Straight Talking Gay 'Nam Vet Confronts Flip Flop Romney

[Jingthing]

Mitt Romney, still the most likely republican party nominee with the best shot at beating Obama has evolved from a "liberal" republican to the same grand old republican anti-gay stuff.

This Vietnam vet pulls no punches. A lot different than Romney bargained for sitting down with this vet.

BTW, gay STATE marriage is legal in New Hampshire but WORTHLESS for FEDERAL veterans benefits. Without federal equality, there is no equality.

Today's right wing Romney

The old "progressive" Romney

And the sooner politicians catch up with the rest of the United States to realize that gay men, lesbians and their families deserve respect rather than demonization, the better off we’ll all be.

...

But I’ll give Romney this much, at least he was honest. Still, it takes a special kind of nerve to not only tell someone to their face that you’d take their rights away but to also not be moved by the concern expressed by the questioner.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/gays-not-silent-in-the-face-of-gop-candidates-opposition/2011/03/04/gIQAtaT2rO_blog.html Edited December 13, 2011 by Jingthing

[cooked]

I don't have to justify myself here, but I am not gay. My question: WHY for <deleted>**'s sake do you have to use the word marriage? I think this is what sticks in the throats of most people. Drop the word and campaign for equal rights and I think you would get much further.

I tried to avoid marrying (I don't like the word or the concept) my now ex-wife for many years, at the same time trying to ensure that she and our children weren't disadvantaged.(by the way we paid a lot less taxes as long as we weren't married). Oh boy, it got really complicated and in the end we got married. I see this in the same light: living with somebody for years should give you the access to the same rights as any married couple (apart from getting a divorce from the pope). I have been mulling over this for some time now and clicked on this forum to see if I could get an opinion.

Ps I reckon marriage was originally there to ensure that the father looked after the children and that the wife didn't go elsewhwere for her pleasure...

[Jingthing]

Here you go:

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__5121773

Basically, in the U.S. context, you get equality by actually winning equality at the FEDERAL level. Things like social security survivor benefits, immigration rights, etc.

There would be no REQUIREMENT for gay couples to get married, nor would there be any requirement for any religious institution to participate in marriage ceremonies. Purely about civil law -- civil rights.

BTW, as far as getting much further, well we've already come a long way baby, and all we have to do is have Obama get reelected and have the luck for him to get one or two new supreme court picks. Then we win ... FULL equality. Of course if he loses and/or doesn't get one new pick, that's would be a huge setback. But don't kid yourself. The opponents of gay marriage are most certainly NOT in favor or gay people having the same rights! Period, no matter what you call it.

If you are asking an academic question ... would a national referendum asking two questions, do you support marriage equality for gays and also do you support 100 percent equal rights for gay couples but not called marriage, the latter WOULD get more votes. But that is NOT how the system of change actually works mechanically in the U.S. It is based on LAWS.

Ironic suggestion for a NEW RULE for the gay forum: While welcoming to all people to post, make it against the rules to ANNOUNCE you are not gay before posting here. It grates, does it not?

Edited March 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

If this keeps up, I'm going to move all the gay marriage threads to the marriage forum....

[Naam]

Ironic suggestion for a NEW RULE for the gay forum: While welcoming to all people to post, make it against the rules to ANNOUNCE you are not gay before posting here. It grates, does it not?

i think an announcement like this is only fair because it enables a better judgment of what the poster has to say.

[Jingthing]

Ironic suggestion for a NEW RULE for the gay forum: While welcoming to all people to post, make it against the rules to ANNOUNCE you are not gay before posting here. It grates, does it not?

i think an announcement like this is only fair because it enables a better judgment of what the poster has to say.

I don't agree. I think it is usually meant for non-gay readers to say, don't think I am gay (as if that is a bad thing) because I am posting in the gay forum. Do you really not get that? BTW, regarding the post in question, do you really think readers couldn't figure out it was from a straight man just by READING the content anyway? Edited March 10, 2012 by Jingthing

[jvs]

ijustwannateach,

that would be the decent thing to do dont you think?

[cooked]

i was merely trying to show how I went through a process of trying to gain equal rights without getting married. Why the hell shouldn't I state something that seems very relevant to what follows? If this was a forum about racial discrimination I could say I was / was not black couldn't I? Sorry I used a sentence too many that does not come under the category of political correctness, which I don't give a s**t about anyway.

Only Jingthing actually made a pertinent answer to what I had to say.

[Ijustwannateach]

'Why, yes, Cooked, I agree with you absolutely. Let's use a different word for gay unions, like, for instance, CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS!!! Why could anyone ever object to that!!!'

hee hee hee hee hee hee hee.................

[Ijustwannateach]

A dog who supports gay rights (I'm sorry, I'm just trying to distract JT. I'm a bad, bad man):

[LeCharivari]

Ironic suggestion for a NEW RULE for the gay forum: While welcoming to all people to post, make it against the rules to ANNOUNCE you are not gay before posting here. It grates, does it not?

i think an announcement like this is only fair because it enables a better judgment of what the poster has to say.

I don't agree. I think it is usually meant for non-gay readers to say, don't think I am gay (as if that is a bad thing) because I am posting in the gay forum. Do you really not get that? BTW, regarding the post in question, do you really think readers couldn't figure out it was from a straight man just by READING the content anyway?

Well said, Naam - its called "Gay People in Thailand", for crying out loud! If I posted on the Ladies Forum for the first time I would probably say "I'm a man", or maybe "I'm a gay man", etc. Does that mean that I think its a "bad thing" to be a lady??

Cooked, don't worry, some people just take offence at anything based on the "everyone hates me because I'm gay / black / white / old / young / fat / breathing / educated / uneducated / etc / etc" principle.

As for the "WHY for <deleted>**'s sake do you have to use the word marriage?" question, you're absolutely right but some people just can't accept that - in Australia, with a very similar system to the US "at the FEDERAL level", they've already got "Things like social security survivor benefits, immigration rights, etc." and "gay marriage" is just another step on the equality pathway. For some, though, its all or nothing, if you're not for us you're against us, etc, and they just can't accept that its their obstinacy that's holding things up as much as anyone else's.

Edited March 11, 2012 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

I can't speak to Australia. Again, this is a U.S.A. oriented topic.

Again, to the U.S.A. situation, explain to me the actual political/legal strategy for all Americans to have the right to same sex civil unions with all the same federal rights as married people. I don't see how that could realistically happen. I do see a clear path now towards that for same sex marriage. One positive decision in the supreme court and it's done.

LC is promoting this specious myth there really is a realistic alternative to going for same sex marriage equality in the U.S. This was a choice we never really had. All the state referendums we have lost over gay marriage we ALSO would have lost for same sex civil unions. Both are meaningless at the federal level. The only realistic path to meaningful victory is the supreme court. And that will be about EQUALITY as protected by the U.S. CONSTITUTION. In this case, marriage equality regardless of sexual orientation.

If LC wants to think the U.K. system is superior, so be it. In many ways I agree the U.S. is backwards on lots of things such as a health care system, economic equality, and shockingly high incarceration rates especially of racial minorities. But the U.S. system and U.S. political realities are what U.S. people have to deal with.

Edited March 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

...I don't see how that could realistically happen. I do see a clear path now towards that for same sex marriage. One positive decision in the supreme court and it's done.

Just because you can't see what you don't want to, JT, doesn't stop it being an option. ... and "One positive decision in the supreme court and it's done" could also mean "one negative decision in the supreme court and you're all done".

LC is promoting this specious myth there really is a realistic alternative to going for same sex marriage equality in the U.S. This was a choice we never really had. All the state referendums we have lost over gay marriage we ALSO would have lost for same sex civil unions.

WRONG. You are quite entitled to your own opinion, JT, but not your own facts. No US State has ever approved same-sex marriage in a referendum, but Referendum 71 in Washington in 2009 did EXACTLY that for same sex civil unions, approving them by 53 to 47%, with a 51% voter turnout. The purpose of the ballot was very clear:

"Same-sex couples, or any couple that includes one person age sixty-two or older, may register as a domestic partnership with the state. Registered domestic partnerships are not marriages, and marriage is prohibited except between one man and one woman. This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of registered domestic partners and their families to include all rights, responsibilities, and obligations granted by or imposed by state law on married couples and their families."

Even allowing for the Bradley effect all US polls continue to show that there is considerably more support for same-sex civil unions with legal parity to marriage than there is once the word "marriage" is introduced to the equation, when it becomes a red rag to a bull.

There was an alternative route the US could have taken which is very similar politically, constitutionally and legally to that taken in Australia (and which, politically and legally, is the one being followed in the UK). The difference is that in Australia and the UK those wanting equality went for and accepted equality in law first and equality in name is a secondary and less important issue which will come as a matter of logical progression, while in the USA the gay vocal lobby want revolution, not evolution.

In no way am I saying that "the U.K. system is superior" - what I am saying is that the UK already has what you want in law and are on the way to getting what you want in name, and had you followed a similar political path it is at least possible that gays in the US could also be in the same position. Whether you consider that "superior" or not is up to you.

[Jingthing]

OMG. You still don't get it. State civil unions AND state gay marriages are EQUALLY worthless for FEDERAL U.S. rights.

[LeCharivari]

I think very few can have failed to get that particular point long ago, JT, and I have never said anything to the contrary. The issue of STATE referendums was one YOU raised.

[Jingthing]

Let me put it another way. I do not believe gay Americans would have equal civil union rights equal to federally recognized marriage if the activists had chosen to go for "equality" with civil unions rather than same sex marriage. I also don't believe we would be any closer to the goal than we are with equal marriage rights if we had. As things stand now, nobody knows how many years it will take to achieve marriage equality but the general consensus is that we will get there simply based on the fact the public opinion of younger Americans is on our side. I also totally reject the idea that losing one case in the supreme court would mean the issue is finished for good. It would be a huge setback though. Again, you could say the same thing about a negative decision related to civil unions in the supreme court.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Jingthing

[endure]

Why do we have to sit here and watch the bastion of the FREE WORLD wriggle and squirm about their version of gay marriage/civil partnerships/whatever whilst we retards already have what amounts to the same thing? <deleted> even El Catholico Argentina has gay marriage. As LeCharivari said "slowly slowly catchee monkey". Catch up girl!

[Jingthing]

Why do we have to sit here and watch the bastion of the FREE WORLD wriggle and squirm about their version of gay marriage/civil partnerships/whatever whilst we retards already have what amounts to the same thing? <deleted> even El Catholico Argentina has gay marriage. As LeCharivari said "slowly slowly catchee monkey". Catch up girl!

The state by state push for gay marriage is the U.S. version of slowly, slowly, homie. It is working. The goal of federal equality is in sight now, especially if Obama can be reelected.

[LeCharivari]

Let me put it another way. I do not believe gay Americans would have equal civil union rights equal to federally recognized marriage if the activists had chosen to go for "equality" with civil unions rather than same sex marriage. I also don't believe we would be any closer to the goal than we are with equal marriage rights if we had.

JT .... I accept what you now say 100%. I don't agree with your conclusion but that's purely a matter of opinion.

..... I also totally reject the idea that losing one case in the supreme court would mean the issue is finished for good. It would be a huge setback though. Again, you could say the same thing about a negative decision related to civil unions in the supreme court.

Not really .... getting "equal civil union rights equal to federally recognized marriage" wouldn't have been a matter for the Supreme Court - it would have been a matter of legislation, not a judicial interpretation of a document written over 200 years ago. That's a pretty crucial difference.

[Jingthing]

Legislation, eh? There is NO WAY there are the votes in the house, senate, and presidency to pass such a law.

[Ijustwannateach]

Endure- 'cause we're a bunch of religious nutters?

[LeCharivari]

Legislation, eh? There is NO WAY there are the votes in the house, senate, and presidency to pass such a law.

Well, JT, I am sure you don't need me to tell you what Thomas Jefferson said about the government you elect .....

[Jingthing]

Legislation, eh? There is NO WAY there are the votes in the house, senate, and presidency to pass such a law.

Well, JT, I am sure you don't need me to tell you what Thomas Jefferson said about the government you elect .....

I think you still don't get it. It is very hard and very slow to win equal rights for a hated, small minority in a majority democratic vote. That is indeed what the constitution and supreme court are there for! Edited March 16, 2012 by Jingthing

[BlackArtemis]

I don't have to justify myself here, but I am not gay. My question: WHY for <deleted>**'s sake do you have to use the word marriage? I think this is what sticks in the throats of most people. Drop the word and campaign for equal rights and I think you would get much further.

I tried to avoid marrying (I don't like the word or the concept) my now ex-wife for many years, at the same time trying to ensure that she and our children weren't disadvantaged.(by the way we paid a lot less taxes as long as we weren't married). Oh boy, it got really complicated and in the end we got married. I see this in the same light: living with somebody for years should give you the access to the same rights as any married couple (apart from getting a divorce from the pope). I have been mulling over this for some time now and clicked on this forum to see if I could get an opinion.

Ps I reckon marriage was originally there to ensure that the father looked after the children and that the wife didn't go elsewhwere for her pleasure...

Also as a straight guy, why do we have to be so hung up on the word marriage? We have no trouble with celeb marriages that are publicity students, or even non public marriages that are given little thought to as you "can always divorce" The divorce rate is often quoted to be between 40-50% with religious couples not really bearing much better.

Previously I have voted for republicans, but I wont be doing that anymore, they are too fixated on being socially conservative while they should be focused on being fiscally conservative. If they want to cater to the dumbed down ideology of "Gays and Muslims are bad" then they can do so with out my vote.

And honestly, I used to think the exact same thing, "why call it marriage" and then I realized I had some gay friends who grew up with the same hopes as me to be married one day. So I asked my self "why does it matter if they love eachother?"

[Jingthing]

Here is more of what I am talking about. The powerful right wing enemies of gay civil rights in American are against BOTH same sex marriages AND same sex civil unions!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/

President Barack Obama today came out against the proposed constitutional amendment on North Carolina's May 8th ballot banning same -sex marriages and civil unions, weighing into a fight in a key battleground state. ...

[cooked]

I don't have to justify myself here, but I am not gay. My question: WHY for <deleted>**'s sake do you have to use the word marriage? I think this is what sticks in the throats of most people. Drop the word and campaign for equal rights and I think you would get much further.

I tried to avoid marrying (I don't like the word or the concept) my now ex-wife for many years, at the same time trying to ensure that she and our children weren't disadvantaged.(by the way we paid a lot less taxes as long as we weren't married). Oh boy, it got really complicated and in the end we got married. I see this in the same light: living with somebody for years should give you the access to the same rights as any married couple (apart from getting a divorce from the pope). I have been mulling over this for some time now and clicked on this forum to see if I could get an opinion.

Ps I reckon marriage was originally there to ensure that the father looked after the children and that the wife didn't go elsewhwere for her pleasure...

Also as a straight guy, why do we have to be so hung up on the word marriage? We have no trouble with celeb marriages that are publicity students, or even non public marriages that are given little thought to as you "can always divorce" The divorce rate is often quoted to be between 40-50% with religious couples not really bearing much better.

Previously I have voted for republicans, but I wont be doing that anymore, they are too fixated on being socially conservative while they should be focused on being fiscally conservative. If they want to cater to the dumbed down ideology of "Gays and Muslims are bad" then they can do so with out my vote.

And honestly, I used to think the exact same thing, "why call it marriage" and then I realized I had some gay friends who grew up with the same hopes as me to be married one day. So I asked my self "why does it matter if they love eachother?"

you are definitely on the wrong track here. I was married in church, against my will and basically for financial reasons. (different countries, different customs). That's what it's all about, isn't it? I'm the dad, I look after the kids, that's the law. Nowadays if a man and a woman live together in America without being married, the guy still has to pay if they separate. Get real and stop whining about 'everybody hates us so we might as well go over the top'. If the main wage earner suddenly leaves after 20 years, so what, the other guy hasn't a right to be supported, there aren't any kids around.

If you are talking about stuff like right to pensions, social security, visit terminally ill people in hospital, (there are other issues) then ok, go for it. I am just honestly saying, as I see it, like most other 'straights', that the word marriage in this context gets up my nose.

You can probably look up the origins of the custom of marriage on internet somewhere, it's about looking after and taking responsibility for kids for goodness' sake.

I don't usually post in this aggressive manner but I really do think that this is not the way for you to go.

[Ijustwannateach]

^You are apparently not aware of the following things:

1. In many states where full gay marriage or a civil partnership equivalent is an option, there is also gay divorce and gay alimony, including the 'common law' divorce and alimony you mention.

2. In many states whether or not a gay marriage or civil partnership equivalent is an option, many gays take care of and are responsible for children, their own and/or adopted.

3. Many gay people would be interested in raising children if there were more legal and civil options for it. This groundwork is being explored, but for many people the bureaucratic barriers and/or unknowns are still a serious deterrent- not to mention the reluctance of straight society to facilitate their participation.

I don't know what you are calling 'over the top' or what context it is that 'gets up your nose,' but as one of the subforum moderators I think it's time to remind you where you are. This is the gay subforum. In this subforum in particular, though not limited to it, gay members are not subject to stupid, abusive, or homophobic presumptions about our character or behaviour- nor are we at all required or inclined to apologise for being as out or as clear as we like in demanding *equal* treatment in civil or social matters. If you want to spout off about what gets up your nose about gays or their interest in civil rights, or if you regard it as 'whining', head to your local with the other yobs. This isn't the place. Normally I would just delete your message, but it does have some actual substance in places.