Gay rights still stuck at impasse

Shame on Shannon E. Avery!
Domestic Partnerships don't work. They only create a secondary class of citizenship for gay and lesbian people. Each state creates its only DP program that is not recognized by other states in the same way. When you become Partners in MD, it's no guarantee that your rights will be recognized in another state. Marriage faces less, though not no, legal hurdles in cross state recognition. And Domestic Partnerships confer fewer rights than marriage in the first place—why should gay and lesbians settle for second best?
In an age when we get on planes, trains and automobiles and cross state lines on a daily basis, the thought of having to keep a score card of what rights we have in what states is just plain silly. If you live in Baltimore and commute to Northern Virginia and get in a car accident at work, your Domestic Partnership is not going to help you. Marriage on the other hand will. Good Work Dan and the Equality Maryland for staying focused on the prize, not Martin’s political ambitions.
The problem with Martin is he wants to climb the electoral office ladder. That’s the trouble with most of our leaders in this state, they are more interested in their future political lives instead of the here and now. Ms. Avery should work with Martin in demanding what’s right from our legislature, not what will get him on Hillary’s short list or keep him perceived as elect able in the future by band aiding a tough political situation. I’m 45 years old, been with my partner for more than 20 years. I would like to be married, not Domestic Partnered. The greatest difference between marriage and domestic partners is the security and peace of mind marriage offers. I hope Ms. Avery understands that.

What shame? Quit throwing a childish tantrum. Progress is more likely to come in steps than giant leaps. Don't let your life in a liberal community deceive you, most of this country is still resistant to the idea of giving any legal recognition to gay relationships. If you push for radical change (even if such change is fair), you will get nothing or, worse yet, a backlash. One step at the time. Your steps can be taken while running, but still one step at a time.

Just maybe the majority of Marylanders don't approve of same sex marriages. Ever think about that? Oh, I forgot .... it is no longer the majority that counts, its the special minority groups that only matter. Forgot, Martin told us "children" that. When the majority of Marylanders vote (sorry, again ... forgot we "children" don't have a say in things anymore) agree to same sex marriage I will support it. Until then, they are not legal in Maryland. You can always move to Mass. and get married there. Sounds like a good suggestion to me.

Good for you Senator Brinkley...I've known David since he was a youngster, and am glad to see he sticks to his principles no matter what flack he gets from the left wingers. Gays, lesbians, transgenders or whatever they want to call themselves have pushed their agenda to the limit, hoping people will accept their abberant sexlife-style hoping it will be accepted as normal. Think AIDS, their revolting Gaboree"dress up" parades and over the top swishy stupidity. Thank you David, for being a politician who represents the majority of your constituency.

No Shame in Reality wrote:

What shame? Quit throwing a childish tantrum. Progress is more likely to come in steps than giant leaps. Don't let your life in a liberal community deceive you, most of this country is still resistant to the idea of giving any legal recognition to gay relationships. If you push for radical change (even if such change is fair), you will get nothing or, worse yet, a backlash. One step at the time. Your steps can be taken while running, but still one step at a time.

There will be backlash no matter what.

I don't believe in settling for 2nd best even if it's to appease other people. I learned my lesson a long time ago while waiting for men to accept the fact that I was capable of doing the same job they were doing and possibly doing it better then some of the men. By settling for 2nd best I received backlash and a longer time to earn the type of money I needed to feed my family properly.

Dave wrote:

Just maybe the majority of Marylanders don't approve of same sex marriages. Ever think about that? Oh, I forgot .... it is no longer the majority that counts, its the special minority groups that only matter. Forgot, Martin told us "children" that. When the majority of Marylanders vote (sorry, again ... forgot we "children" don't have a say in things anymore) agree to same sex marriage I will support it. Until then, they are not legal in Maryland. You can always move to Mass. and get married there. Sounds like a good suggestion to me.

Tell me, would you have told women to take one step at a time in order to get the vote? Or African-Americans to take one step at a time in order to gain their rights? Why should gays have to wait for the rights that are guaranteed them in our basic founding documents? Why are we any less than any other portion of this country. When gay men and women spill their blood for you and me in wars, are they any less entitled to their rights? If my spouse is in a hospital and someone needs to give consent for a life-saving operation, should the doctor, in the middle of the night, seek out a relative living half a country away for permission? Or should I standing right next to him, be able to give or withhold that permission? My spouse and I have been together for over a quarter century building a life together, rough times and smooth. I have cared for him and he for me in illness and accidents. Our love is as good as anyones, and our rights should not be infringed upon by the religious definition of our committment.

My previous post to Dave was supposed to be in response to No Shame In Reality, but it covers both of their posts.

Dave wrote:

Just maybe the majority of Marylanders don't approve of same sex marriages. Ever think about that? Oh, I forgot .... it is no longer the majority that counts, its the special minority groups that only matter. Forgot, Martin told us "children" that. When the majority of Marylanders vote (sorry, again ... forgot we "children" don't have a say in things anymore) agree to same sex marriage I will support it. Until then, they are not legal in Maryland. You can always move to Mass. and get married there. Sounds like a good suggestion to me.

I guess you would be in favor of abolishing the first section of the 14th amendment to the Constitution?

By the way, you and the entire community (homosexual and heterosexual) have the same rights you've had since the slaves were freed. Those rights never included your opinion of someone else gives you the right to determine what rights they can participate in. When tried in the past the federal constitution was used to overturn such laws.

"After the devastating loss of the gay marriage case in the Court of Appeals in November, the governor stepped up to the plate and offered to sponsor a civil union package."

Shannon: As far as I'm aware, all O'Malley did after the ruling was was (1) confuse everyone by implying that civil marriage had anything to do with "sacraments" (what the heck was he thinking?) and (2) tepidly, mostly through his spokesperson, say that he thought civil unions were a good idea. He did not, when civil unions and other alternative legal mechanisms were before the relevant legislative committees, press anyone to move forward with them -- and it's a pure straw man to imply that anyone pushing for marriage equality wouldn't have embraced such progress.

cooky mcclung wrote:

Good for you Senator Brinkley...I've known David since he was a youngster, and am glad to see he sticks to his principles no matter what flack he gets from the left wingers. Gays, lesbians, transgenders or whatever they want to call themselves have pushed their agenda to the limit, hoping people will accept their abberant sexlife-style hoping it will be accepted as normal. Think AIDS, their revolting Gaboree"dress up" parades and over the top swishy stupidity. Thank you David, for being a politician who represents the majority of your constituency.

LOL

At least you have come to realize that there is no such thing as a 'gay lifestyle'. But to keep up using a word you know will keep the image in mind you now refined your rhetoric to include 'sex-lifestyle'. But I fear I still don't know exactly what you mean by that. I don't know every one's 'sex-lifestyle' so how would I know if I'm living one that you don't approve of.

Oh, and no one really expects you to accept anyone else. I for one don't feel any great urge to accept you or your 'sex-lifestyle' but I am compelled, as an American, to tolerate you and your 'sex-lifestyle'. I also must come to terms that you share some of the same rights I have. The only thing I won't tolerate is that you have a right I don't merely because you would rather rely on stereotypes to make your decisions with.

Dave wrote:

Just maybe the majority of Marylanders don't approve of same sex marriages. Ever think about that? Oh, I forgot .... it is no longer the majority that counts, its the special minority groups that only matter.

If government has any purpose at all, it's to provide certain benefits and services to citizens as long as they meet their own obligations (especially in terms of payment). As a peaceful and honest citizen, I pay as much into the government as a straight person would, so I expect and demand the exact same level of benefits and services.

If the same amount is taken from me but less is offered in return, this is not an ethical relationship, no matter what "the majority" says about it.

It's not the government's place to approve or deny these benefits based on what I do with my personal life, anymore than it's (to throw out a random example) a restaurant's place to refuse my business because I'm out on a date with a guy rather than a girl. Even where there are now laws against it, almost no restaurants do that; in fact, though, if that did happen, I wouldn't mind so much - I could just go to another place that didn't have such a stupid policy. With government, you have no choice (at least without upending your life).

So, yeah, equal benefits now, no excuses, and I'm not going to remain calm if there's much more of a delay on it.

"Even where there are now laws against it"

I hate to do corrections, but this one was a big mistake: I meant "even where there are NO laws against it."

cooky mcclung wrote:

Good for you Senator Brinkley...I've known David since he was a youngster, and am glad to see he sticks to his principles no matter what flack he gets from the left wingers. Gays, lesbians, transgenders or whatever they want to call themselves have pushed their agenda to the limit, hoping people will accept their abberant sexlife-style hoping it will be accepted as normal. Think AIDS, their revolting Gaboree"dress up" parades and over the top swishy stupidity. Thank you David, for being a politician who represents the majority of your constituency.

Cooky, FYI, there are right-wing gays and lesbians (ever hear of the Log Cabin Republicans?). Also FYI, it's not our lifestyles, it's our lives. You know what our "lifestyle" is? Get up in the morning, shower, shave, brush teeth, have breakfast, walk dog, read newspaper, go to work, work hard at our jobs for 8 or more hours, come home, cook or microwave dinner, walk dog again, and fall asleep in front of the TV...in other words, exactly like your "lifestyle." Oh, and go to church or temple once a week. Also exactly like yours. And pay the bills once a month. See the pattern here? It's not a never-ending stream of parades and boogie nights, to quote Jim David.

I think Ms Avery can't accept that the majority of Marylanders feel same sex unions are wrong and shouldn't receive the same benefits.

Some of her issues are baseless as well, or due to some other factor than the same sex union. She fails to explain why same sex couples have "on average, lower incomes, lower rates of homeownership and lower likelihood of health insurance coverage than our married counterparts."

All of those issues, assumming they are true since she sited not evidence, could just as easily be explained by other reasons.

What she needs to do is accept the fact that most people find the issue immoral and not deserving of any legislative change.

ravensfan59 wrote:

I think Ms Avery can't accept that the majority of Marylanders feel same sex unions are wrong and shouldn't receive the same benefits...What she needs to do is accept the fact that most people find the issue immoral and not deserving of any legislative change.

So then, if the majority of Marylanders felt that interracial unions did not deserve recognition would that make it ok?

What if the majority decided that fat people shouldn't be allowed to have children or receive health benefits because of the cost to the State, and because the majority of the people find such gluttony to be immoral?

Personally I'm not willing to trust my rights to the will of the Majority and I doubt you are, so then why should someone else have to?

I am a straight dude, but I am appalled at the arrogance of politicians who see nothing wrong with denying gays the right to marry. I don’t have a problem if individual churches refuse to conduct gay marriage ceremonies on religious grounds, but the State of Maryland should not openly discriminate against gays by refusing to license same sex marriages. The government needs to but out of this issue and let consenting adults marry whoever they want to marry.

David wrote:

<quoted text>
What if the majority decided that fat people shouldn't be allowed to have children or receive health benefits because of the cost to the State, and because the majority of the people find such gluttony to be immoral?
?

I agree with you, but I question if you should use this analogy. Now that government is well on the way to stamping out smoking, I truly believe their next stop will be over-weight people. I don't know how, but I suspect there will be a government war on twinkies, potato chips, etc. But that is an argument for another time, another place.

ravensfan59 wrote:

What she needs to do is accept the fact that most people find the issue immoral and not deserving of any legislative change.

Again, government exists to provide services in exchange for meeting civic obligations (which mostly means paying money to it). If the same money is paid, the same services and benefits should be expected. No one needs to feel that this is an endorsement of what I do with those benefits or services; no one's moral or religious beliefs are relevant to this.

Ralph wrote:

My previous post to Dave was supposed to be in response to No Shame In Reality, but it covers both of their posts.

Ralph,

Measured approaches on key issues will likely achieve more for the GLBT community than will trying to upturn the cart with an argument over labels. Many people in the larger community can understand the fundamental unfairness of discriminating on the basis of orientation when it comes to housing, pay, education, and healthcare. They will understand that it is fundamentally unfair to close lifetime partners out of end-of-life care decisions. At this point, however, they will NOT understand or accept demands that the law recognize gay “marriage.” The word “marriage” itself has become a call to arms in the religious and bigot communities and the determination in the gay community to use terms traditionally reserved for traditional marriages has become a greased hurdle which the gay community obsessively, and foolishly, tries to climb over. Focus on achievable goals and get to the finish line in increments. Otherwise, you will just keep climbing the greased hurdle while your opposition organizes.

As for your analogies to the struggles of other historically disadvantaged communities, yes, in the context of those struggles, I would have suggest the same things to the women, the elderly and people of color. The sound bites on TV often focus on the loudest of the “epic” moments, but those moments were only a snapshot in time and the real progress that made them came by way of years of planning, patience, and baby steps. Historically, the true watershed moments occur quietly, not with a bang.

Q: What does a gay man and an ambulance have in common?

A: They both get loaded from the rear and go whoo-whoo!