own shadows.

I wish we all had someone to wake us up -- gay, straight, and everything in between. Maybe we're just going to have to wake ourselves up.

 

The thing about Dr. Martin Luther King was that he knew the potential consequences to himself, and he still spoke out and took action. That's called integrity and having the courage of your convictions, and seeing that there's a higher purpose than just your own personal concerns.

 

So far, I haven't seen very many people in the US who have the courage to do the same; certainly not the political leadership. They're all too worried about their political careers and their pocketbooks. Which means it's going to be up to "we the people". Maybe that's as it should be. That's why it's kind of neat to see how important the Internet and blogging in particular have become.

Kitty

Maybe someday I can get enough people who are willing to stand up for our rights and we can march to Washington and stage real boycots like MLK did. I know there's nothing I can do right now, but in a few years, I think I'll try.

Nick,

I agree that that was a bad law, even though the issue of marriage should be decided by the states (whether it's heterosexual or homosexual). What's bad about that law is not forcing other states to recognize the gay marriages from other states (a right which heterosexual couples enjoy). However, this is "only" a law, and it could be struck down by the Supreme Court ... although because of Bush's two recent appointees, that is now unlikely. Most people don't realize how important the Supreme Court is, and they will affect our future more so than any president or the Congress.

*Hugz*