Wyoming legislature kills anti-SSM amendment:
The news for gay marriage advocates hasn't been especially good lately. But today the Wyoming state house defeated a proposed state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman. The defeat is especially significant because, in a legislative body in which the GOP enjoys a 41-19 advantage, sixteen Republicans joined all nineteen Democrats to vote against. (HT: Michael Petrelis.)
Related Posts (on one page):
- How Wyoming beat an anti-SSM amendment:
- Wyoming legislature kills anti-SSM amendment:
Thirty years ago, many companies would fire people just for being gay. The public was debating whether gay people should be categorically denied jobs as teachers. Now the debate is mostly whether being openly anti-gay is or should be a disqualification from employment.
And remember, this is West Virginia. West freakin' Virginia.
DC: OK, so I was a couple of thousand miles off. I did get the "W" state part right.
But it's not at all liberal, unless you define "liberal" as being against free trade agreements.
[Disclosure: I was born and raised outside the Great State, but my heart is still there]
This explains Arlen Specter, who really should be a democrat, but originally ran for office at a time when it was a huge advantage to running as a republican.
Yes, it did originally identify West Virginia as the state in question.
Yet not a peep about the way his party shamelessly attacked families like his daughter's. He worked hard for a party that pulled itself to power in part by working to take away his grandson's right to support and care from both of his parents in a loving, stable home. Anti-family scumbag hypocrite.
Yes. I was wondering about that as well.
But I think it's important toavoid stereotyping people based on geography, as well as other traits. [Not including Wisconsin, of course, because they are total suckwads.]
So we need to acknowledge that the perpetrators of the Shepard murder were given very severe sentences, and the death penalty was taken off the table for one only as a result of a deal with Shepard's parents, IIRC. In any event, it is not as if the State of Wyoming let his killers off easy.
I would have considered any greater penalty over the top. But I don't support the death penalty.
It's one thing to be tolerant of ones sexual orientation, but it's another thing to be told to approve of the behavior.
It's like recognizing people do kill other people, but this isn't to say people must approve of people killing people.
As a recent post talked about regarding the New York State Court ruling regarding inheritance between a Gay couple; the couple were not married in New York (they were from Canada), and New York (which was predicted to approve Gay marriage with the new Dem legislature) still does not recognize it in State. But the State recognizes that its laws do not apply against other States or nations. Thus, though we have laws on Bigamy or Polygamy a man being married to two or more women in his country will not face charges when living in the United States. This even extends to how young the women can be even though we might call such marriages statutory rape (please note the Texas Mormon case).
In short I seriously doubt this will suddenly turn into the passage of a law in Wisconsin allowing same sex marriage to be performed and recognized by the State. I mean, Rhode Island recognized a lesbian couple was married according to Massachusetts law. But that didn't mean they had to recognize SSM and then change their divorce laws so the couple could divorce in Rhode Island.
It's like recognizing people do kill other people, but this isn't to say people must approve of people killing people.
What??? Is the analogy between being gay and committing murder? Is anyone 'tolerant' of murder?
Didn't we just have an election where a guy calling himself a liberal said he was going to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA and refuse a free trade agreement with Columbia?
Anti-free-trade scumbag hypocrite.
Yeah, right. Much is made of Cheney's position but few people understand it. Here is his position, as presented during the 2004 VP debates:
No support of civil unions. A recognition that other folks in other states might enact them. No federal involvement at all.
It's all meant to deceive, and it does.
Really? And being tolerant to you means what, that you won't kill us? So we should be happy that you allow us to live, but we shouldn't ask for anything more than that?
If you hate gays, please, just be honest and say so.
Insisting on full equality for a behavior that is widely regarded as depraved isn't a recipe for achieving full equality; it might, however, just make some people wonder if tolerance was a good idea.
It's not a behavior, nor a lifestyle. That's kind of the point. It's something you are, and unless "a gay" is performing what you think "it" is in front of you (and I love anti-gay reactionaries obsession with gay sex), what business is "it" of yours, or harm is "it" causing? That's the problem with these hellish and cruel anti-gay initiatives and laws. They single out one aspect of a person's life and make it a rationale for mountains of discrimination.
J Aldridge, "It's one thing to be tolerant of ones sexual orientation, but it's another thing to be told to approve of the behavior. " Let's flip this on the basis of another protected status - religion: should we be tolerant of Christians, but not approve of the church-going? You can "be" religious, but not "do" it?
More to the point, why on earth would your being or doing status become the basis for a different legal status?
Besides, no one told you to approve of anything. But you don't get to write discrimination into law based on one version of holy texts or because you think something's icky, and that's pretty much all anti-gays have.
"Insisting on full equality for a behavior that is widely regarded as depraved isn't a recipe for achieving full equality; it might, however, just make some people wonder if tolerance was a good idea."
The phrasing may be oblique and the language civil, yet it calls gay people depraved (by way of the behavior that defines them), chastises them for being uppity, and caps it off with a vague threat. Is this good comment culture? And, if so, how obtuse does comment culture require us to be?
Gays are not just an academic topic of debate. We are people. And some of us are here on this blog.
Veiled insults are insults nonetheless.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.