2 2 TM Lutas wrote on Oct 30, 2006 11:13 AM:
" Could you provide some examples of these rights and dignities being stripped from gay people? "
To TM Lutas: wrote on Oct 29, 2006 6:47 PM:
" TM Lutas, if it's all to protect against activist judges, why doesn't the amendment simply read "The legislature, not judiciary, shall define marriage and all substantially similar statuses" ?
P.S. It is fairly obvious that there is a national strategy fueled by "family research" groups to strip gay people of their rights and dignity, one amendment and law at a time. "
Eater of the Dead wrote on Oct 28, 2006 2:35 PM:
" Re the point made by Michael Welch--those hateful crimes against homosexuals and those fringe-churches with their banners proclaiming God hates fags are abhorrant. I think most people on BOTH sides of the issue will agree to that. The majority of people for the Amendment simply disapprove of the lifestyle. Right or wrong, they feel it is not moral. Since all our laws are based on morality-they have every right to voice their opinion. They are not going so far as to say homosexuality itself or even homosexual acts should be forbidden-they just don't want to legitimize it. People like you who repeatedly throw out words like hate and fear are no better than those abhorrant fringe groups and churches mentioned at the beginning of my post. "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Oct 28, 2006 2:29 PM:
" You are assuming facts not in evidence. The ONLY reason cited by those in favor of the referendum banning same sex marriage is disapproval of what they perceive as an immoral lifestyle. You, and many like you, are the ones stirring the pot with words like fear and hatred. "
Michael Welch: This Is A Cheap, Exploitive Election Tactic... wrote on Oct 28, 2006 11:59 AM:
" OBVIOUSLY 'fear' and 'hatred' have something to do with these so-called 'amendments' (one on the AZ ballot too) or you've never heard of what happened in Laramie, Wyoming or seen the signs held up by self-styled 'Christians' asserting that (their) 'GOD HATES FAGS'? If homosexuals are 'suspicious' of such motives they have EVERY reason to be. The Republican party has assiduously recruited over two and a half decades a fundamentalist 'religious right' as its most loyal 'base' of support; this proposal is to 'energize' that base and bring them to the polls; in other words it's cheap exploitation of yes, 'fear' and even 'hatred'... "
Yes, but wrote on Oct 27, 2006 1:59 PM:
" That still just shows that people can disagree whether this referendum is taking into consideration human empathy and compassion. Reasonable people can disagree, but there is no need to bring fear or hate into it. People who are not religious may find the behavior abberant and not have anything to base it on except their opinion. Point being, people may decide the line between law and order and sympathy and compassion is drawn at same sex marriage. In other words, the idea of do what you want but don't expect us to legitimize it. "
Michael Welch: What Does "Equal Justice Under Law" Mean?... wrote on Oct 27, 2006 12:01 PM:
" Well, homosexuals are not seeking the right to 'faux' marriages with the opposite sex so this 'fine' point is irrelevant. And granted that a 'moral' sense is usually involved in certain kinds of laws, there are ALWAYS exceptions and refinements. My point is that what is rigidly deemed 'immoral' based upon a religious precept cannot be the PRIMARY rationale under the American Constitution, i. e., 'BECAUSE it says in the Bible, THEREFORE etc.' Human empathy and compassion are whence laws should come, as well as to establish order and 'equal justice under law,' the very motto of the supreme court. And ANY law directed against the rights of homosexuals in particular IS NOT 'equal justice'... "
To:Michael Welch wrote on Oct 26, 2006 3:35 PM:
" Since it is not a referendum for a gay marriage ban, but is rather a referendum for a same sex marriage ban-discrimination is not really the issue, as the law would be applied equally to everyone-gay and straight. You may disagree with me, but that is the wonderful thing about this country-we have the right to disagree. I disagree with you about society's collective morality being beside the point when determining our laws. All of our laws are basically the majoritys idea of what is moral and immoral. As far as where our morality comes from, it could be the Bible, it could be an inate sense, instinct, feeling, whatever. But our laws are based on someones idea of morality. To say it is irrelevant simply is not true. Again, you can disagree-and that is perfectly fine. "
Michael Welch: Your "Immorality" Is Beside The Point... wrote on Oct 26, 2006 12:55 PM:
" I for one AM saying that it is OBVIOUS that Republicans are exploiting 'fear' of gays -- fear that they will, as said below, be able to convince the courts that 'equal rights' MEANS 'equal' and that they are citizens too. No doubt many on the religious right are convinced -- based on their Bible -- that this equality would be 'immoral' but that is a religious-based assumption and the US Constitution is to be upheld above ANY religious book or sectarian authority as, say, Jack Kennedy once pledged. What you believe is 'immoral' does not have to be 'the law,' and moreover, in a civilized nation NO discrimination against homosexuals would EVER be 'legal'... "
Not Biblical Literalist wrote on Oct 26, 2006 12:08 PM:
" Leviticus 20:13 calls for killing all men who have gay sex. If you are a literal interpreter of the Bible, why aren't you advocating this? Or don't you really believe the Bible? BTW, reasonable people disagree about the translations of those Hebrew verses. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm for an excellent analysis. Anyone who claims to have an absolute lock on the truth should be regarded with extreme suspicion, for without doubt how can there be faith? Say no to ancient prejudices, vote no on the Amendment! "
To:Living Next door wrote on Oct 26, 2006 8:30 AM:
" Come on! Why would you say Republicans hate gay people? That is worse than the clown who said they fear them. Are you just trying to stir up trouble and feelings of hatred on both sides? The most you can say about the referendum for a ban on same-sex marriage(NOT gay-marriage-there is no referendum against gay marriage)is that it indicates disapproval of what some perceive as immoral behavior, not fear or hate. Capice? "
Patriot2 wrote on Oct 25, 2006 6:27 PM:
" Thanks to the La Crosse Tribune Editorial Staff for an intelligent discussion of the issues. Right-wingers are correct that Judges might find discrimination against homosexuals illegal. I mean, we are talking about fellow Americans who are denied rights due to their sexual orientation. It will require building discrimination and hate into the Constitution to prevent a Judge from realizing that EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW....guaranteed by the 14TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION might just require laws that are blind to people's sexual orientation. Passing this Amendment will do NOTHING to enhance heterosexual marriage. No matter how you spin it. But it will hurt Åmericans, both gay parents and CHILDREN. Vote NO! "
TM Lutas wrote on Oct 25, 2006 4:02 PM:
" As the recent Mass and NJ Supreme Courts have demonstrated, statutes are too fragile in the face of justices determined to get their policy preferences enacted into law and willing to abuse their power. It is fairly obvious that there is a national strategy on the part of homosexual activists to invalidate statutes via judicial activism. Why would Wisconsin want to sleep while it's being set up for an undemocratic end run? This editorial is wrong. "
Living next door in Rhode Island wrote on Oct 25, 2006 3:59 PM:
" The post by Wake Up says, "Look at Massachusetts!" Well, I live next door in Rhode Island. I can tell you that our little republic has not collapsed, opposite sex people still marry with regularity and my life has not been diminished one bit. I've been happily married to my wife for 23 years, and the fact that gays can marry 20 miles north of us hasn't changed our marriage one bit.
Certainly, republicans do not fear gay people. They just hate them. They say that they don’t hate gay people and that they are just opposed to some alleged "agenda", but their actions speak much louder than their words. Republican anti-gay hatred spawns violence against gays and they just don’t care.
"
FUMING: wrote on Oct 25, 2006 2:02 PM:
" TO ALL OF YOU THAT HAS THE NARROW MINDEDNESS TO THINK THAT TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER SHOULD"NOT"EXCHANGE VOWS..GO BACK TO YOUR CAVE!IF IT WAS YOUR SON,DAUGHTER,BROTHER,SISTER,WOULD YOU SEE IT DIFFERENTLY?WOULD'NT YOU LIKE FOR THEM TO BE HAPPY?SO TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF AND AGREE TO THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT "YOUR" LIFE TO DECIDE. "
Michael Welch: "Why?" Because Karl Plays For Keeps... wrote on Oct 25, 2006 12:09 PM:
" Republicans are not 'afraid' of gays -- after all they know SO MANY among themselves! -- but they exploit the homophobia in their 'core' constituency, the religious right. This proposed amendment is what's called a 'wedge' issue, designed to exacerbate, yes, 'fears' that some kind of 'vast homosexual conspiracy' is going to -- well what? Hand the country over to 'Satan' I guess, though that DOES seem superfluous. The REAL question should be: WHY do Republicans WANT to HURT gay people -- AND any unmarried heteros who would, as the Trib points out, be 'collateral damage'? For votes -- is the COLD, clear, Roveian answer... "
Eater of the Dead wrote on Oct 25, 2006 10:41 AM:
" Re 7:06am post. Could you provide any documentation anywhere, anytime where a Republican leader said anything about being afraid of gay people? Anything at all? "
Gay "marriage" wrote on Oct 25, 2006 9:40 AM:
" Saying that Republicans are "so afraid of gay people" is a coy way of trying to make conservatives look childish. You and I both know this has nothing to do with fear. Shame on you for trying to portray it that way.
The referendum for a ban on gay marriage or "substantially similar" indicates disapproval of immoral behavior, not fear of immoral people. "
Thank You! wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:46 AM:
" Thanks for writing this so well. It's not blown out of proportion or dramatized - it's great. "
Wake up! wrote on Oct 25, 2006 8:28 AM:
" Look at Massachusetts! Of course an Amendment is needed. Does the Tribune editorial board not read the web comments on their own blogs? How many letters and subsequent comments were made addressing this? Oh, that't right. The Tribune saw fit to get rid of all comments and all ability for people to comment on any opinion piece except for those written by them. "
Re Gay marriage wrote on Oct 25, 2006 7:06 AM:
" Why are Republicans so afraid of gay people? "
Advertisement
