Senate Hearing Marks Buildup To New Attack on Gay and Lesbian Families

[Pookie]

ACLU Says Senate Hearing Marks Buildup To New Attack on Gay and Lesbian Families

September 4, 2003

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON – As a Senate subcommittee convened a hearing on federal legislation that permitted states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages, the American Civil Liberties Union today strongly urged Congress not to amend the Constitution to further deprive millions of gay and lesbian families of their most fundamental rights.

“Congress long ago limited the ability of gay and lesbian couples to be full participants in American society, but the proposed constitutional amendment makes previous measures look tame,” said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. “The proposed constitutional amendment would be the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb. It would wipe out every single law protecting gay and lesbian families and other unmarried couples.”

In recent months, some lawmakers proposed a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman and prohibit the federal government and all states from conferring “the legal incidents” of marriage – including financial benefits, medical decisions, insurance coverage – on unmarried couples. The ACLU said that this language would deprive the families of lesbians and gays – and other unmarried couples – all legal protections for their relationships by overriding any federal or state constitutional protections and federal, state and local laws.

The controversial measure had drawn criticism from both sides of the political aisle. Former Congressman Bob Barr, the author of the Defense of Marriage Act, raised similar concerns in a recent opinion piece in the Washington Post. And during the election, vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney said that, “people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into.”

Enacted in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act already permits states to refuse to recognize same-sex unions performed by other states. Although many critics claim that this violates the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, no court has found the law unconstitutional. Additionally, the law codified for the first time the federal definition of marriage and spouse – and thus bars gay and lesbian couples from accessing federal benefits offered to married couples.

The issue of same-sex unions has come under greater scrutiny due to recent advances in the area of gay and lesbian rights. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court, though not specifically addressing same-sex unions, held in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy statutes were unconstitutional. And the Massachusetts Supreme Court is expected to soon rule on the validity of same-sex unions in that state. Just yesterday, the California Legislature adopted legislation that gives same-sex unions many of the same legal rights as married couples.

“The constitutional amendments that have been adopted over the last 230 years are the source of the greatest protections for individual liberty and civil rights,” the ACLU’s Anders said. “The federal marriage amendment, by contrast, would deny gay and lesbian families even the few protections granted by state and local governments.”

Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=13448&c=101

FYI.

 

[69forever]

RE:New attack...

I fuckin knew it was coming as soon as I read the Supreme Courts decision in the Texas case. Who says the Moral Majority
still doesn't have influence? Then there's the financial and health care industries checking in. Who wants to give benefits to gays
who are HIV positive? It doesn't fit the bottom line. $$$$$$

Still in the closet, this sets me back who the fucking knows how far. For people in loving relationships with same sex partners...
they're saying FUCK YOU!!!

Nice democratic country we live in. All men (women) are created
equal and all.... I just hope that GLBT remember this come
election time.

Enough food for thought.

 

[Bi Pink Cock]

Religion & Politics

69forever,

The Supreme Court of the Unied States of America declared in the Texas case at end of last years term, that we do have freedom of religion, the establishment clause of the constitution, and Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Batists stating that a wall of separation shall exist between the church and the state. "christian" laws are unconstitutional!! A "christian" nation is unconstitutional!!

"Who says the Moral Majority
still doesn't have influence? Then there's the financial and health care industries checking in. Who wants to give benefits to gays
who are HIV positive? It doesn't fit the bottom line. $$$$$$" Religion is terrorism. These terrorist find ways to make respect for other more costly, and since $$$ is all that matters in capitalism, people do not get respected in exchange for lower costs. Apprently respect for other may be comprimised for lower costs.

"Still in the closet, this sets me back who the fucking knows how far. For people in loving relationships with same sex partners...
they're saying FUCK YOU!!!"

I say why I may love, who I may love, how I may love, when I may love, where I may love, what actions I may partake in to express my love and my sexuality. Who I fuck, make love to, and am intimate with is private. I only tell people on my own terms. Nobody else, no governments, no states, no friends, no authority figures, no bosses, etc . . . can or may determine such personal concepts for me. Sex is a touchy subject. Sex can offend some people.

"Nice democratic country we live in. All men (women) are created
equal and all.... I just hope that GLBT remember this come
election time."

This is a pivitol time for the future of GLBT rights. This next election will effect the future of the economy, the future of engey generation technologies, and the future of GLBT rights. People are equal, we just don't act like it. That would be the crux of the problem, societal stratification by class, gender, race, ethnicity, etc . . .

"In recent months, some lawmakers proposed a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman and prohibit the federal government and all states from conferring “the legal incidents” of marriage – including financial benefits, medical decisions, insurance coverage – on unmarried couples. The ACLU said that this language would deprive the families of lesbians and gays – and other unmarried couples – all legal protections for their relationships by overriding any federal or state constitutional protections and federal, state and local laws."

family

1.

a. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.
b. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.

2. All the members of a household under one roof.

Families aren't so heterosexist, why are marriages? My definition and understand of marriage is not heterosexist, despite some heterosexist dictionary definitions and heterosexist laws.

We need to stand up in the media and declared that Judge Roy Moore has erred severely. Our laws are not now based on religion and they never were. Oh, yea, bi the way, I'm a hardcore atheist!!

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I think gay people should move to Canada, or possibly Holland...just leave America to the "(religious) right-thinking" people.

 

[oh21]

I think gay people should move to Canada, or possibly Holland...just leave America to the "(religious) right-thinking" people.

Now this is just interesting...

Boy, I look back, and yeah, I came off as a real bastard...I was trying to be playful, when you folks really don't know me or my sense of humor. Won't happen again, I promise! ]

I guess you're back to being a bastard again.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Now this is just interesting...



I guess you're back to being a bastard again.

I guess you misread me...didn't you catch the dig at the religious right-wing wackos? I guess that was too subtle for you.

Canada would be a good place to move, don't you think? Gay marriage, decriminalized marijuana, socialized health care...sounds like a paradise for anyone who doesn't buy the nonsense coming from fundamentalist fanatics like Bush.

 

[Sillyman]

I think gay people should move to Canada, or possibly Holland...just leave America to the "(religious) right-thinking" people.

America unfortunately has it's big fat hooks into every other country. Running from it will just mean eventually they can use military force on you.

"Hey Bubba, now that we've run all the fags out, why don't we nuke them fag countries they are stayin in until they get right with Jesus?"

*shudder*

 

[Bi Pink Cock]

Sillyman

"Hey Bubba, now that we've run all the fags out, why don't we nuke them fag countries they are stayin in until they get right with Jesus?"

Getting "right" with Jesus? Who cares about somne stupid myth? Your use of the word fag is offensive. I do not appreciate your intolerable homophobia. You haven't run me out. Religion is not sufficient reason to bomb a country. Who cares about your gawd? I'm an atheist.

Because we do not support gendercide.
There is no such thing as a "gay" country
Getting "right" with Jesus encourages further terrorist acts.

I'm glad that abortion clinic bomber got executed by the state. He's a religious extreamist? No, he's a terrorist.

 

[SensualMan]

State issue

Issues such as the recognition of gay marriage should be left to the states, but then again I think just about every issue in this country should be left to the states.....

I noticed that the link to the story is the ACLU website....here is where I pull a queersetti and point out that the ACLU is a leftist, at times very far left, group that is not a reputable source for news.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: State issue

Issues such as the recognition of gay marriage should be left to the states, but then again I think just about every issue in this country should be left to the states.....

I noticed that the link to the story is the ACLU website....here is where I pull a queersetti and point out that the ACLU is a leftist, at times very far left, group that is not a reputable source for news.

I don't consider a concern for civil liberties an exclusively left wing matter, but if you are willing to grant that it is, I think I can speak for most people on our end of the spectrum in accepting it as such.

 

[Queersetti]

For those who may not understand what Sensualman means by "pull a queersetti", he is referring to another thread in which I made note of the fact that another poster had cited as credible news sources two blatantly anti-gay sites, Newsmax.com and FreeRepublic.com.

 

[SensualMan]

Civile rights

lol....sorry I can't help but laught when you try to paint the ACLU as champions of civil liberties! That is how they started out....but no honest person can believe that is what they are today. When was the last time the ACLU got into the ring for the protection of a conservative, religious cause? Where were they in Alabama when it came to protecting the civil rights and liberties of the people of Alabama? You have to admit it doesn't happen....

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Civile rights

lol....sorry I can't help but laught when you try to paint the ACLU as champions of civil liberties! That is how they started out....but no honest person can believe that is what they are today. When was the last time the ACLU got into the ring for the protection of a conservative, religious cause? Where were they in Alabama when it came to protecting the civil rights and liberties of the people of Alabama? You have to admit it doesn't happen....

Do you ever know what you are talking about?

Here's a few cases that it took me all of 5 minutes to round up for you.


The ACLU joined Jerry Falwell (I hope he is not too far left for you) in suing the state of Virginia over a ban on religious groups incorporating.

Link

They also sued on behalf of a woman in Florida who refused to remove her religiously mandated veil for her driver's license photo.

Link

The state of Nevada wanted to force all ministers to be licensed and fingerprinted. The ACLU, of course, fought for the rights of the clergy.

Link


I'm sure I could find many other similar examples, but I doubt there would be much point to it.

 

[SensualMan]

The examples sure look nice...

You really want me to take a close look at those examples? YOu know as well as I do that some issues bring together strange bedfellows....The ACLU may have been involved in Nevada to protect satanic ministers and wiccan prietesses from having to get licensed because a vast majority of "mainstream" (i.e. Christian, Jewish....) ministers are already licensed...The protection of ministers from fringe groups or religious cults hardly qualifies as defending a conservative, religious group as I stated. As for the others, I will take a look. But you have to admit that the ACLU is very typically on the other side of conservative and religious groups....which at times puts them in opposition to civil liberties that you claim they protect.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: The examples sure look nice...

You really want me to take a close look at those examples? YOu know as well as I do that some issues bring together strange bedfellows....The ACLU may have been involved in Nevada to protect satanic ministers and wiccan prietesses from having to get licensed because a vast majority of "mainstream" (i.e. Christian, Jewish....) ministers are already licensed...The protection of ministers from fringe groups or religious cults hardly qualifies as defending a conservative, religious group as I stated. As for the others, I will take a look. But you have to admit that the ACLU is very typically on the other side of conservative and religious groups....which at times puts them in opposition to civil liberties that you claim they protect.

I admit no such thing. You are apparently under the impression that preventing one religious group from forcing it's dogma on others is a violation of civil liberties.

You asked for examples and I provided them.

I'm done with you. I responded to you in hopes of a productive exchange, but it's clear that you are a close minded fanatic and my posts are merely fodder for your right wing ideology. I will not be responding to you further.

I am sure you will try to spin my refusal to play your games as some sort of victory.

Hooray for you.

 

[SensualMan]

I will not spin your refusal to poast as anything more than it is....you have simply given up. That is fine, and you may cite any reason you want. The truth is that in both threads you have given nothing but opinion while I have been able to provide fact to support my claims. Now admittedly I am not an expert on the ACLU, but there is a reason a majority of the country views it as left of center. In recent years they have supported many cases, such as groups like NAMBLA, that you don't have to be a right wing fanatic to see are irresponsible and from from a desire to protect civil liberties. It is unfortunate that you equate conservative with close-minded...because you will never be able to have a substantive discussion with that sort of prejudice. I may not agree with most liberals, but I do not think they are close minded fanatics because they disagree with me. They just have a differing political opinion.

 

[Pookie]

Re: State issue

Issues such as the recognition of gay marriage should be left to the states, but then again I think just about every issue in this country should be left to the states.....

I noticed that the link to the story is the ACLU website....here is where I pull a queersetti and point out that the ACLU is a leftist, at times very far left, group that is not a reputable source for news.

If you want to call it leftest group, fine. It adds luster to the term "leftist" when you do. Their track record for looking out for all Americans civil liberties is something they can take great pride in. I haven't always agreed with everything they state, but their mission involves many values that conservatives hold dear.

The ACLU has appeared before the Supreme Court and other federal courts on numerous occasions, both as direct counsel and by filing amicus briefs.

"The ACLU's mission is to fight civil liberties violations wherever and whenever they occur. Most of our clients are ordinary people who have experienced an injustice and have decided to fight back. The ACLU is also active in our national and state capitals, fighting to ensure that the Bill of Rights will always be more than a "parchment barrier" against government oppression and the tyranny of the majority."

Oh, and SensualMan ... they don't care if you're far-right or far-left. They'll take up the cause of fighting civil liberties violations just the same.

 

[Pookie]

I will not spin your refusal to poast as anything more than it is....you have simply given up. That is fine, and you may cite any reason you want. The truth is that in both threads you have given nothing but opinion while I have been able to provide fact to support my claims. Now admittedly I am not an expert on the ACLU, but there is a reason a majority of the country views it as left of center. In recent years they have supported many cases, such as groups like NAMBLA, that you don't have to be a right wing fanatic to see are irresponsible and from from a desire to protect civil liberties. It is unfortunate that you equate conservative with close-minded...because you will never be able to have a substantive discussion with that sort of prejudice. I may not agree with most liberals, but I do not think they are close minded fanatics because they disagree with me. They just have a differing political opinion.

You say quite a bit, but seldom provide "facts" in your posts. You rarely provide the evidence to back up your claims. You seem to purposely misquote people in your replies (see the other thread). You provide information about a source that typically doesn't hold up when you read it carefully. You apparantly don't do much if any research before posting what typically is nothing more than a rant.

The ACLU in many situations ends up defending individuals and organizations that the "general" public at times has a high distaste for. Yet if you look at the issue(s) they are fighting, it's typically a civil liberty for ALL Americans.

It may seem cool to strip away NAMBLAs civil rights and liberties because they are an undesirable group. But if you allow the Government to strip away JUST one person's rights, who's to stop them from stripping away yours next? It's a terrible precedent to allow the Government, or anyone else, to get away with.

The ACLU fights for the protection of civil liberties, nothing else. If you are too blinded to their cause only by the fact that some of their clients may be an "undesirable", you're more ignorant than I first though.


Minor edit to first sentence for clarification.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: State issue

Issues such as the recognition of gay marriage should be left to the states, but then again I think just about every issue in this country should be left to the states.....

I noticed that the link to the story is the ACLU website....here is where I pull a queersetti and point out that the ACLU is a leftist, at times very far left, group that is not a reputable source for news.

States' rights is the Republican code-word for 'screwing over a minority group'...you can tell, because they stomp all over states rights when it comes to legalizing marriage and marijuana.

 

[SensualMan]

Marijuana

I am 100% in support of the legalization of marijuana by state....if the voters want to make it legal, let them.......

 

[LarzMachine]

Re: Re: State issue

If you want to call it leftest group, fine. It adds luster to the term "leftist" when you do. Their track record for looking out for all Americans civil liberties is something they can take great pride in.

http://www.mergemag.org/2000/namblaaclu.html
http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=75
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029
http://www.aclu-mass.org/legal/namblareinstein.html

Defending pedophiles "adds luster" to the left? Wow. Even I wouldn't have claimed the left was so far gone as to consider defending childrape a good thing by comparison, or something to "take great pride in." I am truly amazed by your depravity.

But hey, it's a free country, so I guess you have the right to side with anyone you want, regardless of how foul. Just don't expect anyone other than child molesters to consider you credible...

 

[Pookie]

Re: Re: Re: State issue

Defending pedophiles "adds luster" to the left? Wow. Even I wouldn't have claimed the left was so far gone as to consider defending childrape a good thing by comparison, or something to "take great pride in." I am truly amazed by your depravity.

From your own link (thanks!):

"ACLUM Executive Director John Roberts described the concerns which prompted ACLUM to take on NAMBLA’s defense. "While we join with all others in deploring the heinous crimes committed against Jeffrey Curley, two people have been convicted of his murder and are serving life sentences. The Curley lawsuit seeks millions of dollars in damages against NAMBLA because one of the murderers allegedly looked at the organization’s publications and web site prior to committing the crimes. There was nothing in those publications or web site which advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape."

"ACLUM Legal Director John Reinstein, who is one of the lawyers representing NAMBLA in the suit, acknowledged that "I think it is fair to say that most people disagree with NAMBLA and that many would find its publications offensive. Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA’s views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."


Source: http://www.aclu-mass.org/legal/namblareinstein.html

But hey, it's a free country, so I guess you have the right to side with anyone you want, regardless of how foul. Just don't expect anyone other than child molesters to consider you credible...

As I said to SensualMan, the ACLU in many situations ends up defending individuals and organizations that the "general" public at times has a high distaste for. Yet if you look at the issue(s) they are fighting, it's typically a civil liberty for ALL Americans.

It may seem cool to strip away NAMBLAs civil rights and liberties because they are an undesirable group. But if you allow the Government to strip away JUST one person's rights, who's to stop them from stripping away yours next? It's a terrible precedent to allow the Government, or anyone else, to get away with.

The ACLU fights for the protection of civil liberties, nothing else. If you are too blinded to their cause only by the fact that some of their clients may be an "undesirable", you're more ignorant than I first though.

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, August 31, 2000

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

A legal brief filed in the case can be read online at: http://www.aclu-mass.org/legal/namblabrief.html

Source: http://www.aclu-mass.org/legal/namblaaclu.html

 

[LarzMachine]

Re: Re: Re: Re: State issue

The ACLU fights for the protection of civil liberties, nothing else. If you are too blinded to their cause only by the fact that some of their clients may be an "undesirable", you're more ignorant than I first though.

So you're perfectly fine with them defending pedophiles. Nice to see you can try to dodge even this. If you're too blinded by your programming to understand why pedophiles shouldn't be defended, you've only proved how truly depraved you are. See, intelligent people don't let some ridiculous civil rights issue distract us from the fact that NAMbLA is a group dedicated to molesting children. Are you perhaps a charter member? It would certainly explain your dedication to claiming the ACLU is doing the right thing by defending them.

 

[LarzMachine]

Re: Re: Re: Re: State issue

It may seem cool to strip away NAMBLAs civil rights and liberties because they are an undesirable group.

Absolutely. They're the lowest form of criminal. They have no rights. That's how it works -- you rape children, you lose your rights. Or do ou think they should be held up as shining beacons of all that's good and proper. Oh, that's what you're doing here. I guess you DO think pedophiles are not only acceptable, but also worthy of special protection.

But if you allow the Government to strip away JUST one person's rights, who's to stop them from stripping away yours next? It's a terrible precedent to allow the Government, or anyone else, to get away with.

Slippery slope argument. No basis in reality whatsoever. Logical fallacy. Nice to see you've at least found others to use rather than your beloved ad hominem "arguments."

Incidentally, "hate speech" laws could be seen as every bit as much of "strip[ping] away" of "JUST one person's rights," yet I doubt you have a problem with those laws either. So tell me, do you support the Klan, Nazi Party, Black Panthers and other hate groups and their civil rights to the same degree you support the right of NAMbLA?

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: State issue

So you're perfectly fine with them defending pedophiles. Nice to see you can try to dodge even this. If you're too blinded by your programming to understand why pedophiles shouldn't be defended, you've only proved how truly depraved you are. See, intelligent people don't let some ridiculous civil rights issue distract us from the fact that NAMbLA is a group dedicated to molesting children. Are you perhaps a charter member? It would certainly explain your dedication to claiming the ACLU is doing the right thing by defending them.

This is extremely anti-American in tone...you should try living in Iran, now that the soviet Union doesn't exist to be the perfect home for you and your ideals.