News & Politics - Same-Sex Rights Discussion #5

**Avatar** · 12-14-2011, 04:09 AM

Continue here - at the end of the last thread, we were discussing Pres. Obama's record on gay rights and if he should/could do more.

**Cristofle** · 12-14-2011, 09:36 AM

Any President who doesn't make more of a push to legalize gay marriage COULD do more, but as we discussed in the last thread, I think he's staying towards the middle on this issue in his first term for political reasons. From what else he's said on the subject of gay rights, I really don't think he'd actually have a problem if gay marriage were legalized. He may not believe in it for himself, but I think he knows full well religious beliefs have no place in the law.

**sunnykerr** · 12-14-2011, 08:10 PM

Well, they could all do more, but then you have guys who stuff like this:

Quote:

Rick Santorum Blames Same-Sex Marriage For Plummeting Rates Of Marriage Across The Nation

Rick Santorum indirectly sounded off on same-sex marriage yet again today, blaming the "changing definition" of the institution for plummeting rates of marriage across the nation.

On his Twitter account, the GOP candidate wrote: "Here is 1 effect of changing definition of marriage "@HuffingtonPost: Marriage rate in America drops to new low link.

Included in Santorum's Tweet is a link to a HuffPost Weddings interview with D'Vera Cohn, a Pew researcher and senior writer who spoke at length about a new survey which found that the number of Americans who are getting married has hit a record low.

Interestingly, as ThinkProgress points out, the actual survey which Santorum references in the Tweet does not attribute the national decline to same-sex marriage, which would actually increase rates, but rather a number of other social factors.

"One is that there are other kinds of living arrangements that are socially acceptable now that may not have been in the past, such as living with someone without being married, living on your own, or even living as a single parent," Cohn said in the interview. "So people may feel they have options that they didn't used to have. Another factor in some cases is that among Americans who complete college, or education beyond that, they may want to get their education done and get launched in a career before they settle down and get married."

Santorum has previously said that allowing gay marriage will cause our country to "fall."

And he didn't lose all credibility... So that's telling to me.

Other people's views of equal marital rights:

Michele Bachmann: After her husband Marcus' Christian counseling center came under scrutiny for allegedly promoting "reparative therapy," a form of counseling that seeks to make gay people renounce their sexuality, Bachmann's gay rights views have taken center stage. Described by The San Francisco Chronicle as "arguably the most socially conservative Republican running for president," Bachmann is a strong opponent of same-sex marriage. "If you're involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it's bondage," she is quoted by the Human Rights Campaign as saying. "It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement."

Mitt Romney: Although he once vowed to be be a stronger advocate for gay rights than his former Massachusetts Senate opponent Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney has since signed a pledge sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage promising to support a federal constitutional amendment "defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," CBS News reported. "I can say look, there are a lot of folks who are raised by one parent, through divorce through death or through having a child out of wedlock," Romney said. "But my view is a society recognizes that the ideal setting for raising a child is when you have the benefit of two people working together and where one is male and one is female. I happen to believe that and that's the reason that I think as a society we say, 'You know what? We are going to call marriage what it has been called for 6,000 years.'"

Rick Santorum: The former senator from Pennsylvania has vowed to fight for a federal ban on same-sex marriage, claiming that allowing LGBT couples to wed would shake "the very foundation of our country, the family, what the family structure is going to look like." In September, he was condemned by gay rights group GOProud for saying he would reinstate the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy if elected president. "Removing 'don't ask, don't tell' I think tries to inject social policy into the military," Santorum said. "We executed a policy that I think was detrimental to everyone, including them, in my opinion because sex and sexual preference should not be an issue in the military, period. And it should not be something that is demonstrated in any shape or form in the military. And it shows how much our culture has changed that this is even a subject to be debated within the military."

Rick Perry: In his 2008 book "On My Honor," the Texas governor stated, "Even if an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol once it enters his body, he still makes a choice to drink. And even if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex, he or she still makes a choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender," according to Time.

After New York passed gay marriage in June, Perry initially defended states' rights but then reportedly clarified his stance on Christian radio, saying. "Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn't changed."

Jon Huntsman: The former Obama-appointed U.S. Ambassador to China has said that he would not support marriage equality for gays and lesbians. "I think redefining marriage is something that would be impossible and it's something I would not be in favor of," he told MSNBC's Morning Joe in June. Still, he would reportedly continue to support civil unions: "I think we sometimes don't do an adequate job in talking about equality and in addressing fairness: hospital visitations, reciprocal beneficiary rights, insurance. There are a lot of these issues that I think we can do better with as people in the name of fairness and in the name of equality."

Ron Paul: Paul did support the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but has also spoken out in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. He also said he believes that states should have the right to legalize gay marriage, marijuana, and prostitution if they choose to do so, according to The Advocate: "If you do not protect liberty across the board, it's a First Amendment-type issue. We don't have a First Amendment so we can talk about the weather. We have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. So, for people to say that, 'Yes, we have our religious beliefs protected, but people who want to follow something else, or a controversial religion -- you can't do this' ... if you have the inconsistency, then you're really not defending liberty."

Newt Gingrich: The former House Speaker has made a variety of statements against same-sex marriage, even linking it to the nation's economic troubles. "I believe that marriage is between a man and woman," he is quoted as saying. "It has been for all of recorded history and I think this is a temporary aberration that will dissipate. I think that it is just fundamentally goes against everything we know." When New York became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage, Gingrich noted, "I think we are drifting towards a terrible muddle which I think is going to be very, very difficult and painful to work our way out of," according to Reuters.

Gary Johnson: The former two-term governor of New Mexico has what has been described as a "libertarian viewpoint on marriage," and says he does not believe that government should be involved in marriage, but that it should simply hand out civil unions. The Advocate quotes Johnson as having scolded his fellow candidates for signing a pledge with the National Organization for Marriage to ban same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution if they are elected. "If candidates who sign this pledge somehow think they are scoring some points with some core constituency of the Republican Party, they are doing so at the peril of writing off the vast majority of Americans who want no part of this 'pledge' and its offensive language," said Johnson. "The Republican Party cannot afford to have a presidential candidate who condones intolerance, bigotry and the denial of liberty to the citizens of this country."

Source

I don't know who Gary Johnson is, but if I were American, he'd be the one who would make the most sense to me here.

Gray Ghost · 12-14-2011, 09:23 PM

The government shouldn't regulate marriage in general in my opinion. Just my silly opinion. If gay people want to get married, let the church and local government deal with that. The same for straight people.

**Cristofle** · 12-14-2011, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost (View Post)

The government shouldn't regulate marriage in general in my opinion. Just my silly opinion. If gay people want to get married, let the church and local government deal with that. The same for straight people.

Well, as our federal government has been involved in marriage in a large variety of ways for hundreds of years (again, see federal taxes and immigration laws among other things), wouldn't it be easier- and more cost-efficient, since as you repeatedly say we should be more worried about the economy than anything- to just let gay couples legally marry than to completely up-end how our country has dealt with marriage basically since the beginning? Because that's what it would take, to do what you're suggesting.

LMAO at Newt's section there. MAN, he really is one of the most just flat-out unlikable people imaginable. He cannot open his mouth and sound like a decent, reasonable human being.

Gray Ghost · 12-14-2011, 09:41 PM

Most Americans including myself want the economy fixed before gay people can get married. Sorry, I know it's harsh but maybe it's American greed or whatever. The economy trumps every other issue right now in America hands down. What is funny is how some gay rights supporters want to throw stones and just bash Republicans, Christians, and conservatives but they never put blame on the groups(liberals and Democrats) that are suppose to be advocates for them. Is it just denial? Are people just so in denial that they can't imagine that their so-called politicians would not have their interests at heart?
Where is the push for gay marriage by liberals and Democrats? I mean seriously, is there really any legislation or talk for a push of gay marriage or even civil unions?

**Cristofle** · 12-14-2011, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Where is the push for gay marriage by liberals and Democrats? I mean seriously, is there really any legislation or talk for a push of gay marriage

...Really? LOL. Never heard of the Respect of Marriage Act in Congress that would repeal DOMA, have you? Don't watch much C-Span?

Gray Ghost · 12-14-2011, 09:58 PM

I have actually heard of that but where is the push? Why isn't Obama and his buddies pushing for it? I just think it's funny how voters defend these bozos when they clearly don't care about the issues. If Obama was truely for the gay movement/lifestyle, at least civil unions would be legal nationwide.
Why aren't they held accountable? Instead of doing that, people want to defame and sometimes physically harm anyone that does not support gay marriage.

**TheAngel** · 12-15-2011, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost (View Post)

I have actually heard of that but where is the push? Why isn't Obama and his buddies pushing for it? I just think it's funny how voters defend these bozos when they clearly don't care about the issues. If Obama was truely for the gay movement/lifestyle, at least civil unions would be legal nationwide.
Why aren't they held accountable? Instead of doing that, people want to defame and sometimes physically harm anyone that does not support gay marriage.

Show me one example of someone who has been physically harmed because they don't support gay marriage.

**sunnykerr** · 12-15-2011, 07:46 PM

As for being defamed, if you ask me, politicians who refuse to support same-sex marriage aren't given nearly enough grief about it.

Gray Ghost · 12-16-2011, 12:44 AM

TheAngel, do you not remember the outrage over Proposition 8 in California?
You need to realize that gay people can be bigots too. In fact, anyone can be a bigot. We have to stop with the whole victim label. If gay people are gay and happy about it then they aren't victims. Hold on I will explain to the court, if a gay person is killed or beaten because a person doesn't like gay people then yes that gay person would be a victim. However, being gay doesn't make you a victim. If you go with the victim mentality then you would concede that being gay is a flaw or a setback.
This little shows that gay people can be just as bigoted as the people that hate them for being gay.
Anti proposition 8 protesters harass little old lady. - YouTube

One of the major flaws of the gay movement is that there should be an understanding that not every single person supports the gay movement/lifestyle. Sure, people can say that they think gay people should have the same rights as straight people including marriage but you cannot assume that every person even the ones that support gay marriage support the gay movement/lifestyle. We have to stop with this whole force mentality. In America, you can be whatever you want. It's your choice and freedom. However at the same time, you gotta be respectful of others. People that think being gay is wrong shouldn't force that belief on people that think being gay is normal and right and vice versa. If we were like that, we would be a better country. Personally, I think marriage is between a man and a woman but I'm not going to tell a gay person that they can't get married or that they are a piece of crap. We just need a compromise and need to stop this whole throwing stones at each other. Let gay people do their thing but also let people have the freedom to believe if something is right or wrong.

**Cristofle** · 12-16-2011, 06:13 AM

Quote:

In America, you can be whatever you want. It's your choice and freedom. However at the same time, you gotta be respectful of others.

Two points. Again, you keep seeming to mistake freedom with "no one ever telling you they disagree with you or that they think you're wrong." Freedom doesn't guarantee that. Two, if you think the civil right to get married should be denied a couple because they're of the same sex, I can pretty much make a good guess that they don't feel respected by you. You've been pretty clear that you don't take this seriously, but the couples who are being denied the civil liberties straight couples have are taking it VERY seriously. You may think you can believe they shouldn't have those civil liberties because marriage should only be between heterosexual couples but you really are being respectful of gay couples anyway, but don't be surprised if they disagree with you and don't feel particularly respected.

**TheAngel** · 12-16-2011, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost (View Post)

TheAngel, do you not remember the outrage over Proposition 8 in California?
You need to realize that gay people can be bigots too. In fact, anyone can be a bigot. We have to stop with the whole victim label. If gay people are gay and happy about it then they aren't victims. Hold on I will explain to the court, if a gay person is killed or beaten because a person doesn't like gay people then yes that gay person would be a victim. However, being gay doesn't make you a victim. If you go with the victim mentality then you would concede that being gay is a flaw or a setback.
This little shows that gay people can be just as bigoted as the people that hate them for being gay.
Anti proposition 8 protesters harass little old lady. - YouTube

One of the major flaws of the gay movement is that there should be an understanding that not every single person supports the gay movement/lifestyle. Sure, people can say that they think gay people should have the same rights as straight people including marriage but you cannot assume that every person even the ones that support gay marriage support the gay movement/lifestyle. We have to stop with this whole force mentality. In America, you can be whatever you want. It's your choice and freedom. However at the same time, you gotta be respectful of others. People that think being gay is wrong shouldn't force that belief on people that think being gay is normal and right and vice versa. If we were like that, we would be a better country. Personally, I think marriage is between a man and a woman but I'm not going to tell a gay person that they can't get married or that they are a piece of crap. We just need a compromise and need to stop this whole throwing stones at each other. Let gay people do their thing but also let people have the freedom to believe if something is right or wrong.

Show me one example of someone who has been physically harmed because they don't support gay marriage.

_vega_ · 12-16-2011, 07:21 PM

It's impossible to argue against someone who uses hypothetical examples with no basis in reality. Those examples would be morphed into something that will always support their theories

.

**sunnykerr** · 12-16-2011, 08:42 PM

Just to keep our eye on the topic at hand here, this is what we're talking about:

Quote:

Woman gets house arrest for helping gay relative escape Uganda

An Ottawa nurse’s aide and survivor of the Rwandan genocide said she believed it was “God’s plan” to help save a gay Ugandan relative by lending him her son’s passport and permanent resident card so he could come to Canada and claim refugee status.

On Friday, Barbara Nyiraneza was sentenced to six months of house arrest as part of a year-long conditional sentence for violating Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Nyiraneza’s cousin said he feared for his safety in the African country, so Nyiraneza bought him a plane ticket and lent him her son’s Rwandan passport and Canadian permanent resident card.

Her 20-year-old cousin and 21-year-old son resembled one another, court heard.

The 57-year-old nurse’s aide at the Perley and Rideau Veterans Health Centre said she had been in Kenya visiting her sick sister when she discovered son Paul Milindi’s paperwork, which he had given her for safekeeping, in her bag.

Then she learned about her cousin Benon Bagire’s plight.

The two boarded Air Canada flight 889 from London, England. When it arrived in Ottawa on Feb. 28, Bagire was the last person off the plane.

Bagire told authorities his name and that he was claiming refugee status. When asked for the passport he had used to board the plane, Bagire said he flushed it down the airplane toilet.

Canada Border Services agents quickly determined Bagire was travelling with Nyiraneza and that he had used a passport belonging Milindi. Nyiraneza was detained but laughed and admitted what she had done when confronted, according to an affidavit filed by the CBSA investigator.

Ontario Court Justice Robert Fournier found that Nyiraneza made a “naive” and ultimately illegal decision, but was a far cry from “entrepreneurs” with organized plots to bring multiple people to Canada on phoney passports.

Fournier said her motivation appeared to be humanitarian and not money.

“She is not trying to bring terrorists into the country,” said Fournier, who called Nyiraneza a “survivor” who had herself escaped with her life from the Rwandan genocide. Her husband and mother, along with other relatives, were murdered.

“If (Bagire’s) discovered, harm will be inflicted. He’ll be persecuted, maybe even killed,” said Fournier. “She decided the ends justified the means, which is the wrong approach.”

Fournier added the plan wasn’t sophisticated and seemed to be more spur of the moment.

“It wasn’t rocket science,” said Fournier, adding anybody could have come up with it “in 32 seconds.”

Prosecutor Moray Welch asked for a six to nine month jail sentence for Nyiraneza, arguing that time in custody was needed to send a strong message to others who might contemplate such a crime. Welch argued Nyiraneza could have been charged with people smuggling instead of pleading to a lesser charge.

Welch said it costs Canadians about $50,000 during the course of a refugee claim. That amount will be much higher for Bagire, who has so far spent nearly eight months in the detention centre. The CBSA estimates it costs them $200 a day to hold someone on refugee status at the jail. Bagire had been released from jail but violated conditions not to communicate with Milindi or Nyiraneza.

“This was a planned and deliberate act. Ms. Nyiraneza was aware of the regulations of the visa process,” said Welch. “She abused the integrity of the Rwandan passport and the permanent resident card of Canada just as if she had used a counterfeit one,” he said.

“If I send her to jail for four or five months, I don’t know what I’m going to accomplish,” said Fournier.

Nyiraneza has been a “useful, productive citizen” since arriving here, he said.

“It’s not like she’s been around letting Canada take care of her,” said Fournier, who also dismissed a defence request for a conditional discharge — meaning Nyiraneza could escape a criminal record — as “too light.”

Despite the consequences, Nyiraneza said outside of court that she felt like what she did was worth it.

“I didn’t feel like losing another relative. I have lost enough,” said Nyiraneza, a mother of five.

Nyiraneza’s lawyer, Isaac Sechere, said his client felt she had no choice but to help him.

“How are you going to sleep at night two or three months further on if you hear the guy was killed?,” Sechere asked.

Nyiraneza is herself a failed refugee claimant who was later granted permanent residence status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. She lives in Canada with four of her children, and was in the process of applying for her citizenship when she was charged.

In addition to six months of house arrest, Nyiraneza will spend six months under a 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew as part of her conditional sentence. She was also ordered to complete 100 hours of community service.

Prosecutors had originally charged Milindi, but those charges were later withdrawn. Bagire was never charged because Canada does not prosecute people who arrive seeking refugee status who may have arrived here illegally.

Source

So this guy lived in a country where his life was in danger, simply by virtue of being gay. And I don't have any problem with the legal system assessing the ways in which this did break Canadian law. That much is not up for debate, not even by me...

But it was obviously the right thing to do. How could anyone argue with what she did?


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Same-Sex Rights Discussion #5