The Republican primary for President Obama's old seat is a five-way contest with Mark Kirk the front runner with about 46% support. Andy Martin, disbarred attorney and perennial candidate, enjoys about 2% support. In a radio ad, Martin reports a "solid rumor" that Kirk is homosexual.
I don't really care. But then there was this charming nugget of unintended irony from Pat Brady, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party:
"His statements today are consistent with his history of bizarre behavior and often times hate-filled speech which has no place in the Illinois Republican Party," Brady said. "Mr. Martin will no longer be recognized as a legitimate Republican candidate by the Illinois Republican Party."
Since when has "bizarre behavior and hate-filled speech" disbarred a Republican? Could this be an indication of movement toward the middle, an indication that in Illinois the party will not be dragged further to the right by vocal nutjobs? Much as I dislike the Republican agenda, it does not serve the country to have them go into a self-imposed exile. Perhaps Brady is signaling a return to health and sanity.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-kirk-martin-29-dec29,0,440249.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-kirk-martin-29-dec29,0,440249.story)
Quote from: Ed W on December 29, 2009, 06:06:00 AM
The Republican primary for President Obama's old seat is a five-way contest with Mark Kirk the front runner with about 46% support. Andy Martin, disbarred attorney and perennial candidate, enjoys about 2% support. In a radio ad, Martin reports a "solid rumor" that Kirk is homosexual.
I don't really care. But then there was this charming nugget of unintended irony from Pat Brady, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party:
"His statements today are consistent with his history of bizarre behavior and often times hate-filled speech which has no place in the Illinois Republican Party," Brady said. "Mr. Martin will no longer be recognized as a legitimate Republican candidate by the Illinois Republican Party."
Since when has "bizarre behavior and hate-filled speech" disbarred a Republican? Could this be an indication of movement toward the middle, an indication that in Illinois the party will not be dragged further to the right by vocal nutjobs? Much as I dislike the Republican agenda, it does not serve the country to have them go into a self-imposed exile. Perhaps Brady is signaling a return to health and sanity.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-kirk-martin-29-dec29,0,440249.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-kirk-martin-29-dec29,0,440249.story)
Gee there's a shocker! A republican resorting to hate speech??
The response from Brady is somewhat encouraging, but don't hold your breath...
Quote from: Ed W on December 29, 2009, 06:06:00 AM
Could this be an indication of movement toward the middle, an indication that in Illinois the party will not be dragged further to the right by vocal nutjobs? Much as I dislike the Republican agenda, it does not serve the country to have them go into a self-imposed exile. Perhaps Brady is signaling a return to health and sanity.
Maybe.
But as an Illinoisan for about 40 years, I think the more likely answer is that Illinois Republicans are a lot more moderate and pragmatic than Republicans, say, in Oklahoma or in Southern states. Horse-trading and compromising are common and even encouraged. By and large, Illinois voters want stuff to get done and demand that their lawmakers be a lot more cooperative and reasonable.
Also, Illinoisans have a low tolerance for people who are loud-mouthed ideologues. The Illinois GOP is still smarting over having that insane knucklehead Alan Keyes running for Senate a few years ago. He barely got 30 percent of the vote and was a profound embarrassment. The party doesn't want another loud-mouthed knucklehead running for office.
In short, this is Midwestern pragmatism at work.
I think this is a case where Martin crossed the line, and the state GOP simply isn't going to stand for it because voters won't, either. If it's a symptom of a movement emerging on a national level, I'm all for it. But I wouldn't count on it.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on December 29, 2009, 09:40:28 AM
In short, this is Midwestern pragmatism at work.
Repeated for truth.
I love it when a lone idiot like Andy Martin somehow becomes a symbol for an entire political party.
Is this supposed to be some sort of distraction from Harry Reid's "Cash For Cloture" scam which was very likely encouraged by a certain former Senator from Illinois?
Quote from: Conan71 on December 29, 2009, 10:13:19 AM
Is this supposed to be some sort of distraction from Harry Reid's "Cash For Cloture" scam which was very likely encouraged by a certain former Senator from Illinois?
That's the horse trading and compromise rw was talking about.
Quote from: guido911 on December 29, 2009, 10:52:18 AM
That's the horse trading and compromise rw was talking about.
Agreed. Find me any legislation that doesn't have it.
Quote from: Ed W on December 29, 2009, 06:06:00 AM
Could this be an indication of movement toward the middle, an indication that in Illinois the party will not be dragged further to the right by vocal nutjobs? Much as I dislike the Republican agenda, it does not serve the country to have them go into a self-imposed exile. Perhaps Brady is signaling a return to health and sanity.
If the Republican party was truly wanting to move toward a more sane, healthy place they would need to tell their current nutjob mouthpieces -Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter and the like- to shut the F**K up. They are an embarrassment to the entire country.
Ain't gonna happen as long as this lot is representing the party. It's truly a shame.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on December 29, 2009, 11:20:38 AM
Agreed. Find me any legislation that doesn't have it.
Why are you searching for ways to justify the falsely-inflated cost of the healthcare pile? We are paying a double quarter-pounder price for a quarter-pounder. I can't believe anyone who has ever written a check to the IRS isn't outraged about all this waste coming out of our pockets, much less finding ways to justify it and be complacent.
So is calling someone homosexual derogatory or is it implied that he said so in some way to make it so? I think labeling the term "hate speech" is a bit much because that implies the term is always derogatory.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 29, 2009, 01:14:05 PM
If the Republican party was truly wanting to move toward a more sane, healthy place they would need to tell their current nutjob mouthpieces -Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter and the like- to shut the F**K up. They are an embarrassment to the entire country.
Ain't gonna happen as long as this lot is representing the party. It's truly a shame.
As if Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow and the like aren't an embarrassment either? Maddow with her constant ramblings about the Christian Mafia and C-Streeters. She's as bad as Lou Dobbs with her constant conspiracies. I'd love to see Matthews take the DNC's skin flute out of his mouth for just a few seconds.
You apparently have fallen hook, line, and sinker for one-sided partisanship commentary if you think Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh etc. ad nauseum are the biggest problem facing the U.S. without considering how partisan hacks on the left are just as corrosive. They must fit your paradigm better if you don't see that. If America continues to show signs of moderating, all of these oafs will eventually find themselves out of a job if they don't espouse a less partisan viewpoint from the outer fringes of liberalism or conservatism and realize true bi-partisan ship which is best for our country lies in the middle.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 29, 2009, 01:14:05 PM
If the Republican party was truly wanting to move toward a more sane, healthy place they would need to tell their current nutjob mouthpieces -Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter and the like- to shut the F**K up. They are an embarrassment to the entire country.
Ain't gonna happen as long as this lot is representing the party. It's truly a shame.
Throw in Ed Schultz, James Carville, and Paul Begala as they are all about sanity and not embarrassments to this country.
I can't believe any of you guys are defending any of the talking heads. They aren't out for the betterment of our society.
They are out for the enrichment of their bottom line and will say what they need to in order to get an audience.
Seriously, arguing about these actors pushing themselves off as learned commentators is a waste of your time.
Quote from: Townsend on December 29, 2009, 02:23:30 PM
I can't believe any of you guys are defending any of the talking heads. They aren't out for the betterment of our society.
They are out for the enrichment of their bottom line and will say what they need to in order to get an audience.
Seriously, arguing about these actors pushing themselves off as learned commentators is a waste of your time.
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are the only political commentators worth watching, because they are the only ones honest about who they are.
Quote from: Townsend on December 29, 2009, 02:23:30 PM
I can't believe any of you guys are defending any of the talking heads. They aren't out for the betterment of our society.
They are out for the enrichment of their bottom line and will say what they need to in order to get an audience.
Seriously, arguing about these actors pushing themselves off as learned commentators is a waste of your time.
Defending them? I do not know about conan, but I was pointing out that there are nutjob commentators on the left (who were conveniently overlooked by Ms. "I'm not one sided")
Quote from: guido911 on December 29, 2009, 03:04:02 PM
Defending them? I do not know about conan, but I was pointing out that there are nutjob commentators on the left
My apologies.
I consider all of them a waste of time and intellect. When someone I know quotes one or agrees with them, I'm embarrassed for them.
They make things worse, period.
Quote from: guido911 on December 29, 2009, 03:04:02 PM
Defending them? I do not know about conan, but I was pointing out that there are nutjob commentators on the left (who were conveniently overlooked by Ms. "I'm not one sided")
They all suck, but we were having a discussion regarding the republican party, remember? I personally do not think the 'nutjob' commentators on the left are quite as dangerous as those currently screaming their scariness from the right, but that is ONLY my opinion. Regardless, this wasn't a comparison conversation.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 29, 2009, 03:28:33 PM
They all suck, but we were having a discussion regarding the republican party, remember?
NO, wrong again--look at the title of the thread. We were talking about one republican candidate calling another a homosexual and you, again trying to be cute or clever, took the opportunity to change the subject and attack right wing talk radio while totaling ignoring that the left has their own idiot talkers. This is the same crap you did in another thread.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 29, 2009, 02:10:37 PM
As if Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow and the like aren't an embarrassment either? Maddow with her constant ramblings about the Christian Mafia and C-Streeters. She's as bad as Lou Dobbs with her constant conspiracies. I'd love to see Matthews take the DNC's skin flute out of his mouth for just a few seconds.
You apparently have fallen hook, line, and sinker for one-sided partisanship commentary if you think Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh etc. ad nauseum are the biggest problem facing the U.S. without considering how partisan hacks on the left are just as corrosive. They must fit your paradigm better if you don't see that. If America continues to show signs of moderating, all of these oafs will eventually find themselves out of a job if they don't espouse a less partisan viewpoint from the outer fringes of liberalism or conservatism and realize true bi-partisan ship which is best for our country lies in the middle.
Umm, we were having a Republican party discussion, thanks. I don't completely disagree with you about some of the people you mention, however that isn't what was being discussed, and I never said I did follow or believe what they had to say. You suuuuure are quick to the defense though.
And yes, I do think that people like Glen Beck should be put out to pasture for his violence inducing, corruptive, lying, hate speech. Its far more than divisive, its dangerous. My opinion. Sue me.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 29, 2009, 03:41:33 PM
Umm, we were having a Republican party discussion, thanks. I don't completely disagree with you about some of the people you mention, however that isn't what was being discussed, and I never said I did follow or believe what they had to say. You suuuuure are quick to the defense though.
And yes, I do think that people like Glen Beck should be put out to pasture for his violence inducing, corruptive, lying, hate speech. Its far more than divisive, its dangerous. My opinion. Sue me.
Quick to the defense of whom? Do reading comprehension much?
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 29, 2009, 03:41:33 PM
Umm, we were having a Republican party discussion, thanks.
You have got to be kidding. You turn a thread about a drunken democrat senator into a discussion about Sarah Palin and you have the audacity to now go into a thread hijacking riff?
Quote from: guido911 on December 29, 2009, 03:40:46 PM
NO, wrong again--look at the title of the thread. We were talking about one republican candidate calling another a homosexual and you, again trying to be cute or clever, took the opportunity to change the subject and attack right wing talk radio while totaling ignoring that the left has their own idiot talkers. This is the same crap you did in another thread.
Wow- you are so defensive. Again wrong. Never changed the subject. That was done by Conan.
I was directly responding to this part of the OP's comment:
" Since when has "bizarre behavior and hate-filled speech" disbarred a Republican? Could this be an indication of movement toward the middle, an indication that in Illinois the party will not be dragged further to the right by vocal nutjobs? Much as I dislike the Republican agenda, it does not serve the country to have them go into a self-imposed exile. Perhaps Brady is signaling a return to health and sanity."You really have selective memory. And as far as the cheap shot at Palin in the other thread- you are absolutely correct. That was just too damn easy. Grab a sense of humor.
It is kind of alarming that you guys are so ready to defend these people.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 29, 2009, 03:50:09 PM
Quick to the defense of whom?
Your own ideologies apparently.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 29, 2009, 03:57:23 PM
Your own ideologies apparently.
What? That deeply partisan hacks who influence the mealy-minded of this country are all dangerous regardless of whose house organ they are playing? Nice read.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 29, 2009, 04:29:52 PM
What? That deeply partisan hacks who influence the mealy-minded of this country are all dangerous regardless of whose house organ they are playing? Nice read.
And with that I couldn't agree with you more. See, and you thought we couldn't get along, didn't you? I do believe some bullies are meaner than others though. I guess your perspective all depends on which side of the playground you are standing on.
Sorry kids, gotta run. Mom's calling me for dinner.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 29, 2009, 04:29:52 PM
What? That deeply partisan hacks who influence the mealy-minded of this country are all dangerous regardless of whose house organ they are playing? Nice read.
If you had your own tv or radio show, I'd consider you just as "partisan" as the rest of the political chattering class.
These are opinions.... it's opinion-based journalism.... kinda like Charles Krauthammer, only much more entertaining.
Strangely enough, I believe you'd agree with more of Michael Moore's positions than I do.
But you've been told it's all LIES and PROPAGANDA on the left.... so your version of "fair-and-balanced" is akin to the editorial page of The Daily Oklahoman.... conservative opinion on one side and the conservative critique of the perceived liberal bias on the the other side... yeah, both sides of the.... cough, cough..... story.... cough, cough....
I need to go back to pg 1 of this thread because I thought for a second we were actually talking about Illinois politics and I thought I'd post some pretty cool insights.... oh well.
Quote from: USRufnex on December 29, 2009, 08:13:35 PM
I need to go back to pg 1 of this thread because I thought for a second we were actually talking about Illinois politics and I thought I'd post some pretty cool insights.... oh well.
You can thank the poster above your last for that. As for Illinois politics, love to hear some involving the southern part of the state where I am from. Believe it or not, when I first became interested in politics, I supported Alan Dixon and Mel Price--2 democrats (I heard confession is good for the soul).
Quote from: rwarn17588 on December 29, 2009, 09:40:28 AM
Maybe.
But as an Illinoisan for about 40 years, I think the more likely answer is that Illinois Republicans are a lot more moderate and pragmatic than Republicans, say, in Oklahoma or in Southern states. Horse-trading and compromising are common and even encouraged. By and large, Illinois voters want stuff to get done and demand that their lawmakers be a lot more cooperative and reasonable.
Also, Illinoisans have a low tolerance for people who are loud-mouthed ideologues. The Illinois GOP is still smarting over having that insane knucklehead Alan Keyes running for Senate a few years ago. He barely got 30 percent of the vote and was a profound embarrassment. The party doesn't want another loud-mouthed knucklehead running for office.
In short, this is Midwestern pragmatism at work.
I think this is a case where Martin crossed the line, and the state GOP simply isn't going to stand for it because voters won't, either. If it's a symptom of a movement emerging on a national level, I'm all for it. But I wouldn't count on it.
I don't see it quite so noble....... I believe the horse-trading tradition is due to the almost 50/50 split between pro-choicers and pro-lifers in the Illinois Republican Party... the best of that tradition was Jim Edgar...
I think the pro-choicers saw the writing on the wall. They knew their party was headed to defeat in the senate campaign after the Jack Ryan divorce disclosures and tried to draft Mike Ditka... That is, before the moderate-Republican-powers-that-be (namely, Dennis Hastert and Judy Baar Topinka) realized they'd rather leave Alan Keyes holding the bag than have the second place finisher Jim Oberweis pi$$ off hispanic voters for generations for his immigration views which were to the right of Republican moderates and George W. Bush.....
http://www.vdare.com/gorak/immigration_idiocy.htm
"The GOP, once a powerhouse in the Land of Lincoln, now makes the Three Stooges look like a precision drill team."Wait a minute. Mark Kirk is gay? I thought if it played in Peoria....?
So, how's your gaydar, azbadpuppy?
(http://cocktailconversations.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/img-article-mccain-schock-abs_193419741787.jpg)
Quote from: USRufnex on December 29, 2009, 09:24:51 PM
I don't see it quite so noble....... I believe the horse-trading tradition is due to the almost 50/50 split between pro-choicers and pro-lifers in the Illinois Republican Party... the best of that tradition was Jim Edgar...
I think the pro-choicers saw the writing on the wall. They knew their party was headed to defeat in the senate campaign after the Jack Ryan divorce disclosures and tried to draft Mike Ditka... That is, before the moderate-Republican-powers-that-be (namely, Dennis Hastert and Judy Baar Topinka) realized they'd rather leave Alan Keyes holding the bag than have the second place finisher Jim Oberweis pi$$ off hispanic voters for generations for his immigration views which were to the right of Republican moderates and George W. Bush.....
http://www.vdare.com/gorak/immigration_idiocy.htm
"The GOP, once a powerhouse in the Land of Lincoln, now makes the Three Stooges look like a precision drill team."
Wait a minute. Mark Kirk is gay? I thought if it played in Peoria....?
So, how's your gaydar, azbadpuppy?
(http://cocktailconversations.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/img-article-mccain-schock-abs_193419741787.jpg)
Drop a few more names, Ruf, while pontificating out of your arse, come on, I know you can do it. Don't forget Illinois' third Senator, Dick Lugar!
Lugar's from Indiana. Bugger off.
Quote from: USRufnex on December 29, 2009, 09:32:48 PM
Lugar's from Indiana. Bugger off.
What happened? Did you and Dick finally break it off?
Quote from: Conan71 on December 29, 2009, 09:29:20 PM
Drop a few more names, Ruf, while pontificating out of your arse, come on, I know you can do it. Don't forget Illinois' third Senator, Dick Lugar!
No self-respecting Illinoisan would ever claim a Hoosier, no matter how smart or pragmatic he is. ::)
It's a common thing for Illinoisans, when they're crossing the border into Indiana, to exclaim: "All of a sudden I feel ... smarter!" Indiana is considered barely a step up from backwards-a** Kentucky in that region.
Quote from: USRufnex on December 29, 2009, 09:24:51 PM
Wait a minute. Mark Kirk is gay? I thought if it played in Peoria....?
So, how's your gaydar, azbadpuppy?
Honestly, I think 'Gay Republicans' are an oxymoron, and should be considered completely unnatural and immoral. It's disgusting, really.
However there are too many closet cases in the GOP to even count, ironically, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 30, 2009, 10:54:39 AM
Honestly, I think 'Gay Republicans' are an oxymoron...
So then all gays should register Democrat?
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 30, 2009, 10:54:39 AM
Honestly, I think 'Gay Republicans' are an oxymoron, and should be considered completely unnatural and immoral. It's disgusting, really.
However there are too many closet cases in the GOP to even count, ironically, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Quite a few closet heteros registered as Democrats, I suspect ;)
Where have you been hiding out lately? It's been good to have some fresh blood injected into our discussions and get things more active again, even if you are completely wrong...LOL!
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 30, 2009, 11:12:32 AM
So then all gays should register Democrat?
Pretty much.
Otherwise they're just voting against their interests. And even if they register D, there's no guarantee they're getting quality representation.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 30, 2009, 11:12:32 AM
So then all gays should register Democrat?
Not necessarily. There are those Log Cabin guys, but they are a strange breed indeed. Personally I feel it brings self-loathing to a new level, but hey, whatever floats your big gay boat!
Quote from: Conan71 on December 30, 2009, 11:18:21 AM
Quite a few closet heteros registered as Democrats, I suspect ;)
Touche!
I think us gays should form our own party, since we do parties so well after all...
Quote from: we vs us on December 30, 2009, 11:23:37 AM
Pretty much.
Otherwise they're just voting against their interests. And even if they register D, there's no guarantee they're getting quality representation.
Really?? What qualifies you to speak for what all homosexual's political preferences should be? Are you implying their only interest as an American citizen should be gay marriage?
Quote from: we vs us on December 30, 2009, 11:23:37 AM
And even if they register D, there's no guarantee they're getting quality representation.
Isn't that the truth....see current administration for examples.
I am trying to hold off for a bit to make a true judgement call but so far, pretty lackluster on the civil rights issues with the exception of the Matthew Shepard Act being passed.
That should at least make the conservatives happy if nothing else. ;)
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 30, 2009, 11:37:15 AM
Isn't that the truth....see current administration for examples.
I am trying to hold off for a bit to make a true judgement call but so far, pretty lackluster on the civil rights issues with the exception of the Matthew Shepard Act being passed.
That should at least make the conservatives happy if nothing else. ;)
The administration also lifted the HIV ban for international travel -- a relic from the Jesse Helms days.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on December 30, 2009, 11:53:27 AM
The administration also lifted the HIV ban for international travel -- a relic from the Jesse Helms days.
Window dressing. And in case you weren't aware, HIV is not exclusively a homosexual issue.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 30, 2009, 11:35:44 AM
Really?? What qualifies you to speak for what all homosexual's political preferences should be? Are you implying their only interest as an American citizen should be gay marriage?
Nailed it. It's not possible that a homosexual would be opposed to fiscal restraint, strong military/proactive foreign policy, or be anti-abortion. Azpup's position is nothing but stereotypical ignorance.
I want special rights for straight people of mixed European descent. Pretty soon (if not already around here) I will be a minority. I better start my campaign now.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 30, 2009, 12:18:09 PM
I want special rights for straight people of mixed European descent. Pretty soon (if not already around here) I will be a minority. I better start my campaign now.
Let me know when you have the HQ open and get the slush fund started, I'm in the same boat. Actually mostly Anglo though so perhaps I should start my own SIG, my rights should supercede yours since the UK is closer.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 30, 2009, 11:35:44 AM
Really?? What qualifies you to speak for what all homosexual's political preferences should be? Are you implying their only interest as an American citizen should be gay marriage?
Well I admit that I only have the hetero guest pass to Planet Gay so I'm not a definitive voice on this, but:
"Gay Marriage" is now more of a plank than a position. It falls under the larger umbrella of equal rights, and even though it's the rallying cry for conservatives, it's not the whole, ahem, enchilada for the gay community.
Azbad is right about the Log Cabin Republicans, who've very bravely and bizarrely chosen to support an ideology which is inherently opposed to them being equal citizens.
And really, that's why there's just never going to be a large Republican gay constituency . . . not because there aren't any fiscally conservative gays who support a strong national defense, but because the family values part of the coalition so desperately wants to keep them out of sight and out of mind.
Could allowing homosexuals to live as they want instead of forcing them to fake being heterosexual be considered genocide? If, as claimed, being homosexual is genetic, then adopted kids will not perpetuate the kind.
Quote from: we vs us on December 30, 2009, 01:56:52 PM
And really, that's why there's just never going to be a large Republican gay constituency . . . not because there aren't any fiscally conservative gays who support a strong national defense, but because the family values part of the coalition so desperately wants to keep them out of sight and out of mind.
Ding Ding Ding! Absolutely correct.
Well, since I am a bona fide card carrying 'Mo I will weigh in on this one. Gay people are still fighting for the same basic rights afforded to the hetero community. Maybe when we aren't treated like second class citizens the focus can shift to other issues, but for now equal rights would be numero uno for the vast majority of the gay community. It is
NOT just marriage rights, as another poster stated.
I don't believe either of the two major parties have the best interests of the gay community in mind, but certainly the Republicans have shown time and time again how they truly feel about gays, with their pandering to the religious right etc. I am truly surprised any self-respecting gay person can vote republican after the Bush era. I actually knew quite a few gay republicans prior to Bush, but they have all jumped ship. It's kind of hard to support candidates that at the very least completely ignore you, and many openly condemn you to hell. When the Republican party is free of the 'moral majority' hijackers and returns it's focus to more fiscal issues I think you will see a larger support from the gay community.
Why should either party consider the gay community anything other than another special interest group?
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 30, 2009, 02:55:43 PM
Why should either party consider the gay community anything other than another special interest group?
You're joking, right? Have you ever known a real life gay person?
Anyway, this has been stimulating conversation, but I'm off to the Holiday Bowl to watch Arizona kick Nebraska's behind.
Yup, contrary to popular belief gays do watch football- and not just for the tight pants (although that is an added bonus).
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 30, 2009, 02:45:18 PM
Ding Ding Ding! Absolutely correct.
Well, since I am a bona fide card carrying 'Mo I will weigh in on this one. Gay people are still fighting for the same basic rights afforded to the hetero community. Maybe when we aren't treated like second class citizens the focus can shift to other issues, but for now equal rights would be numero uno for the vast majority of the gay community. It is NOT just marriage rights, as another poster stated.
What rights aside from government-sanctioned marriage are not afforded to people based on sexual orientation? I'm not asking to be an donkey, I'm curious in what other areas the gay community feels in this day and age where they are not treated equal by the government.
I'm not going to pretend that any of my relatives or friends who are gay gives me superior knowledge of the gay community, just curious what your opinion is, because I don't really hear that kind of rhetoric from them.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 30, 2009, 03:06:02 PM
What rights aside from government-sanctioned marriage are not afforded to people based on sexual orientation? I'm not asking to be an donkey, I'm curious in what other areas the gay community feels in this day and age where they are not treated equal by the government.
I'm not going to pretend that any of my relatives or friends who are gay gives me superior knowledge of the gay community, just curious what your opinion is, because I don't really hear that kind of rhetoric from them.
Well, with marriage comes a whole slew of different rights like hospital visits, inheritance rights, tax breaks, etc.
But other rights would include being able to openly serve in our nation's military, equal rights in the workplace, being able to adopt children, housing security, among others. Pretty much things most straight people take for granted.
Currently in many states (including Oklahoma) you can still be fired for being gay, and you can be evicted from your apartment for being gay.
Thanks for asking- it's a good question.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 30, 2009, 03:00:17 PM
You're joking, right? Have you ever known a real life gay person?
Anyway, this has been stimulating conversation, but I'm off to the Holiday Bowl to watch Arizona kick Nebraska's behind.
Yup, contrary to popular belief gays do watch football- and not just for the tight pants (although that is an added bonus).
Maybe it just doesn't get the publicity but I don't remember gay activists campaigning for women's rights in the Middle East, US energy independence, balanced budget, traffic safety, light rail in Tulsa and so on as the gay community. I certainly won't exclude gay individuals from having championed these and other issues. The only thing I remember the gay community fighting for as the gay community is gay rights. To me that makes the gay community a special interest (gay rights) group. Nowhere did I say that was wrong.
I cannot think of anyone I know well as being openly gay. Most of my activities don't require a sexual preference. I am sure that I have been associated with gay people in the past and possibly now. I just don't care.
Edit: Watch all the sports you want for whatever reason you want. FWIW, I don't generally watch sports. I was athletically challenged as a kid and never developed an interest in competitive athletic endeavors. I was always near the last kid chosen in gym class for "the team". I was too small for football, couldn't hit or catch (depth perception) a baseball, and too slow for track.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 30, 2009, 02:55:43 PM
Why should either party consider the gay community anything other than another special interest group?
Aside from the realpolitik of wanting to keep existing coalitions together, expanding civil rights speaks to some of the core ideas of the modern Democratic Party. Whether or not the D leadership can actually show one of its constituencies the love still remains to be seen, but it's still more D than R, IMO.
So, yes, as a practical matter, it is a group with a special interest (itself) but a carefully concealed truth of American politics is that we are nothing BUT special interest groups. even Old White Guys Who Run The Illuminati are a special interest group.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 30, 2009, 03:06:02 PM
What rights aside from government-sanctioned marriage are not afforded to people based on sexual orientation? I'm not asking to be an donkey, I'm curious in what other areas the gay community feels in this day and age where they are not treated equal by the government.
I would like to know that my job is safe, despite my sexual orientation (much like the protection provided to racial and religious minorities). I would like to know that I have the right to adopt a child without added scrutiny. Those are my two biggest concerns, following being able to be married and the legal rights that accompany it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 30, 2009, 03:18:42 PM
I am sure that I have been associated with gay people in the past and possibly now. I just don't care.
It's too bad others don't think that way.
Quote from: Townsend on December 30, 2009, 03:25:35 PM
It's too bad others don't think that way.
I'm glad you took that the way I intended it. After I posted it I thought maybe someone would take offense.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 30, 2009, 03:29:30 PM
I'm glad you took that the way I intended it. After I posted it I thought maybe someone would take offense.
Nah, I'd think most would understand it.
It shouldn't matter at all. It matters to some because they are told it should matter to them.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 30, 2009, 03:16:59 PM
Well, with marriage comes a whole slew of different rights like hospital visits, inheritance rights, tax breaks, etc.
But other rights would include being able to openly serve in our nation's military, equal rights in the workplace, being able to adopt children, housing security, among others. Pretty much things most straight people take for granted.
Currently in many states (including Oklahoma) you can still be fired for being gay, and you can be evicted from your apartment for being gay.
Thanks for asking- it's a good question.
Well, if you really want the pain and suffering that comes with marriage, be my guest ;)
In this day and age, there's no better chance of a gay person being fired or evicted for being gay than there is for someone being black, white, female, or Hispanic to get fired for their gender, color, or ethnic background. It's not to say that may not be an individual underlying bigoted issue for someone to get fired or evicted, but it would never pass muster in a court of law. With a few exceptions of trying to work somewhere like Rhema, ORU, or a fundie church (why would you want to if you were gay?) I really don't see the restrictions anywhere for a gay person. Why make it an issue at work in the first place? I've never made my heterosexuality an issue at any job I've ever had.
There are cases of gay adoption I've heard of, yes it might be slightly more problematic, but gays are not restricted from it as couples or individuals, that I am aware of.
There's no penalty on property rights so long as two individuals wish to jointly buy a property and have the proper down payment and credit. I know a lesbian couple quite well who legally jointly own a very nice house in south Tulsa. There's nothing in the laws to keep that from happening today.
If I were married and my spouse had crappy credit, guess what? I'd have to be the sole owner of the house and sole signee on the mortgage.
You may be correct that there is not specific language on the books in Oklahoma specifically
protecting jobs based on sexual orientation, but I am not aware of any laws specifically stating you can be fired or evicted for being gay.
Depending on the tax bracket, it's more costly tax-wise to be married. Obama's tax proposed tax increases don't help either. I can see the benefit to pension rights Social Security survivor benefits and things along those lines. If it's an inheritance issue, all one needs is a holographic will.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 30, 2009, 03:51:27 PM
Well, if you really want the pain and suffering that comes with marriage, be my guest ;)
In this day and age, there's no better chance of a gay person being fired or evicted for being gay than there is for someone being black, white, female, or Hispanic to get fired for their gender, color, or ethnic background. It's not to say that may not be an individual underlying bigoted issue for someone to get fired or evicted, but it would never pass muster in a court of law. With a few exceptions of trying to work somewhere like Rhema, ORU, or a fundie church (why would you want to if you were gay?) I really don't see the restrictions anywhere for a gay person. Why make it an issue at work in the first place? I've never made my heterosexuality an issue at any job I've ever had.
There are cases of gay adoption I've heard of, yes it might be slightly more problematic, but gays are not restricted from it as couples or individuals, that I am aware of.
There's no penalty on property rights so long as two individuals wish to jointly buy a property and have the proper down payment and credit. I know a lesbian couple quite well who legally jointly own a very nice house in south Tulsa. There's nothing in the laws to keep that from happening today.
If I were married and my spouse had crappy credit, guess what? I'd have to be the sole owner of the house and sole signee on the mortgage.
You may be correct that there is not specific language on the books in Oklahoma specifically protecting jobs based on sexual orientation, but I am not aware of any laws specifically stating you can be fired or evicted for being gay.
Depending on the tax bracket, it's more costly tax-wise to be married. Obama's tax proposed tax increases don't help either. I can see the benefit to pension rights Social Security survivor benefits and things along those lines. If it's an inheritance issue, all one needs is a holographic will.
Sorry to jump in so late, but I've been on the road. Even though this topic has been covered numerous times here before, I felt I needed to respond to some of the inaccuracies in the last post.
In this day and age, you are FAR more likely to be evicted or fired for being gay since sexual orientation is
not covered in anti-discrimination laws in most states currently. Being black, white, Baptist, female, etc
IS covered, but being gay
is NOT, therefore if a boss or landlord doesn't like the gays he can fire/evict them for simply being gay, and there are no laws to protect them. I'm still not sure why this is so hard for many people to understand. Maybe it's because most straight white people take their rights for granted? And for the record, it's rarely the gay person in the workplace that makes their sexuality an issue, but rather the disapproving straight homophobes that like to create all the drama.
As far as gay adoption, there are laws on the books in 6 states making adoption by gays or gay couples
illegal, Oklahoma being one of those 6 states. Most state have very vague laws covering this issue, and since most adoptions are handled by local courts, its really up to those judges/clerks in their own jurisdictions. They could approve or deny based on their own prejudices/religious beliefs/etc.
We are not talking about 'special rights', or 'gay rights' here. It's all about
equal protection under the law. If you are a white Baptist man you are
specifically protected under the current laws. What I find most curious is that religion, although completely protected under anti-discrimination laws, is a
chosen trait. Homosexuality is NOT a chosen trait, as I personally can attest to. If you are not gay you have no grounds to dispute this since it would really be only speculation for you, wouldn't it?
I don't expect everyone to agree with me, or understand, but frankly I don't really care. I don't care if you accept me or condemn me. Believe what you want to believe. I just want the same rights as everyone else in this country. Anything less is unconstitutional. Period.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on December 30, 2009, 03:16:59 PM
Well, with marriage comes a whole slew of different rights like hospital visits, inheritance rights, tax breaks, etc.
Saint Francis seems to be on the ball: My surgery discharge checklist had a signature line at the bottom which says "family member/significant other signature".