11/09/2005

Take it to the Voters!!!

With elections and referenda in several states yesterday, I have to say on a day with the sweet smell of victory and the eminent downfall of the fundigelical fascists trying to destroy of great democracy, that YES, let's take it to the voters!!!

Let's take it right now!!!

Maine passes civil rights legislation for gays!

Democrat Tom Kaine wins in VA!

Democrat Jon Corzine wins in NJ!

(two key states that Pugs do not want to lose ground in!)

All four of Schwarzenegger's referenda DIE!!!

(don't fuck with the girly-men, asshole!)

Yeah, I know Texas passed the gay marriage ban. As if we didn't expect that. It's better to screw a steer than another man in Texas!

I find it most hilarious and quite sad that the rabid fundigelicals in places like Maine and Texas just can't stop. One loses in Maine on basic civil rights but thinks they can pass a gay marriage amendment. Okay, that's smart! You've already shown yourselves to be hateful bigots, just keep digging a little deeper hole.

Texas on the other hand is going YEEHAW!!! We won so let's heep a little more bigotry and hate on them queers!

Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas states:

"There's a good old Texas phrase about getting the bit in your teeth. If the horse gets the bit in his teeth, he can run as he wants, and I believe the social conservatives feel like they have the bit in their teeth."


Yeah, first they came for me, and you're next!

Rev. Ryan Rush, senior pastor of Bannockburn Baptist Church in Austin says, "I think that's a positive thing because evangelical Christians stand for what's right."

Oh, I missed the red part in the Bible where Jesus taught about hating the queers and pass laws and legislation against them ad nauseum so it makes you feel high and mighty. So, that's what a good Christian does? No wonder my Sunday School teacher looked at me funny when I asked about "love thy neighbor." Then again, he made fun of the homeless woman who came to our church because she didn't dress "right."

My thoughts: Yes, let's take it to the voters! Let's take basic civil rights legislation for gays and lesbians to the voters and force their hand. These bastards are so much for state-by-state legislation and letting the voters decide on other's rights. Well, let's make 'em put up or shut up! Demand the bigots show their faces to their neighbors, co-workers, family and friends. Insist that if they think they are so much better than gay people that they deserve something a gay person doesn't (i.e. freedom from harassment and discrimination) then stand up and say so. The fires are hot for it and I say we do it!!!

26 Comments:

At 18:11, Blogger dorsano said...

Let's take basic civil rights legislation for gays and lesbians to the voters and force their hand

I agree that equal rights amendments should be championed in every state, every year until they pass.

 
At 20:38, Blogger dorsano said...

Let's take it to the voters. Reporting in on the DFA blog from Dover's neighbor ..,

Some interesting local results here in Lancaster, PA, a heavily Republican area that has not elected a Democrat to a county-wide office since before the Civil War when it sent future President Buchanan to Congress. County voter registration is more than 2 to 1 Republican while the Democrats hold a slight edge in the city of Lancaster.

Our incumbent 2-term Republican mayor in the city of Lancaster has gone down to a crushing defeat with Democratic Challenger Richard Gray taking 58% of the vote. Democrats also swept the City Counsel, previously 100% Republican.


The GOP best figure out why Bloomberg won - I'll give them a hint, it wasn't because he spent his time and energy dissing gays and lesbians.

 
At 21:12, Blogger Tonito Bandito said...

You preach it sista'! Baby steps is what i call them. I will take the victories in Maine and New Jersey and Virginia and excuse the idiots in Texas! You know they worship the shrub in his home state. So maybe it will take years for Texans to come around. But who the f*ck cares about those rednecks. Remember where we came from. I think baby steps will prevail over the bigotry. You and I can hope can't we?

 
At 06:10, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Amen, Dorsano!!! Bloomberg may be a Republican, but he is basically quiet on us. Then again, there is a huge gay population in NY so he better learn to keep his mouth shut!

Tonito-

The South in general is always the last to learn. I know folks don't like the comparison to the black civil rights movement, but we have to remember that interracial marriage was outlawed in the US state-by-state and Congress as early as 1871 was trying to pass sweeping legislation to completely outlaw interracial marriage. This was long before the civil rights act.

Perhaps we should take a lesson from history and realize that just because these bigotted fuckers don't want us to share in their privileges and they are making steady moves to outlaw our relationships does it mean that we've lost this war.

History shows that it's far from over!

 
At 07:18, Blogger Deep in the Heart of Texas said...

For the record, I'm from Texas and I'm PRO gay marriage. So we're not all steer screwing rednecks. :)

Before voting on Tuesday, my "colleagues" and I had quite a few conversations about the whole gay marriage issue. Sadly most are against it. They used the "well, the Bible says it's wrong" argument. I love how people who profess to be such loving Christians spew so much loathing and hate at those who are different from them.

Representing in the T-X!

 
At 07:43, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Thanks Heart of Texas! I know not all Texans are "steer screwing rednecks!" There are lots of good people in Texas. Unfortunately, they just got outnumbered by the bad. Hey, I'm originally from Alabama and we don't all sleep with our sisters and first cousins either.

Keep "representin'" and eventually the tide will turn! It just may take a long time to do it! :)

 
At 14:26, Blogger lovin' it said...

By all means, take it to the people. Just please have the decency not to try to force your will on a disagreeing majority through an over-reaching supremicist judge.

 
At 19:01, Blogger dorsano said...

Just please have the decency not to try to force your will on a disagreeing majority through an over-reaching supremicist judge.

We wouldn't do anything like the 2000 presidential election.

 
At 14:04, Blogger lovin' it said...

dorsano - not even in Massachusets?

 
At 09:41, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Massachusetts' majority doesn't seem to be having a problem. The people are happy with the decision and living in peace with their married gay neighbors.

 
At 11:40, Blogger lovin' it said...

Then why did it take a court order overturning state law? If the majority really supported gay marriage, why couldn't they get it passed through the legislature instead of short circuiting the democratic process?

 
At 12:30, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Massachusetts General Laws, specifically G.L. c. 207, which was at the heart of that legal battle never specifically barred same-sex marriage (hence, the witch hunt and bruhaha by all of these other states). Besides, the Legislature has had plenty of times to do something about it as have the people of MA. If it was really such a big deal and the sky was falling on their heads, I'm sure something would have been done by now. Life went on for them. Too bad others are stuck in the dark ages over this still.

 
At 13:14, Blogger lovin' it said...

Callie, you know you're being a bit disengenuous here. The whole lawsuit started because a gay couple was denied the right to marry. The court didn't interpret the law as allowing gay marriage. They "found" the right in the state constitution and ordered the legislature to create a statute to accomodate it.

Gay marriage was created in Mass. by judicial decree, not by the will of the people.

 
At 14:17, Blogger RedStateExile said...

I think it's a bit more cunning that religious fascists have privileges that they've seen fit to try to head others off of the pass of having.

If a state constitution is not specific enough for them, they want to be EXTRA clear and limit rights. They want to make SURE there is no confusion about the matter. Why do you think it got past the courts in the first place for crying out loud? Why do you think the nutcases are screaming so loud for VERY specific language to limit marriage to one man and one woman? Why do you think they did it with blacks and whites? Because a lot of states WAY back when didn't give a hoot about those specifics. It wasn't until someone made a big damn deal about "I got something and you can't have it" that states started deciding who could have that privilege and who couldn't.

It's the same story, different decade. Blah, blah, blah!

Even as far back as 2003, 50% of MA residents supported same-sex marriage. ONLY 44% opposed.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marm2.htm

That's a bigger spread than the 2004 "selection." We're claiming a MAN-DATE, baby!!!

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

 
At 19:03, Blogger dorsano said...

dorsano - not even in Massachusets?

To be honest, I haven't looked at the opinions in the Massachusets case. It sounds similar to what happened in Vermont.

It seems to me that the Massachusets court isn't hung up on the word marriage. They aren't going to force the Pope to marry same sex couples

though if they tried, that case would clear the air in my opinion.

 
At 06:45, Blogger RedStateExile said...

As far as I know, Dorsano, no church as been forced anywhere to marry anyone they didn't want to, whether it be gay or straight. Hence, freedom of religion. There are some churches that will perform the ceremonies and some that won't. Besides, a church "marriage" ceremony has no weight anyway without the state behind it. Everyone has to go to the courthouse first, get a license to marriage, and then (if they want) they can have a symbolic ceremony in a church. That's all it is...symbolic. That's why we call it "civil marriage rights" not "church marriage rights". The church doesn't give the right to marry, only the state does. The only power the church has is to say "no, we don't marry 'those kind of people'".

 
At 19:25, Blogger dorsano said...

That's close - that's how it is France for example. But here it's a little bit more complicated (if I remember correctly - it's been over 30 years) because the Church serves as an agent of the state (like a justice of the peace) and executes the license.

 
At 11:50, Blogger RedStateExile said...

But it's not required to go to the church to get the license executed and that's the sticking point.

In fact many churches, even without a license especially if you are straight, will just perform a ceremony. It has no meaning, but they'll do it. You've heard of couples renewing vows. Well, it's that principle. It's just symbolic.

 
At 12:03, Blogger lovin' it said...

In Indiana, any officially incorporated church can perform a marriage ceremony that is as legal as one performed in a courthouse. All you have to do is mail in a copy of your certificate signed by a pastor..

 
At 08:43, Blogger RedStateExile said...

http://www.weddingvendors.com/marriage-license-laws/united-states/indiana/

and

http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/p/indiana.htm

Officiants: Marriages may be performed by a member of the clergy (including a minister, priest, bishop, rabbi, and imam), a judge, a magistrate, a clerk of the circuit court, or a clerk or clerk-treasurer of a city or town.

and if that isn't enough, how about an actual site for an Indiana county?

http://www.tippecanoe.in.gov/clerk/division.asp?fDD=8-96

No matter where you go, you HAVE to have a certificate (i.e. marriage license) FIRST (hear me FIRST) to get married.

That certificate/license is provided by the city or town you are getting married in, not by the CHURCH you are getting married in. The CHURCH doesn't create the licenses. They are only allowed to sign off on them.

If you don't have a certificate provided by the STATE, you don't have a marriage!!! That was my point.

Are you from Indiana by the way? Because if you are, that explains a lot. After all, that is a state that allows cousins to marry. They give a thumbs up on incest! Yeehaw!

 
At 13:41, Blogger lovin' it said...

1. The only states that allow first cousins to marry are the NE corridor states. Indiana forbids marriage closer then 3'rd cousins.

Of course the certificate has to come from the state. Who ever said otherwise? The pastor fills out the state form.

 
At 14:14, Blogger RedStateExile said...

You REALLY need to learn to do some research! Seriously.

1. The only states that allow first cousins to marry are the NE corridor states. Indiana forbids marriage closer then 3'rd cousins.

http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states

Only...only! It looks like you overlooked TN, AL, GA, FL!!!!, SC, and VA. NC too, but they have some restrictions.

I will admit that you were right about Indiana, but I am curious about why you know SO much about cousins in Indiana marrying. Hmmmm...

Anyway, that's the benefits of doing deeper research, right? To learn something, right? It's good to learn.

The pastor fills out the state form.

As well as can a JOP, you know good and well that pastors aren't the only ones that sign off on the licenses. Stop twisting yourself. You're becoming unrecognizable.

 
At 14:23, Blogger lovin' it said...

First of all, I never said they were the only ones who can fill out the forms. But I don't even know why we're arguing about it. So whatever.

As for my knowledge of cousin lovin', you've never seen my cousins. ;-)

Seriously though, you insinuated that people from my state are the product of inbreeding. I set the record straight about what types of marriages are allowed in my state compared to many of the liberal states in this country. And somehow I'm the one with the unhealthy obsession? You brought it up, chicky. Who've you been eying at the family reunions?

 
At 14:36, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Ahhh, I just got a jab in on Indiana and you didn't like it! Look at that list again, I came from AL and I live in TN. I can't say much either.

As for family reunions, I don't go. I'm not welcome there. Besides, I'm not into that.

 
At 14:42, Blogger lovin' it said...

You're not welcome at your family reunions? Sad.

Because you're gay, or some other reason?

 
At 06:46, Blogger RedStateExile said...

Yep, but my life has been happier without them in it. I haven't spoken to them in two years, and I have a LOT less stress in my life now.

The only sad part is not having those sappy mom stories like other people have to tell, but OH WELL!

That's life!!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home