It's because they Hate Gays, there is no other reason

Republican Governor in Maryland just vetoed the following?

This isn't about marriage. This isn't about a fucking slippery slope. This is about denying basic rights to people.

Here is what he vetoed:

Modeled after laws in California, Hawaii and other states, the legislation would have granted nearly a dozen rights to unmarried partners who register with the state. Among those: the right to be treated as an immediate family member during hospital visits, to make health care decisions for incapacitated partners and to have private visits in nursing homes.

Yea, hospital and nursing home visits. What a fucking threat to the traditional "American Family".

This isn't about calling something "marriage" this is about bigoted fucking hatred.

You no longer need to wonder why I'm such a short-fused bitch!

In america, you have the right to bear arms in case you need to band together, grab your guns, and overthrow a corrupt government. What the hell are you waiting for?

Don't look at me. I didn't vote for that retard.

All you have to do in a situation like this is make sure that your wishes are clearly known, and that your family knows the consequences of interfering with the decisions you've made about your medical or end of life care. I have it in my will that if any family member questions or interferes in any way with my clearly laid out wishes the bulk of my estate goes to ASPCA.

Was Charlotte called "the Queen City" before you moved there, Neehai?

Not everyone has greedy would-be inheritants or a sizy estate to use as leverage. That's when the law should step in.

Meet me under the oak tree when the moon is full and the church bells strike 13. We'll discuss revolution then...

Unfortunately, revolutionaries tend to die and/or get sent to hellish places like Guantanamo Bay. Do you know that they don't even have Cable in those areas?! Besides, American Idol is going to be on pretty soon. I can't revolt until then. Although, then I would miss House... hmmm... *grabs TV Guide* how about we revolt in 2012, after The Simpsons series finale?

No, all faggots have to do is go through all that extra bullshit and heartache to have their wishes honored.

That's the way they see us. Second class citizens who don't deserve the basic rights everyone else is entitled to. It was the same when AIDS first came out. No one gave a shit because it was only killing off the fags.

Fuck these people. I am ashamed to be an American today. And if anyone doesn't like it, they can kiss off.

Come to Toronto for gay pride day. It's usually a blast.

When it comes to gay marriages and rights of gay couples, either they get full recognition under the law as a legal marriage and in turn all the benefits of such, or they get nothing at all.

Separate but equal will not work and has already been proven to be failed doctrine.

Briana Dawson

I like that quote. It'd make a good signature.

As for the veto, I'm not sure what bothers me more- the fact that it's unfair (and possibly mean spirited, although that's only my guess) or the fact that it's illogical. To this day I don't understand how gay mariage (or rights for gay couples) could hurt straight marriage.

Quite large, too!

Neehai,

I don't think you and I have ever agreed on anything....
...until now.

This is simply, utterly, categorically RIDICULOUS! These are basic individual rights irrespective of a person's sexual preferences. These are rights EVERYONE should have. I'm not a MD voter, so there's not much I can do but encourage any MD voters out there to send a clear message to this misguided Governor.

-Kiamat Dusk

Let's be honest people: It's not even about gays.

Human beings have been wired to reject that which is differant since day one. Descrimination is not a flaw, it's a needed portion of our psyche to keep us functional.

You don't think so? Then when was the last time you sat on a table and ate off a chair?.. Tried to eat a rock?.. Laughed during a funeral procession of a person you liked?..

The problem is, some people overreact to their basic instict of what they think is wrong, and try to make it bigger than a set of insticts telling them how THEY should act.


Do I find some things strange? Yes. Do I inflict my opinion on them and tell them how to act. No.

Unless...

Unless it hurts people. I can't stand those who advance themselves at the cost of excessive pain to others. Hate groups get the pointy end of my boot, as do people like pedophiles.

Gays, on average, hurt no one. They tend to have slightly better manners, and are often better people to be around. I say this from personal experience. Manners are one of their first levels of defense against abuse and ridicule, and they use it well.

Then again, I knew a little guy who beat the tar out of two guys who thought he would be easy pickings. I don't condone violence as an answer to everything, but sometimes it's a darn good answer. Especially for some people who have a braincell problem understanding less final methods of communication.

I'm rambling, so time to shutup...

You're on the right track here. This is the core argument I've used again and again myself on several subjects, including this one.

I feel this is just another phase of history repeating itself. The pendulum swings one way - very likely it'll swing the other once people get over their social myopia and overcompensate... then right back again.

We kinda live in a time that's made us question our norms. I think that's a good thing - provided people learn to follow the quoted line of reasoning.

Too many times people underestimate the fragile little faggot. I don't understand why. You don't grow up being a target all your life without eventually learning to fight back.

The funniest is always when someone gets their ass handed to them by a drag queen. It takes a big man to put on a dress, high heels and makeup. Chances are that man can kick your ass. You have been warned.


No, but you are a Republican. These people wouldn't do this without your support. Outrage without action is worth as much as a car without gas.

There are those who assert that neither did anyone else.

I had to put in my two cents, because I am a Maryland resident and I didn't vote for him.

I almost posted an epic post about the highlights of Governor Ehrlich's screwed up administration, but that would have taken us off topic. I will say this much. He is in the pocket of gambling and horse racing interests. He falls in line behind Bush, and faithfully furthers Bush's agenda in Maryland. Equal rights for homosexuals aren't even on his radar. He's not one, and could care less about them.

Republicans are not the enemy. A true Republican is a Libertarian at heart and doesnt believe the government should be controling the lives of the people, even if they find it immoral. the laws in this country are too complex, they need to be greatly simplied and balanced out. Everyone should have equal rights under the law, it is plain and simple and any true Repulican believes it and would tell you the same. Becoming a bigot yourself and hating another group of people is not going to help your cause.

Stupid is as stupid does. Who the fuck cares what the textbook definition of a Republican is? The Republicans around right now fucking over the homosexuals are the ones I'm talking about. Honestly, that true Republican crap is getting old. I see what you do.


I don't hate the Republicans, I just hate what they do. You see, just like a Christain that exempts me from being a bigot. Now all the people that stand by or vote for those taking away my rights. I've got a big textbook I'd like to shove up your ass.

Oh, and in case you think this kind of bullshit is isolated, here's another example. A proposal in California to strip away all domestic partner benefits.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=101&e=1&u=/po/20050520/co_po/califgroupslaunchbroadantigaydrive

"In addition to denying marriage licenses, the proposed amendment would take away many marriage-like privileges currently extended to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners. In addition, state and local governments would no longer be allowed to extend health benefits to domestic partners of gay or lesbian workers."

"If passed, this constitutional amendment would result in children losing health insurance they currently have, hospital visitation being revoked and families being hurt," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California.

And here are the people behind it "protecting" marriage. Fuck marriage and fuck every heterosexual that supports this bullshit. Maybe you should just round up all the faggots and make us paint pink triangles on our doors so you know where we are.

"The bad guys here are the judges and the politicians. The people are frustrated," Randy Thomasson, one of the leaders behind the petition, said in a quote published by the AP. "The people are ready to protect marriage once and for all."

True Republicans indeed!

What I don't understand is this.

Why is it necessary to insist that a legally recognised gay union, with all the legal rights corresponding to marriage (which I support), is not enough. Why has it to be called "marriage" and "wedding"?

Why demand to possess the words ?

Can advocates not see that they can't have it both ways. If possession of the wordss is psychologically significant to gays, how can they fail to recognise that it may be equally, or more so, for non-gays, to whom it has belonged since time immemorial.

That the word have acquired down the centuries deep and resonant significances in our cultures, all centred on heterosexual union, the natural family, male-female relationships, traditional romance, etc etc. It has meant exactly this for centuries.

Many heterosexuals will fight to retain possession of the words, and what they mean to them, when they will nevertheless happily concede to the justified request for equal treatment under the law.

To argue that they are irrationally insisting on something pointless, and easily shared, is self-demolishing. If it shouldn't matter to them, it shouldn't matter to gays.

Do the decent thing, take your legal rights, and call it something different. Let the words mean what they always meant. Why insist on hurting and upsetting so many people. To insist means riding uncaring over the sensibilities of huge numbers of others. Is this kind? Just ? Necessary ?

What you are forging IS new. It IS different. Be proud of it, embrace it. What is wrong with different but equal ? Why have so little self-confidence that you have to stamp on other peoples sensibilities to prove your equality ?

With this demand to use the words "marriage" and "wedding" removed, opposition to full equality would be reduced to the lunatic fringe.

Don't misunderstand me. My point is about the use of a single significant word. Nothing prevents all associated rights being the same for the homosexual equivalent. Which is what I support.

The problem with that, Ellie, is that "separate but equal" doesn't work in our society.

Read the article above. These loving "heterosexuals" are trying to take away the legal rights.

This isn't about a fucking word. That is a smokescreen used to justify bigoted behavior. We could all it Snoofypoofyringling and these people would still have problems with it.

And who the fuck decided that I have to negotiate with heterosexuals over what something is called. Could you have a bigger ego? I deserve the same rights as you. I don't give a fuck if you like the wording or not. You people just don't get it. Homosexuals fight for healthcare rights to SURVIVE and you are being picky over a word. The selfishness of some people never ceases to amaze me.

No, Neehai. I concede you everything else. I can recognise injustice.
I am objecting to YOU being picky, wanting a word that has meant one thing for centuries.
If you are happy to use new words for the legally equal homosexual unions, then we are agreeing entirely, not disagreeing at all.

It may seem trivial to you, but in my opinion this demand is responsible for at least 60% of the opposition you meet. Isn't that significant ?

I'm sorry, Lianne. I just don't understand where you get that bald statement from. Can you explain what you base it on ? I'm always willing to learn.