Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
An Open Letter to Obama: Gay Equality Needs Your Voice
Dear President Obama:
I am writing to respectfully urge you to bring the energetic moral vision that you championed as a presidential candidate to the cause of equality for gay and lesbian Americans.
Among the reasons that millions of people were inspired by your candidacy was your eloquence on behalf of an America in which everyone is offered respect and equality under the law. At People For the American Way, we disagreed with your decision to stop short of supporting marriage equality, but we welcomed the clarity with which you articulated the constitutional principle of equality in so many other areas. That vision energized not only gays and lesbians, but many other fair-minded Americans who recognize discrimination as a national moral failing, who view equality under the law as a defining part of the American Way, and who believe the country is ready to discard discrimination based on bigotries that should be left in our past. That vision would be even more powerful coming from you as president, but since your election we have heard very little.
Any reasonable person is aware of the extraordinary challenges that faced the nation as you took office, including a dire financial crisis that has cost millions of Americans their jobs, homes, and access to health care. You have not shied from these most daunting of challenges. But it seems that you have shied from promoting the vision of equality that you articulated during your campaign.
Legislative change is needed, and we will continue to push Members of Congress and the Democratic leadership to move forward to end discrimination against LGBT Americans even as they grapple with other urgent national priorities. We are counting on you to call for and help win passage of legislation that you pledged to support.
As importantly, Mr. President, you are uniquely capable of communicating to the American public the moral and constitutional values at stake in ending discrimination against gay Americans. Beyond the clear harm to gay and lesbian Americans, the lack of your leadership on these issues damages both America’s sense of fairness and the credibility of your administration.
Your recent action to extend some benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, and your statement from the Oval Office committing yourself to work tirelessly toward equality, could have been the kind of moment that was celebrated as a milestone on the march toward equality. But instead it had the feel of, and was reported as, an incremental half-measure rushed onto the stage to placate a discontented political constituency.
While your comments in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act at the recent signing ceremony were welcome, they would have carried more weight as part of a larger ongoing effort to educate the American public about the moral need for LGBT equality. Moreover, the impact of your words was blunted coming so soon after your administration’s brief in support of DOMA using arguments that degraded gay and lesbian couples. You may have felt it was your duty to defend the law, but your argument that discrimination against same-sex couples doesn't count as discrimination and citation of case law on incest to claim that marriages of gay couples are unworthy of legal recognition was beyond the pale. Americans who support equality would not have been at all surprised if that brief had been filed by the Bush Administration. Coming from you, particularly without a broader public affirmation of your commitment to equality, it had the force of a hard slap in the face by someone we trusted.
Moreover, in the absence of a stronger statement about the importance of equality for all Americans, it has been equally difficult for your supporters to understand the continued discharges under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell of service members devoting their lives to our country. Congress should vote to repeal the destructive law that destroys military careers and robs the armed forces of highly trained soldiers, but until that happens, you should use your authority as commander-in-chief to suspend discharges of these personnel until that law is changed.
We have seen you change a nation’s conversation with an extraordinarily compelling speech on the issue of race in America. We have seen you change the perceptions of the world with a historic speech on history, pluralism, respect, and democracy to the world’s Muslims. We have seen you bring grace and conviction to the debate with your speech at Notre Dame about preserving a woman’s right to choose.
On the question of LGBT equality, it’s time to make that speech.
Mr. President, you have the opportunity to be on the right side of history. Every day, LGBT Americans face discrimination and are being denied their constitutional rights. There is no one in public life who could, and based on your stated principles and promises should, do more to move America forward toward becoming a country in which LGBT people are respected and treated as fully equal under our Constitution and laws.
We ask for your leadership and voice. When you lead, we will back you with every bit of heart and determination we can muster.
Sincerely,
Michael B. Keegan
President
People For the American Way
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
31 Comments so far
Show AllAt this moment in history, it seems the GLBT movement is acting a lot like Kim Jong-Il. No matter what other earth-shattering events are going on, there's this annoying little jerk screaming, "Look at me! Look at me!" and threatening to blow everything up if ignored.
There are a lot of us, including the President, who are sympathetic to gays being treated fairly and having actual equal rights, but who believe that gays just need to get over the need to use the word "marriage". Why set yourselves and the rest of this country up for more decades of bitterness and blockage from the right wing -- which actually feeds on your demands? You give the religious right their power!
Want health insurance? Support single-payer, non-employer-based health insurance and you will have it, no matter whether you are "married" or not! And so will the unemployed, the self-employed, those who work for small businesses and those who can't afford to buy a private plan. Can you think outside the confines of your own enclave?
Just call your marriage something else and you will ultimately get what you want. Many states already offer equal rights for civil unions. But if GLBTs don't quit acting like spoiled brats they will lose much of the support they already have!
Try putting yourself in someone else's shoes before you talk down about them. It helps to try and visualize how someone else sees the world. I am willing to bet you don't even know a single gay individual (or if you do they are too scared to tell you for fear of rejection as a human being). As far as fundamentals go, we are no different from yourself. So ask yourself, what exactly is that drives you to suppress the rights of your fellow man/woman? We aren't being jerks - just asking the country to live up to its ideals of a Republic that at is very core respects the idea of human rights for all (we did after all sign in 1948 the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Neither my relationship with my partner or anyone else should be subject to a religious litmus test. If your God had wanted me otherwise, he would have created me otherwise. Like it or not gays are not a new phenomenon and we won't go away. Equality is non-negotiable. If the situation were reversed and it were more common to be bisexual or gay and you were the one facing the functional equivalent of DOMA or DADT, could be fired for being heterosexual, and had to endure "coming out" as heterosexual I can guarantee you would be fighting just as hard.
Bravo Digital. Equal rights for all people, not just in this country, but the whole planet. Unless we act as if those rights are the concerns of each of us, they will continue to be whitheld.
I am straight and have friends and family that are G/L. They are normal, law abiding people that work and contribute to society. They pay taxes, volunteer and contribute money to charities and community organizations and vote. They keep their house and property clean. They drink socially, they don't smoke or use drugs. They have never comitted a crime. They are good to their friends and family. (In fact, I think my gay brother may a saint he is so kind and caring :-) They are fellow human beings, they are my family and friends. They are; two doctors, a high school teacher, a truck driver, photographer, college professor, Train engineer, etc. Two are ex-military. They are normal people.
All have partners, all have been together for at least 18 years. That's a level of fidelity that puts some religious marriages to shame. Two couples have adopted difficult to place kids. One of those kids told me that he had the two best dads in the world.
It saddens me that religion and culture in this society treat my friends and family like low class ctizens with fewer rights than I have.
I'll tell y'all a secret. There is no "them" and "us". They ARE us, we are all human beings.
These divisions are man-made and can and should be un-made.
I refer you to Paragraphs 1 - 3 of the Preamble of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
" Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"
and Articles 1 - 3 of the same document:
"Article 1.
* All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
* Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
This is the Supreme law of the land as per Article VI, Paragraph II of the United States Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
lacewing, I am so sorry if we in the GLBT community seem like spoiled brats to you and I'm appalled you compared us to the North Korean Leader. I take it you do not want or support gay marriage. Why? What is your fear in regards two people who love and are committed to one another wanting to have the same rights as straights when they commit to each other?
Yes, I'm sure one of the reasons for your posting this comment is that you are tired of hearing about the GLBT's continuing saga regards rights and equality. I would presume you are straight by your comments. Great, if it wasn't for straights I would not be here, nor would anybody else in the GLBT community. Sadness, takes my heart when I read comments such as yours, because you do not live under the siege we in the GLBT Community live under, and that siege is fear...fear that we never will have the same freedoms that we will always be looking over our shoulders to see if we will murdered because we are different, fear of not quite being good enough by others standards, fear of dying alone because our partners will not be allowed to be at our side due to bigotry of hospital or family rules, fear of being tossed out of jobs, housing because we're gay or lesbian bi-sexual or transgendered, fear that the few rights we do have will be negated by the next admin that might come to power.
So lacewing, if I'm a whack job like the North Korea's Dictator, again I offer my apology, but I will not rest until I really feel free in my Country and that my fellow Brothers and Sisters in the GLBT have the same freedoms, we will not be silent. But it you want our silence, then by all means help us achieve our goals and then you won't have to hear our voices of protest.
This gay man would love single-payer healthcare, and he has no idea what that has to do with wanting to get married and start a family like everyone else he knows.
If you really believe in core democratic values, then you know it doesn't matter if someone want to discriminate - they shouldn't be allowed to. Civil unions do not offer the same rights and cannot be a substitute, unless you want to go back and edit every hospital policy, company policy, homeowner's policy, and state, county, and local government statute to specifically reference civil unions. Giving people almost-equal rights just according to state law is not the same as giving them an internationally recognized, universally accepted marriage.
You're a coward if you're too afraid of the right wing to fight them when they're wrong. Either that, or you think they're right... in which case, you don't deserve to call yourself a liberal.
I'm not getting over anything. You get over your fear of the right wing.
"There are a lot of us, including the President, who are sympathetic to gays being treated fairly and having actual equal rights, but who believe that gays just need to get over the need to use the word "marriage". Why set yourselves and the rest of this country up for more decades of bitterness and blockage from the right wing -- which actually feeds on your demands?"
"There are a lot of us, who are sympathetic to African Americans being treated fairly and having actualy equal rights..."
Are you aware how similar your diatribe is to arguments that were used by "sympathetic" white people against the civil rights movement? You don't see the irony in the supporters of an African American president using such arguments?
I suggest you read Martin Luther King Letter from a Birmingham Jail.
Furthermore, no, the bigots are actually losing, over the years. It is the older generation that opposes full equal rights much more than the younger generation. Slowly, but they are losing. People like you, and Obama, no longer get to hide behind the bigots anymore. You either support equal rights, or you too are a bigot.
You claim that many states offer civil unions. You conveniently ignore that civil unions often do not have the kind of legal force that marriage does. Often, people can choose to ignore civil unions if they want. A bigot working at a hospital can often choose to ignore a civil union, can choose to refuse to recognise someone's partner as next of kin. Etc.
Lastly, this just isn't about marriage. READ THE FREAKING ARTICLE. Fully inclusive ENDA isn't about marriage. DADT isn't about marriage. In the Department of Justice brief, filed by the administration of your "sympathetic" Obama, homosexuality was compared to bestiality and paedophilia.
"Many states already offer equal rights for civil unions" is quite an overstatement. One could count New Jersey, California, Oregon, and Washington, as allowing civil unions/domestic partnerships that offer some of the rights of marriage. No other states offer civil unions/domestic partnerships, and none of these actually provide the full benefits of marriage, nor does the state-level marriage offered in CT, MA, ME, NH, IA and VT. Because the federal government does not recognize either these marriages or these civil unions/domestic partnerships, there is discrimination in a host of areas on the federal level, including taxes and immigration rights.
That's 10 states offering partial rights for same-sex couples. That's all we've got
"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"
Would the reverse of this be:
Whereas it is essential, if human rights are not to be protected by the rule of law, that man should be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and opression,
Could that be where we are?
Hahahahaha! Michael your sincerity and earnestness are both commendable and laughable. Look around and learn from the past 6 months of history. As those deep political philosophera Madonna and the Beatles observed:
Some boys kiss me, some boys hug me
I think theyre o.k.
If they dont give me proper credit
I just walk away
They can beg and they can plead
But they cant see the light, thats right
cause the boy with the cold hard cash
Is always mister right, cause we are
Chorus:
Living in a material world
And I am a material girl
You know that we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl
...
The best things in life are free
But you can keep 'em for the birds and bees
Now give me money, that's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want
Your lovin' give me a thrill
But your lovin' don't pay my bills
Now give me money, that's what I want
That's what I want, oh yeah
That's what I want
Money don't get everything, it's true
What it don't get, I can't use
Now give me money, that's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want
Money don't get everything, it's true
What it don't get, I can't use
Now give me money, that's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want
Wall Street, Banks, GM, Chrysler, and health insurance, and the Pentagon "yes we can". Mass rail transit, single-payer healthcare, stopping wars of aggression in the Middle East, and gay rights issues, "we'll get back to you on that...sometime, maybe."
You and everybody else in the US get as many "rights" and as much "justice" as you can afford to buy.
Poet
Sometimes you hear gays or lesbians say, "We're just like anybody else. We have two kids, a dog, a mortgage, and we worry about the economy. We just don't want anybody telling us who we can love." My friend Brady, who used to be part of that gay sub-culture, calls the homosexual lifestyle "a façade of normalcy." And it is only a façade.
Consider the huge variance in the stability of relationships. Despite a high divorce rate, 57% of heterosexual marriages last over twenty years.{5} The average length of homosexual relationships is two to three years.{6} Only 5% of them last 20 years.{7}
And consider the issue of promiscuity. In heterosexual marriages, over three-fourths of the men and 88% of the women remain faithful to their marriage vows.{8} Most sexually active gay men are promiscuous, engaging hundreds of sexual partners over a lifetime.{9}
The concept of a committed relationship is very different for the two groups. Most heterosexual couples are faithful and stable. When homosexual men are in what they call a "committed" relationship, this usually includes three to five outside partners each year.{10} Rev. Troy Perry, founder of the Metropolitan Community Church, told the Dallas Morning News, "Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses. . . . We talk about fidelity. That means you live in a loving, caring, honest relationship with your partner. Because we can't marry, we have people with widely varying opinions as to what that means. Some would say that committed couples could have multiple sexual partners as long as there's no deception. Each couple has to decide."{11}
In Holland, which legalized gay marriage in 2001, the average is eight outside partners.{12} One study of gay men who had been together for over five years could not find one single monogamous relationship.{13} Not one! Women in lesbian relationships often stay together not because they want to, but because they're stuck financially and emotionally.
Heterosexuals live longer, happier lives. Sexually active homosexual men live a dangerous and destructive lifestyle. They are at huge risk for contracting AIDS, and run a much higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases than straight men. The gay community experiences three times more alcoholism and drug abuse,{14} and much more promiscuity and domestic violence than the straight world.{15} Gay men can expect to live twenty years less than their straight neighbors.{16}
And finally, a home with a mom and a dad is the best possible place for children. Homosexual parents put kids at risk. The American College of Pediatrics discovered that children raised by gay parents tend to be more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation in the family, have homosexual experiences more often, and are encouraged to experiment in dangerous, destructive lifestyle choices.{17}
Please hear me: We're commenting on the extremely high-risk behavior that is part and parcel of a homosexual lifestyle. That's not the same thing as condemning the people who engage in it. A homosexual lifestyle is a façade of normalcy, but it can be changed.
Answering Arguments for Same Sex Marriage
Let's look at several arguments being offered for same sex marriage.
The first is that marriage will encourage faithfulness and stability in volatile homosexual relationships. But the nature of homosexual and lesbian relationships is broken to begin with. Two broken people will not create a whole, healthy relationship. The best description I've ever heard of same sex relationships is "one broken little boy looking for his daddy, connecting with another broken little boy, looking for his daddy." And the same is true of women. Neither a marriage license, nor the approval of society, can fix what is irretrievably broken at its core.
Another argument is that we need same sex marriage to insure hospital visitation. But it's the patient who decides. If he appoints his partner as a health-care proxy, even if he's in a coma that document will insure access to the hospital. We don't need marriage for that. It's a smokescreen.
A third argument is that we need same sex marriage to insure survivorship benefits. But that's what a will is for. You don't need marriage for that.
Some say that we need same sex marriage for Social Security benefits. This is an interesting argument, since Social Security benefits were created to address the financial inequity of father as breadwinner and mother as stay-at-home caregiver. Homosexual relationships are usually two-incomes. It's very rare to have one stay-at-home caregiver of the kids, since homosexual relationships do not and cannot produce children naturally. When they do, they are borrowing from God's plan for creating families.
Then there's the discrimination argument. There are really two issues that fall under this argument: denied liberties and denied benefits.
Concerning the issue of denying the liberty to marry, this argument doesn't hold water. Any person can marry whoever he or she pleases, with certain restrictions that are true for everyone. You can't marry a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. These restrictions apply equally to everyone; there is no discrimination here. The problem is, some people don't like the restrictions.
True discrimination functions against an unchangeable identity, such as gender or color. Homosexuality is a lifestyle, a chosen behavior. Even sexual orientation is changeable. It's not easy, but it is possible. (See my article, "Can Homosexuals Change?" on our Web site.)
The other issue of discrimination is denied benefits. But benefits are granted to families because society has an interest in providing a safe place for children to grow up and be nurtured. So the government provides child-oriented benefits such as inheritance rights and tax relief to ease the financial burden of children. Insurance policies and Social Security benefits provide for the money gap between wage-earner and caregiver. These benefits are inherent to families. The essence of marriage is about building families. Homosexual relationships cannot build families legitimately. They have to borrow from heterosexual relationships or technology to create children
Sir, if you were comparing apples to apples it would be possible to give your argument some credence. But by comparing gay *relationships* to straight *marriages* you completely miss the point. Perhaps gay relationships would last longer if they were afforded the stability of marriage? You won't know if there will be a significant number of 20-year gay marriages for a bit yet, and so you can't really make that argument.
I would be shocked and amazed if the average heterosexual *relationship* lasted more than 2-3 years. Most that I see barely last 2 weeks.
More straight people have died of AIDS than gay people. There are simply more of you. So I suppose you should stop marrying too.
The study you reference is from the the American College of Pediatricians, not Pediatrics, which is an anti-gay group. They have nothing to do with pediatrics - if you look at their website, it's solely about defaming gay people. Their study is meaningless, and other studies by reputable, impartial organizations prove out exactly the opposite point, again and again. Check out the American Academy of Pediatrics - They're an actual pediatric organization, and according to them, there's no difference at all between children raised by straight parents or gay parents.
And, exactly how can a homosexual "lifestyle" be changed? Please provide details and success rates.
Oh, and finally, have you checked the statistics on monogamy in Dutch heterosexual relationships? I think you might be in for a shock.
Even natural law points to the wrongness of homosexual "marriage". The human reproductive organs were created for complimentary purposes between males and females. This is not so in homosexual relationships. There is no complimentation.
We were also created to unite together to give life. Homosexual relationships cannot fulfill this part of the natural law in that they are sterile. This points to the wrongness of such a relationship.
Of course, there is the religious argument also, if you wish to pursue that. I am just speaking in terms of creation and natural law at this time.
I was in the gay lifestyle as a young man, just enough to see that even with the couples I knew who had been together for 10 + years, there was still promiscuity. The favorite pastime appeared to be the bathhouses that were popular in the '60's in D.C.
I thank God for delivering me from this lifestyle, as it is very sad and not at all the happy life that the supporters of homosexuality wish to portray it as. Having been involved in a ministry which delivers men and women from this lifestyle, I have heard the stories, seen the heartbreak, and know that this is not the best life which we can have.
I am sorry you have internalized the homophobia of American culture. I hope you can free yourself and learn to accept yourself as you are. Gay is good! Being gay is a wholesome, normal condition. Gay people are fully capable of love and commitment, fully capable of being good parents, good spouses, and good citizens. Don't let the homophobes destroy your life! Be proud of who you are - there's no need to be "delivered" from the "gay lifestyle." You need deliverance from self-hatred!
You keep telling yourself that, bub. We'll be here waiting when you figure it all out... just try not to go beserk on anyone, being in the closet for so long can do things to you.
To - "Faithful Catholic" - You've copied this article from the website www.probe.org. On the probe homepage, choose "faith and sexuality" from the "articles" index on the upper left corner - then click "homosexuality" - then click "Same Sex Marriage: A Facade of Normalcy." (You omitted the first two sections and the last section for some reason.) The author is a woman named Sue Bohlin. You should be ashamed of your dishonesty in trying to pass this article off on commondreams readers as your own work (you're committing plagiarism). You should also be ashamed of your homophobia.
I didn't in any way say it is my work. That is how you read into it. It is a summation of the objections with which I agree.
Homosexuality is not normal. It does not meet the objective standards of natural law. It is an immoral behavior, just as two teenagers rutting in the back seat of Dad's Chevy. Any sexual behavior outside of the parameter of marriage is immoral.
And I have every right to believe what societies have believed since the dawn of time without you shaking your finger in my face. The behavior is wrong.
Is wrong ... ACCORDING TO YOU. You do not however have any right to attempt to legislate this bigotry. If you want to believe this non-sense ... fine that is your business but please practice a little live and let live. If you don't agree with gay relationships don't have one and kindly be quiet about it.
Here's my question: What is normal?
I think dropping bombs on people 12000 miles away is immoral.
I think owning 7 houses while fellow citizens live on the streets is immoral.
I think the Roman Catholic Church having investments in arms companies and banks is immoral.
Somehow I just cant bring myself to believe that two consenting adults wanting to marry is in the same ballpark.
Greed is far more a choice then is sexual orientation but Religous leaders the World over dont seem to have as big an issue with Greed do they?
Gay Sex Rampant in Animal Kingdom!
http://carnalnation.com/content/9129/10/gay-sex-rampant-animal-kingdom
Oh noes! All those cute furry(or feathery)animals are going to hell!...or not as it's imaginary, just like Jaysus, a gawd made in your own very demented image.
Secondly, there is nothing more natural than teens boinking like bunnies, it your twisted, puritanical, patriarchal morality that's unnatural....as well as really dumb and rather pathetic.
And finally Not every civilization has believed homo/bisexuality or promiscuity were wrong or unnatural - Greek and Roman civilization comes to mind. It wasn't that big of a deal till your missionaries/thugs spread their dogma of crap across the globe and condemned humanity to 2,000 years of misery.
But it's ok, unless humanity destroys the planet, I have 80 more years of life, I will see Christianity die in my lifetime, and when it does I'm going to buy a bunch of your holy relics and have them melted down to gold strands, so I can use them to braid my hair. She who laughs last and all that.
Friend - It seems to me that if you did not mean to pass the article off as your own work, you should have included the author's name, or a link to the website from which you copied it, or some kind of notice that it wasn't yours. Any post is assumed to be authored by the person posting it, unless otherwise specified. But perhaps it was an honest mistake.
You are right that I was pretty impolite in the way I expressed myself to you. I apologize for that, and will try to remember to use a more civil tone.
I cannot agree with your blanket statement that "societies have believed since the dawn of time" that homosexuality is immoral. Many Native American cultures were fully accepting of their gay and lesbian members. Ancient Greece, of course, celebrated love between men and love between women. Homosexuality was considered normal and wholesome in ancient Rome also. It could be argued that the ancient Jewish proscription against homosexuality - inherited by both Christianity and Islam, and spread via colonialism to African societies, to India, etc. - was anomalous in a global perspective, though it has been very powerful and has had horrific consequences in the lives of gay men and lesbians.
Care to provide sources or are you too scared to provide legitimate facts? I'd venture to say your argument is full of straw-man arguments and half-truths.
The following are undisputed:
-USA Constitution, 14th Amendment:
"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."
Meaning no matter how small a minority you belong to you are a citizen and entitled to equal rights to all other citizens.
USA Constitution, 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Meaning our laws are SECULAR and the government does not promote any religion. PERIOD.
Paragraphs II and III from the Article VI of the USA Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(signed and ratified by the USA in 1948 - functionally it is equivalent to USA law according to Article VI of the USA Constitution)
specifically Articles I, II, III, VI, and VII
I. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
II. "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."
III. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
VI. "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."
VII. "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
This never was about religion and never will be. Face it this is a secular Republic and your religious-based bigotry does not fly anymore. The younger generation has already assigned you and those who think like you to the dust bins of history. The thinking that rationalizes the discrimination of gays is finally at an end. I challenge you to find even one thing that overcomes any of the things I have quoted. You may have a right to hold your opinions but you do not have a right to legislate the morality or love of anyone. Also, I can assure you this is no lifestyle. I may be happy and accept myself just fine (and have a pair of wonderful parents and a heterosexual brother who love me) but if I could have avoided all the stuff that my fellow man has used to complicate my life with just because I'm gay I would. I have been fired because I was gay (never mind that I'm not what you would call a flamer). You only serve to injure with your words. You are not better than anyone else. I can't believe you would actually deny love to those who cannot have children (by your logic those marriages/couplings should be invalid). We don't need more children. Worldwide, there are already about a billion facing hunger (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_re_eu/eu_un_world_hunger) I have had to live my life in a hate-filled world because of you and those like you. Please wake up and show your humanity. All gays are asking is to be treated as equals. We don't want special rights just full equality.
Sioux Rose
Catholic: I have NO idea where you got your statistics, but in Shere Hite's book, "Women and Love," she interviewed 1800 persons. Although the book was published more than 10 years ago, I find it hard to believe statistics altered by much since that time period. She showed that 78% of married men will (and do) have an affair during the span of their marriage, and surprisingly about 73% of women! In other words in that sample 3/4 of persons had at least ONE affair during the course of their heterosexual marriage. Your findings are way off base!
You obviously think a top-down father-oriented authoritarian home that answers to creeds that you find acceptable is the ONLY way to establish a family. Your thinking belongs to an era that is passing away and I hope it will take the old church with its anti-sex/homoerotic/child molesting aberations along with it.
"Consider the huge variance in the stability of relationships. Despite a high divorce rate, 57% of heterosexual marriages last over twenty years.{5} The average length of homosexual relationships is two to three years.{6} Only 5% of them last 20 years.{7}"
You need to try harder. This is the kind of statistical trick that a little child uses.
Why the heck are you comparing heterosexual marriages with homosexual relationships? Why not compare heterosexual MARRIAGE with homosexual MARRIAGE? Or, heterosexual RELATIONSHIPS with homosexual RELATIONSHIPS?
This basic lie, at the beginning of your article, pretty much invalidates the entire article.
Good luck.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I'm really hoping that gay marriage will be legalized in America. Everyone deserves equal rights.
Also, as some of the people have commented here, religious people need to realize that this is not a Christian nation...this is a nation A. founded based on religious freedom, meaning that you're allowed to practice your religion regardless of what the religion is, and B. where discrimination is wrong. It's illegal to discriminate against others. Now, I'm not gay, but I was discriminated against just because I'm autistic, and I disliked it strongly.
Also, some people don't realize that two women can reproduce. Scientists have found that you can create sperm by using bone marrow. So, they don't need men.
My point here is that Americans need to realize that discrimination is wrong, and that everyone is entitled to equal rights.
"Moreover, in the absence of a stronger statement about the importance of equality for all Americans, it has been equally difficult for your supporters to understand the continued discharges under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell of service members devoting their lives to our country. Congress should vote to repeal the destructive law that destroys military careers and robs the armed forces of highly trained soldiers, but until that happens, you should use your authority as commander-in-chief to suspend discharges of these personnel until that law is changed."
I support the concept of equality for gays, including the right to marry. However, this part of the gay campaign, to become killers for imperialism, just doesn't wash. What the hell is "progressive" about this? AmeriKa's military should be greatly reduced and it should stop terrorizing other nations. If AmeriKa's military was used ONLY for legitimate defensive purposes, then I'd say that gays have an argument for equality within that body. As long as AmeriKa's military continues to be used to extend US imperialism, the more "highly qualified" killers that get removed, the better.
I understand your concern, and as both a pacifist and a gay man I have had to wrestle a bit with these questions myself.
The ban on gay and lesbian people in the military does not in any way advance a progressive agenda for the restraint of U.S. imperialism. But it does powerfully perpetuate anti-gay discrimination in society at large, simply because it is a huge, highly visible example of homophobia, stamped with the authority of the U.S. government. Ending the ban and allowing gay people to serve would surely not make U.S. imperialism any worse, but it would be a major, very visible, very influential victory for gay & lesbian equality. It would be front page news around the country and would send a powerful message that lesbians and gay men are deserving of respect and equal treatment, and that discrimination is wrong. So I really do think gay and lesbian people should work hard to end DADT, and that progressives of all stripes should continue to work even harder to restrain the beast of U.S. imperialism, and even, hopefully, to end war entirely (the ideal). I don't see a contradiction in these goals.
Equality really does mean participating as equals in all aspects of social life. There's no way that we can be "partially equal"; we've got to be fully integrated, visible everywhere, or we'll never really be free - even if that means we have to worry about military service and conscientious objection and so on just like straight people.
Here's a peculiar irony: gay people are fighting for the right to be "more equal" in the George Orwell sense.
"Marriage" (at least in the legal sense) is nothing more than government enforced discrimination against single people because it gives more married people more legal rights and more government welfare (think social security survivor benefits).
Instead of fighting for more discrimination, gay people should be fighting to overturn the idea that government can decide who you can marry; arguably your most personal decision.
Marriage laws, designed to protect women from bad husbands are archaic in an age of mostly equal rights for women.
Whatever the merits and shortcomings of the institution of marriage, gay men and lesbians are struggling to be fully included in all aspects of social life, without discrimination. That means being integrated into the bad as well as the good - marriage, employment, the military, what have you - not having a separate status in any way from straight people. Anything short of that is not equality.
One might argue, for instance, that gay men and lesbians, instead of fighting employment discrimination, should be fighting to overthrow the capitalist system and establish an anarchist society of perfect justice, in which "employment" as we know it would be abolished, along with money and property. But any such line of reasoning simply delays the ending of homophobia to some far-off day in an ideal future. In the meantime, GLBT people want equality!