Fed Up: Preferential Treatment For Gays

[toptuan]

The Seattle Times - Letters to the editor

Seattle, where right is superseded and is left in fear

To The Editor, The Times:

I moved out of Seattle for many reasons, one being that I was disgusted at how the gay population received enormous preferential treatment [see "Boycott sought over bill backing gay rights," Times, Local News, Jan. 17].

I will give you an example. I worked for the Parks Department for many years. I was told that the City Council has given orders to not arrest or charge any of these individuals doing lewd acts, etc., because it would seem like the city were targeting a special group of people.

On the other hand, if a straight person or couple was engaged in activities of such nature, they would be fined, arrested, charged.

It seems that everyone is afraid of Seattle's gay population and power. It all has to do with votes. Gays are voters, too, and account for a large percentage of ballots.

Seattle is not a fair place to live unless you are a minority, and if you're gay, then you are top choice in jobs, politics, preferential treatment of all kinds. Why? Simple: The government and employers are all afraid of lawsuits!

I'm just glad I'm here in sunny Hawaii and Seattle is still gloomy, rainy and living in the Dark Ages, shielding themselves from fear of being truthful and open as to how they feel about homosexuality....

— Frank Battaglia, Mountainview, Hawaii

Current gay-friendly legislation in the northwest USA is bringing a number of familiar issues and feelings to a boil. Does this writer have a legitimate complaint, particuarly in reference to his Parks Department experience?

[Wallalai]

And ? Anything related to Thailand in this post ?

Crap.

[toptuan]

Anything related to Thailand in this post ?

Sorry, Crap, did I break a rule here? (e.g. "Are you A Face Queen?", "I'm Chuffed to Bits," "Am I a Troll?," "Bi-sexual vs. Gay", etc....and 50 other gay-related/not Thailand-related threads...)

...or was that the extent of your ability to express an intelligent opinion?

I know, it's pretty tough to face a "politically incorrect" point of view, sometimes. But it does help exercise the grey matter--just a little--to think how you might dialogue with a person of this ilk. If the ability to do this eludes you, let's give someone else a chance...

Edited January 21, 2006 by toptuan

[Wallalai]

Sorry if you feel offenced with my answer.

But your post is related to a problem about gay people in Seattle USA. This forum is intended to talk about the many aspects of life in Thailand, am I right ?

If not I'll post about my electricity bill in Switzerland.

I'm not homophobe, everyone is free to live its own life, but Seattle could sink in the sea without a tear im my eyes.

[toptuan]

Sorry if you feel offenced with my answer.

But your post is related to a problem about gay people in Seattle USA. This forum is intended to talk about the many aspects of life in Thailand, am I right ?

If not I'll post about my electricity bill in Switzerland.

I'm not homophobe, everyone is free to live its own life, but Seattle could sink in the sea without a tear im my eyes.

The Emerald City? The Jewel of the Northwest? Ouch! (from a Seattle native).

If you look through the threads in this forum, you'll notice that there are many not directly related to Thailand. I think a brief review of the gay forum will reveal that most readers/contributors here are willing to often look beyond their local boundaries (and often do) to consider some broader gay issues.

I submit that the issues raised by this article have surfaced in the home countries of just about every farang on this gay forum. We still have ties to our lands of origin, and are interested in what goes on there, at least to some degree; especially if we find some issues in common between us.

You can email your Swiss electricity bill to me, if you need someone to look at it. But I'm not gonna pay it.

[PeaceBlondie]

I can't relate to homosexual rights, in the USA or in Thailand, being preferential. The last place I lived in the USA was in Houston, Texas, where two men were arrested for sodomy (a crime that was defined only for homosexuals), and the US Supreme Court upheld their conviction. That was quite some time ago, but a subsequent decision was only recently handed down that finally killed the Texas sodomy law.

And it was also just a few years ago that a man who was raped by his boss, on an offshore oil rig, had to go to high appeal courts to prove that the sexual discrimination law did, indeed, apply to male victims of rape.

And when I moved to Houston in 1989, men were still being killed merely for being queer.

And you wonder why I'm in Thailand?

[cdnvic]

I get into this debate all the time in Canada. Over the last few years the courts and now parliment has said that gays have as much right to marry as anyone else. Still, there's a sizable number who are up in arms about gay people wanting "more" rights.

I personally don't see the issue. If you were to deny someone the right to marry based on sexual orientation then you are actually taking away rights from a law abiding citizen. Allowing them to marry is just part of the rights that all citizens have, not an "extra" right.

Almost inevitabley, people bring up polygamy and say that if gay marriage is allowed then soon polygamy will follow. What garbage, and it shows they have no idea of how law and civil rights work. Polygamy is a practice, not a type of person. Regardless of if you are gay, straight, black, asian, hispanic, etc... you cannot have more than one spouse. That's equal and fair.

Now lets look at the strongest opponants of gay marriage, which are usually branded as conservatives. I disagree with that as I am a conservative and one of the basic beliefs that underpins conservative philosophy is that the government keeps its nose out of your business as much as possible. So I fail to see the point when suddenly these so-called conservatives think it is imperative that the government get involved in the private lives of two men or two women want to marry. That's not conservatism, thats intolerance, and despite the impression given by some, conservatism and intolerance are not supposed to go together.

Some religious beliefs may not have room for gays and lesbians, and that is the right of anyone to follow whatever faith they believe. However, when it comes to making the laws of a country you need to make laws for all, and not for any specific faith or group of faiths as the purpose of a constitutional democracy is that you have a document that supercedes all these other books and makes one set of laws that pretain to everyone, regardless of faith or creed.

So stop moaning about special treatment. There's nothing special about being treated equally.

cv

[Johpa]

Uff Da!

Toptuan, perhaps you forgot about the economic consequences in the Pacific Northwest when the president of a large brewery was caught, with others, doing the deed in a mens restroom outside the State Capitol and many people lost their jobs after his brew became known as the "Queen of Beers" and sales plummeted.

But the author of the letter is correct, the gay population in the emerald City has both numbers and economic power to significantly influence local politics, not always for the better as the existence of Nick the Pwick as mayor attests. But unlike the letter writer, this unrepentent hetero has no fears of this "gay influence": I am more concerned about corporate influence and corruption.

[ProThaiExpat]

The Supreme Court of Washington is, any day now, coming down with its opinion on the constitutionality of gay marriage.

A concern is their justices are elected for four year terms and are therefore much closer attached to public opinion than most supreme court justices.

Few unbiased people with a fair judicial approach to interpreting equal rights disagree that preventing gays from marrying is anything less than discrimination.

However, most polls in the U.S. indicate the majority are still against it. More than 80% of Americans were against inter-racial marriage when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled anti-miscegination laws were unconstitutional.

As Martin, the PM in Canada said to the legislature last year, it is the reponsibility of the legislature to enact laws that protect minorities, otherwise the "tyrany of the majority" would rule.

The California legislature courageously enacted a law allowing gay marriage, however the "terminator" did just that with his veto. Cases holding laws against gay marriage are making their way up the court system and will reach to Supreme Court of California for decision in the next couple of years.

The OP's reference to a letter writer in Seattle is interesting, as while Hawaii was the first state to make gay marriage legal, the Mormon Church there turned that around, although they do have a civil partnership law. He may have found a pocket of bigots in which to immerse himself.

There are some remote areas of Hawaii where homophobia flourishes among christrian influenced "locals", even though traditional Hawaiian culture, before the invasion of the christians occurred, did not discriminate against gays.

While I am personally against any form of sexual activity in public, especially parks, it would seem that sex in parks, as is many forms of crime, a perpetual problem in most ciites of the world, regardless of nation.

I suspect, but I have no evidence to base this opinion on, that Lumpini Park has its active sexual areas, as does the falls on the way up to Doe Suthep in Chiang Mai, reportedly does.

[Buki]

whhooo boy.. I am definitely for gay marriage and gay rights. I am not from America and it sad that the country who speaks about being the defender of freedom, rights and democracy, cannot seem to open their eyes to reality.

By the way guys, I went through a blog and he has this entry. Its very interesting. If you are interested to know about the blog, just private me, I am not sure if posting the address is allowed.

---------------------------------------------------

THE TOP TEN REASONS GAY MARRIAGE WILL DESTROY AMERICA

Who started the top ten list phenomenon? Film critics? Joan and Melissa? Mr. Blackwell? David Letterman? Likely, it was Moses. At least his top ten commandments list is the first recorded top ten list, as far as I can tell. It makes sense that the top ten list was invented by a Jew. After all, we invented Christianity, Communism, Banking, Psychoanalysis and the Kaballah so why not top ten lists?

Personally, I love composing them even more than reading them and have done a few on this blog, voted one of the top ten in a number of popularity contests.

So, when I stumbled upon what may very well be the best top ten list since Mount Sinai, I couldn't wait to post it!

Perhaps some of the more diligent and observant among you have already seen this list, but it's new to me and if it's new to me, it's new. And thanks to advancing senility, even things I learned an hour ago can become new again. I love novelty, so this works out quite well for me.

Well, as it turns out, one of our top ten most beloved Cretin Fundamentalists, James Dobson has a top ten list. So ######ing gay! So ######ing Jewish! Go Jimmy! I knew you had it in you! (At least a few times.)

Dobson's list is the top ten reasons why gay marriage will destroy America.

Considering "gay marriage" (the quotes are his), Dobson explains that "This is the climactic moment in the battle to preserve the family, and future generations hang in the balance." Dobson preaches, "Marriage serves as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and His church. Tampering with His plan for the family is immoral and wrong. To violate the Lord's expressed will for humankind, especially in regard to behavior that He has promoted, is to court disaster."

But Dobson, irresistibly drawn to the allure of the top ten list phenomenon, goes for it, in grizzly top ten detail.

So, Dobson's Top Ten List of Reasons gay marriage will destroy America:

1. The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family, confusing young people about sexual identity, lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity and the role of children. Legalization will also lead to polygamy, bestiality and other alternatives to man-woman unions.

2. Children will suffer if they are not raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers.

3. Public schools in every state will embrace homosexuality and will be required to teach this perversion as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage.

4. Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete, preventing courts from favoring normal married couples over gay couples.

5. Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically. Foster care parents will be required to undergo 'sensitivity training' to rid themselves of bias in favor of heterosexuality, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens. Morality training will be forbidden.

6. The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse, as millions of new dependents become eligible for coverage.

7. Social Security will be severely stressed, with millions of new eligible dependents.

8. Religious freedom will be jeopardized because writings and speech that criticize homosexuality will effectively become criminalized. Homophobia would become a crime, punishable by prison or other severe penalties.

9. Other nations will follow our lead in the march toward homosexual marriage just as they did with pornography.

10. The Gospel of Jesus will be severely curtailed.

Now it would be easy to point out the absurdity, illogic and downright stupidity of each one of these "reasons" for stopping gay marriage. But rather than take that approach, I thought I'd create my own top ten list, the top ten reasons why straight marriage should be made illegal.

Liza Minnelli

Britney Spears

Courtney Love

Renee Zelwegger

Jennifer Lopez

Tom Cruise

Michael Jackson

Drew Barrymore

Carmen Electra

Janet Jackson

Just for fun, the above list of one-minute marriages aside, I also took a look at the current state of the sacred institution of marriage in this Cretin country. I desperately housewife searched for where in this world of statistics and research, one would find the REASON gay marriage would be harmful to straight marriage. I failed. But what I did find among all of these United States Census Bureau stats and research are many reasons why Dobson and his kind are running scared. Likely, gay marriages will prove to more stable.

The current situation plays out thusly:

Only 51 percent of households in this country include a mother, father and one or more children.

Almost half of all heterosexual marriages will end in divorce.

After Nevada (which doesn't count), Arkansas has the highest divorce rate in the country. Massachusetts has the lowest.

Traditional families continue to fall apart at an increasing rate as a result of the growing adoption of no-fault divorce laws.

The leading reasons why heterosexual marriages fail: poor communication, money problems, bad sex, infidelity, change in personal priorities, substance abuse and spousal or child abuse.

And, by far my two favorite stats:

Red states have a divorce rate 27% higher than blue states (no wonder they feel so threatened.)

The higher level of education a woman achieves, the more likely her marriage will stay intact. (Likely another reason the Cretin Fundamentalists feel so threatened.)

Faced with all of this information, it really is mind-boggling to consider that gay men and women are seen by so many Americans as the enemy. Perhaps Dobson is afraid that given the legal opportunity to do so, most of his congregation will out themselves. One could argue that only the closet could generate so much anger and illogical thinking.

---------------------------------------------------------

so thats it guys.

[toptuan]

many people lost their jobs after his brew became known as the "Queen of Beers" and sales plummeted.

...always wondered why my favorite brew disappeared from the store shelves.

[ChrisP]

Thanks cdnvic for such a clearly-made argument and support..!

Oh, and if it's true, I don't agree with gay sex in the park in public either... and I wish it didn't happen.. but, it's not just in Seattle...

My personal belief is that it's often no only gay men, but many str8 men who engage in it too... Something to do with "trying to be anonymous" - i.e. not being ok with your sexuality...

MANY books on the topic, trying to explain why it happens...

Chris

[PeaceBlondie]

A married man and wife go to the psychiatrist because they aren't having sex; neither of them seems to be in the mood for it the same time as the other one. Doctor says, "Well, keep checking with each other, and whenver the urge hits both of you, do it immediately!"

They come back next week and say, "Well, doctor, it worked, but we got arrested for having nud_e intercourse at high noon, at the intersection of Main and Broadway."

Having been a straight, faithful husband for 20 years, I know how easy it was to have sex when we wanted it. But, once I left the wife and started looking for men, I found that (at least back in the 1980's in Texas), you couldn't even rent a motel room easily, some guys had roommates, etc. You shouldn't have sex in the park or public restrooms, but there are less alternatives than happily married couples have.

[orchis]

The paradox of the public park and the closet case.

Edited January 22, 2006 by orchis

[Ijustwannateach]

CDNVIC: Right on!!!!

[Ijustwannateach]

Perhaps this letter from a concerned mother displays some of the reasons why a gay rights movement is necessary:

Letter to the Editor

by Sharon Underwood

Sunday, April 30

from the Valley News (White River Junction, VT/Hanover, NH)

Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people. I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.

At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.

If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters."

You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart.

He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hel_l that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage. You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.

The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are?"

Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?

[Buki]

HURRAH FOR MARYLAND!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------

Maryland ban on gay marriage overturned

BALTIMORE -- A Baltimore judge struck down a 33-year-old state law against gay marriage Friday, declaring it violates the Maryland Constitution's guarantee of equal rights.

Circuit Judge M. Brooke Murdock immediately stayed her order to allow the state to file an appeal with Maryland's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The attorney's general office did so later in the day.

Murdock ruled in favor of 19 gay men and women, rejecting a state argument that a traditional family is ideal for children.

"Although tradition and societal values are important, they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory" law, she wrote.

Massachusetts is the only state to allow gay marriage.

Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich said he was disappointed by the ruling and that his staff is weighing options, including seeking a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, which is the definition under state law.

The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed in 2004 by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Massachusetts started letting gay couples marry in May 2004. Since then, more than a dozen states -- not including Indiana -- have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Vermont and Connecticut allow civil unions for gays.

[thaibebop]

I really wish this battle would just go away! I am sick of this fighting. There are so many other issues which are so much more important than who people are sleeping with. Politicians get away with so much more while the people agrue about other non-essential issues like homosexual rights. This shouldn't be an issue, period. It shouldn't matter, it just shouldn't matter. I don't understand why people are afraid of gays. Grown men nervous around gay men, what fcking wimps, I don't say this as a negative towards gays, I say this because how can you call yourself an adult then act so nervous around other people just because they are gay. Everyone should have the same chances, same rights and the same freedoms. It can be a cold hard world and finding someone who gives a ###### what happens to means you're lucky and it shouldn't matter what they have between the legs. And no has the right to take away others basic happiness such as who their lover is.

Yes, Buki it's sad that Amercia has such a problem. It just shows that the dream didn't work out quite like it should. That belongs in another thread though.

Okay , I am just ranting now. Sorry, I just get so mad about this stuff sometimes. So, I'll stop until I form something worth reading.

[Ijustwannateach]

I kinda liked your rant!

[thaibebop]

I kinda liked your rant!

I thought I was writing something more intelligent and more "put together" , yet it just seemed sloppy, so I called it a rant. I thinK I got the point across though.

[Ijustwannateach]

TT, to respond to your original topic:

I don't get upset about gay political activism for reasons of a backlash- that kind of thinking taken to the logical end makes Uncle Toms of us all, like the closeted gays working in the Bush administration and for the Republican party. We shouldn't have to fight for rights that straights take for granted, and if they don't like us showing our faces to do so, they should just go ahead and give us the equal rights regarding our choice of spouses.

What I do worry about is misrepresentation- because what the political gays know only too well is that pluralism weakens your message. I don't necessarily want, for example, being gay to be the male-on-male (or female-on-female) version of the monogamous family unit. I don't think too much of marriage anyway, though I think as a gay man I should have equal rights to it if I *do* want it. But I think they may be packaging the gay world as *meaning* some of those things I don't like so much, and I don't like the way that attitude will be controlling the political side of the dialogue about what it means, socially and sexually, to be gay.

"Steven"