Sign up against anti-gay amendment!

[Svenskaflicka]

Sign up against anti-gay amendment!

I signed it. Will you?

 

[minsue]

Signed it. I've signed a few of them & written to my legislators. Not that I expect to get anywhere with the representation that I have, but I wrote to them anyway & I'll continue to do so.

- Mindy

 

[Guest]

I've signed it.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Maybe it won't stop the amendment, but it's worth a try. If enough people protest against weird politicians' actions, then maybe they'll give them up. Not because it's "the will of the people", but because they can't afford to carry on with politics that is so unpopular that they might lose the next election...

 

[Guest]

Signed. And for "organization" I put Roman Catholic Church.

Perdita

 

[minsue]

Maybe it won't stop the amendment, but it's worth a try. If enough people protest against weird politicians' actions, then maybe they'll give them up. Not because it's "the will of the people", but because they can't afford to carry on with politics that is so unpopular that they might lose the next election...

I hate to tell you, but they don't give a damn about what's unpopular to people overseas. You can't vote for or against them.

 

[minsue]

Signed. And for "organization" I put Roman Catholic Church.

Perdita

I love ya, 'Dita.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Signed. And for "organization" I put Roman Catholic Church.

Perdita

ROFL

 

[Boxlicker101]

Sign up against anti-gay amendment!

I signed it. Will you?

If and when such a bill comes up to amend the Constitution, I will write my congresswoman and do whatever else I can. However, your signature on a petition, Flicka, is worse than useless. As a citizen of Sweden, you have no vote in the US and your signature on a petition, and the signature of others who are not US citizens or resident aliens may undermine the legitimacy of the document. If a member of Congress gets a petition with 100,000 signatures on it opposing the amendment, he or she may vote in favor of it anyhow, justifying the vote by saying something like "'many' of the signatures were from foreigners who had no business trying to influence the vote of a member of the US Congress."

Amending the Constitution is not easy. Two thirds of the senators anf two thirds of the representatives have to vote in favor, and three fourths of the state legislatures have to ratify it before it becomes an amendment. Bush might be able to get a majority but probably not two thirds of both houses to vote with him. That's just a guess.

 

[Dirty Slut]

Re: Re: Sign up against anti-gay amendment!

Originally posted by Boxlicker101
If and when such a bill comes up to amend the Constitution, I will write my congresswoman and do whatever else I can. However, your signature on a petition, Flicka, is worse than useless. As a citizen of Sweden, you have no vote in the US and your signature on a petition, and the signature of others who are not US citizens or resident aliens may undermine the legitimacy of the document. If a member of Congress gets a petition with 100,000 signatures on it opposing the amendment, he or she may vote in favor of it anyhow, justifying the vote by saying something like "'many' of the signatures were from foreigners who had no business trying to influence the vote of a member of the US Congress."

Amending the Constitution is not easy. Two thirds of the senators anf two thirds of the representatives have to vote in favor, and three fourths of the state legislatures have to ratify it before it becomes an amendment. Bush might be able to get a majority but probably not two thirds of both houses to vote with him. That's just a guess.

Box is absolutely correct in this matter.

DS

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Re: Sign up against anti-gay amendment!

If and when such a bill comes up to amend the Constitution, I will write my congresswoman and do whatever else I can. However, your signature on a petition, Flicka, is worse than useless. As a citizen of Sweden, you have no vote in the US and your signature on a petition, and the signature of others who are not US citizens or resident aliens may undermine the legitimacy of the document. If a member of Congress gets a petition with 100,000 signatures on it opposing the amendment, he or she may vote in favor of it anyhow, justifying the vote by saying something like "'many' of the signatures were from foreigners who had no business trying to influence the vote of a member of the US Congress."

Amending the Constitution is not easy. Two thirds of the senators anf two thirds of the representatives have to vote in favor, and three fourths of the state legislatures have to ratify it before it becomes an amendment. Bush might be able to get a majority but probably not two thirds of both houses to vote with him. That's just a guess.

It's not easy, but it is possible and I think in this case probable. The issue isn't teribly partisan, there are democratic senators and reps from more traditional states who will support it. Outside of men like John McCain who have made a habit of bucking the party most republicans will also vote for it if it comes to a vote.

Democrats who oppose it now, in an election year are for more likely to support it if it comes up in the first part of a second term for Bush. It's important legislation for Bush, but outside of a very few districts it isn't that important to very many senators or reps. If the Republicans follow the standard proceedure for congress with the i'll wash your back if you wash mine I can see a lot of Dems voting 'in Defense of Marriage" or spining it as "Letting the people have their say" while knowing when the all important farm subsidy, or manufacturing tarrif protection or whatever bill that is important to keep thier constituents happy comes up they will get a little love back from the Gop.

On the national stage the "gay vote" isn't all that big a voting block. On the state level outside of NY and Cali it is a negligible voting block with the possible exception of Atlanta influencing georgia or Miami influencing florida in a fringe way.

Outside of election Rhetoric I seriously doubt gay marraige is a concern of any importance to a lot of senators, both demcrat and republican. Certainly it is one of the bargining chips most will be happy to part with for a promise of support on a more pressing domestic issue within thier state/district.

-Colly

 

[SlickTony]

My Totally Nasty, Cynical Little Theory

(I signed it, BTW)

My totally nasty, cynical little theory is that a lot of the conservative types who claim to be about "protecting marriage" have a hidden agenda (one that some of them may even be hiding from themselves).

See, conservative sexual morality has always heavily depended on the existence of a subclass of people whom it was permissible to discreetly fuck around with, but you never had to worry about having to marry. There were always what are now called sex workers, and all through history right up to when I was coming up, it was any girl or woman who dared to have sex when she was not married. Theoretically, a "nice girl" could, with that one act, slide down into the subclass. Pre-pill, hard evidence was a pregnancy. The guy in the equation could pull the girl up--by offering marriage--or not, in which case the girl was packed off to the Home for Fallen Girls or off to an aunt's house out of town to have the baby and give it up for adoption or try to pass it off as her own little brother or sister. (This is in relatively modern times--other cultures still deal with this problem by means of honor killings).

With the advent of the Pill and Women's Lib, women were claiming sexual freedom for themselves. When there are more people in the subclass than not in the subclass, it's not that much of a subclass anymore, is it?

So who's left? Gays. I think there's a lot more bi-curiosity and bisexuality out there than people are willing to let on. (A guy I went to school with once said that in his opinion, in a truly enlightened society, more people would be bisexual). And what about those "chicken hawks"--those supposedly straight, solidly married Pillars of the Community who drive downtown of nights looking for teenage male hustlers? Who the fuck do they think they're kidding? (This has been around forever--I remember reading newspaper articles about the phenomenon when I was young). To them, the seventeen-year-old guy who sucked their dicks in the front seat of their car "doesn't count" and is less risky than having an affair with another woman, who might get pregnant or turn out to be an acquaintance of their wife or expect to be taken seriously. Pre-AIDs, he probably was safer.

Anti-gay conservatives love to go on about glory holes and bathhouses--either Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin, I forget which (I tend to conflate them) was making some snide remark to the effect that liberals know more about those than about Christ. (I wish they could read the ongoing discussion about the Passion that's been going on in this forum). The AGCs want to keep them there. They don't want to have to think about gay people doing ordinary stuff like picking out houses and taking out mortgages and raising kids.

They want there still to be a commitment-free, no-holds-barred zoo world out there that they can think about and live in vicariously even if they never have the nerve to visit there. Imagine going out to a porn movie house and peering through the glory holes to find no one there because everyone's at home reading the kiddies to sleep and firing up Turbotax. Or maybe out at K-Mart snapping up Martha Stewart towels at a steep discount.

That wouldn't happen, of course, even if gay marriage were permitted. There are still a lot of gay people who have no interest in getting married to anybody, just as there are a lot of heterosexual people who have no interest in getting married. (John Waters is one of them; he said in an interview on NPR that he thought that gays were nuts to want to take on the shackles of marriage--one of the cool things about being gay, he said, was that you never had to get married.)

No, I think that at least a few of the AGCs are worried that that something worse could happen: someone they met a few weekends ago while they were on the low-down might come up and speak to them in broad daylight in the mall or something.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Signed. And for "organization" I put Roman Catholic Church.

Perdita

If you'd put that on something here in UK, it wouldn't have meant much at all.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

However, your signature on a petition, Flicka, is worse than useless. As a citizen of Sweden, you have no vote in the US and your signature on a petition, and the signature of others who are not US citizens or resident aliens may undermine the legitimacy of the document.

My signature may be worse than useless, but then again, so was you father's sperm...

 

[Boxlicker101]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, your signature on a petition, Flicka, is worse than useless. As a citizen of Sweden, you have no vote in the US and your signature on a petition, and the signature of others who are not US citizens or resident aliens may undermine the legitimacy of the document.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




My signature may be worse than useless, but then again, so was you father's sperm...


A: I thought I was on your ignore list.

B: You don't have to get insulting.

C: I think most persons will agree that I'm right. Since you have no say in the matter, your opinions might interfere with those expressed by persons who do have some say.

D: You are, of course, entitled to express your opinion but expressing it here might do more harm than good.

 

[Guest]

... your signature on a petition, and the signature of others who are not US citizens or resident aliens may undermine the legitimacy of the document.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C: I think most persons will agree that I'm right.

Box, I do not agree with you. When I saw your first post I was stunned (again) at your tactlessness, but let it go. I do not have the strong opinion and feeling about you as SF does, so I do try not to insult you; at the very least when I post back to you I try to inform you of how you came across, at least to me.

Above you came across as insulting, it was my first reaction. There was no need to put your opinion in such terms, or even to express it, esp. as this is Svenska's thread; though you might have given your opinion, carefully, about possible undermining of the petition's intent, and simply addressed it to persons in general.

Personally, I think it's important for the present government to know how widespread is the pro-gay, etc. opinion. Petitions, however formal, when not in an official capacity, need have no debilitating rules.

I don't need a reply, just hope you get what I'm saying, and can be more thoughtful.

Perdita

 

[Boxlicker101]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Boxlicker101
... your signature on a petition, and the signature of others who are not US citizens or resident aliens may undermine the legitimacy of the document.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C: I think most persons will agree that I'm right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Box, I do not agree with you. When I saw your first post I was stunned (again) at your tactlessness, but let it go. I do not have the strong opinion and feeling about you as SF does, so I do try not to insult you; at the very least when I post back to you I try to inform you of how you came across, at least to me.

Above you came across as insulting, it was my first reaction. There was no need to put your opinion in such terms, or even to express it, esp. as this is Svenska's thread; though you might have given your opinion, carefully, about possible undermining of the petition's intent, and simply addressed it to persons in general.

Personally, I think it's important for the present government to know how widespread is the pro-gay, etc. opinion. Petitions, however formal, when not in an official capacity, need have no debilitating rules.

I don't need a reply, just hope you get what I'm saying, and can be more thoughtful.

Perdita

Hi, Dita. You may not need a reply but you are going to get one anyhow.

Since this is Flicka's thread and she is saying she is going to send a petition to the US president, I posted a resonse saying it would do no good and might do harm and pointed out why. I addressed Flicka but I also intended the post to be for anyone else who might read this thread and is a non-citizen of the US, and I said as much. Earlier, Mindy had said much the same thing but in fewer words. DS agreed with my post.

Flicka then gratituitously insulted me and I did respond a bit sharply, but not as insultingly as she had.

Think about this, though. If you and I and 1,000,000 other US citizens were to send a petition to the prime minister of Sweden criticizing his domestic policies, how much attention would be accorded to it? Even if Flicka and other Swedes felt the same way and sent a similar petition, might not our petition cause the PM to disregard their opinions?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Box, let me explain this to you:

Yes, you're on my Ignore list. I don't see your posts, I just see the line "This person is on your Ignore List."

However, when someone quote you, like Colleen Thomas did, then I can see what you say. And what you said, pissed me off. As do most things you say. That's why you're on my Ignore list.

And when you're calling my actions "worse than useless", you are, in fact, insulting me, and I will answer back to anyone who insults me.

I looked up your previous post to see what you had said, as I could see that it was directed at me personally. I will now go back to doing something I find more interesting than your rants, namely picking lint out of my navel.

 

[Guest]

Think about this, though. If you and I and 1,000,000 other US citizens were to send a petition to the prime minister of Sweden criticizing his domestic policies, how much attention would be accorded to it? Even if Flicka and other Swedes felt the same way and sent a similar petition, might not our petition cause the PM to disregard their opinions?

Box, I have no idea.

This is not meant disrespectfully, but I must say you are too difficult to converse with, for me anyway. So nevermind anything I said.

Perdita

 

[minsue]

With love and respect for you both

I must disagree with you on this, 'Dita & 'Flicka. I didn't read Box's post as being anything but honest. It certainly didn't cross my mind that it was, in any way, meant to be an insult.



- Mindy

 

[SlickTony]

I think it's kind of sweet that Svenskaflicka cares what is going down in our country. It would never occur to me to send a petition off to her government (I'd mention my Swedish ancestry if I did) but then, I don't know enough about Sweden's government policies to do so.

 

[minsue]

I think it's kind of sweet that Svenskaflicka cares what is going down in our country. It would never occur to me to send a petition off to her government (I'd mention my Swedish ancestry if I did) but then, I don't know enough about Sweden's government policies to do so.

Please don't get me wrong. I think it's very sweet and I love the way that 'Flicka cares passionately about the rights of others regardless of where they are. That's one of the things I love about her. I just didn't think that Box was being insulting or out of line. That was all I was trying to say.

- Mindy

 

[SlickTony]

Of course, in this era of relentless PC, one hesitates to say that the way things are done in any other culture is wrong, but nevertheless, they are. I was just about to power down my computer and exit my cube at work, and All Things Considered came on the radio (I listen to NPR a lot). They were just starting to run a story on a Sudanese immigrant in Atlanta, GA who had performed FGM on his daughter, and how much of a problem was this going to be in immigrant communities, etc., etc. The very thought of this atrocity makes me furious and I was glad that I had to leave to go catch the trolley before I heard the rest of it. Long story short: if Svenskaflicka wants to convey to our government that discrimination against gays is wrong, she's right to; it is wrong. And if we catch immigrants from some benighted country like Sudan cutting the clits off their little girls, we should throw the book at them because THAT'S wrong, too.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Of course, in this era of relentless PC, one hesitates to say that the way things are done in any other culture is wrong, but nevertheless, they are. I was just about to power down my computer and exit my cube at work, and All Things Considered came on the radio (I listen to NPR a lot). They were just starting to run a story on a Sudanese immigrant in Atlanta, GA who had performed FGM on his daughter, and how much of a problem was this going to be in immigrant communities, etc., etc. The very thought of this atrocity makes me furious and I was glad that I had to leave to go catch the trolley before I heard the rest of it. Long story short: if Svenskaflicka wants to convey to our government that discrimination against gays is wrong, she's right to; it is wrong. And if we catch immigrants from some benighted country like Sudan cutting the clits off their little girls, we should throw the book at them because THAT'S wrong, too.

Absolutely. Anybody who does such a terrible thing is not deserving of any protection except what is legally required. If people do that to their daughters, lock them up and cement the keyhole. If they hired someone to do it, lock up them and track down any other clients so we can put all of them in jail where they belong for such atrocities. If it was done in the Sudan before immigration to this country, we may not be able to arrest them but we can place the children under protection and deport the perpetrators.

Under certain circumstances, we should consider customs of the persons involved but not in something as horrid as this.

 

[Dirty Slut]

Okay, let me get this straight. Eating children is okay because of cultural themes, (From a different thread) but cutting off a girl's clitoris is bad irregardless of the cultural background?

DS