fear of harrassment by gays...

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

netrox

New Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
4,769
Reaction score
0
Oh my god!

Hear this.. Prop 8 proponents don't want the court to be aired because they fear harassment... excuse me... gays have been harassed, bashed, and murdered for being gay for thousand of years.

And anti-gay people are demanding special protection for themselves by denying the trial to be aired? No way they need special protection. They DESERVE to be harassed since they ARE HARASSING gays not to marry.

Prop. 8 trial to include unprecedented testimony - latimes.com
 
I believe they were arguing for the safety and candor of both sides. However I agree with you this should be aired.

So should the debates on Health Care reform. Obama promised those would be aired on C-Span. Why isn't Obama demanding the transparency he promised. These are major issues. Albeit neither the court nor congress would have to listen, Obama could still pressure them with a statement. Looks like more government as usual to me.
 
netrox said:
supreme court blocked the viewing... damn it.
Click to expand...

Yup, don't know why.

I have feel that Prop 8 will going be hard to repeal so I'm really don't care about gay marriage anymore due very very hard to fight and many states won't pass to legalize of gay marriage.
 
Wow some people feel so easily threatened. :roll:
 
Those ant-gay people really need to be harrassed so they know what it feels like to be harrassed by people like them!
 
shel90 said:
Those ant-gay people really need to be harrassed so they know what it feels like to be harrassed by people like them!
Click to expand...

Ah see it is this kind of sentiment from both sides that forced cameras out of the courtroom and denied rational people the opportunity to form an opinion based on the testimony.
 
Last edited:
TXgolfer said:
Ah see it is this kind of sentiment from both sides that forced cameras out of the courtsoom and denied rational people the opportunity to form an opinion based on the testimony.
Click to expand...

So you are fine with harrassing gays and giving anti-gay special protection? Ok.
 
netrox said:
So you are fine with harrassing gays and giving anti-gay special protection? Ok.
Click to expand...


No, I believe that 2 wrongs don't make a right. I also CLEARLY stated that it was this type of sentiment from BOTH SIDES that is preventing us from seeing the testimony. Both sides will be testifying therefore both sides are being protected. And the point is so that testimony will be complete and honest.

I have already posted that I believe this case should be aired before all that want to watch. My second post was to say that because people on both sides are eager to harrass, rational people who would base their opinions on the testimony are being denied a chance to see that testimony.
 
What's to know? Gay people have been excluded from hospitals while their partners are dying. Anyone with common decency and compassion would allow a partner to be with her/his loved one at death.
 
sallylou said:
What's to know? Gay people have been excluded from hospitals while their partners are dying. Anyone with common decency and compassion would allow a partner to be with her/his loved one at death.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I saw that episode of 'er' too. Of course I think it was more about who gets to make the decisions for the patient not who gets to visit the patient. And since a person can name anyone be it family member, friend, neighbor, postman or whoever to make those decisions for them with a will or simple Power of Attorney I think the lesson from this is more about being responsible.

I really don't have an opinion either way on the legality gay marriage. But I think an arguement that "marriage" is "necessary" in this case is flawed.
 
I'm an attorney. For me, it's a simple matter of fairness. A gay couple must go pay an attorney to get documents to secure the same rights as married couples. More business for attorneys but not fair to the couple who must pay high fees. Marriage is the most efficient way to confer rights and responsibilities. Also note, a spouse has a duty to support another spouse. This would impose responsibilities as well as rights.
 
sallylou said:
I'm an attorney. For me, it's a simple matter of fairness. A gay couple must go pay an attorney to get documents to secure the same rights as married couples. More business for attorneys but not fair to the couple who must pay high fees. Marriage is the most efficient way to confer rights and responsibilities. Also note, a spouse has a duty to support another spouse. This would impose responsibilities as well as rights.
Click to expand...

As an Attorney then you also know that the cost of a simple Power of Attorney would be about the same as a marriage license. Much cheaper than an actual wedding. And much cheaper than some of the added tax burden that some married couples have which is one reason many older hetrosexual couples chose NOT to marry.

Not sure about the efficency either. A Power of Attorney takes about 5 minutes. A will would take about a day. And considering that EVERYONE should have a will AND power of attorney there is really no added cost at all. I am single and straight, I have a will and PoA. My daughter is in College. No idea if she is straight or not and I don't care but she has a will and PoA as well. Surely, as an Attorney, you would advise all of your clients to have a will and PoA. Even if that is not your area of practice.

There are valid areas of concern in the gay marriage debate that justify the necessity of marriage or legal union. Areas like health insurance benefits for non working partners and rights involving the couples children. But the hospital visitation assertion is flawed.
 
Mod note:

Reminder - religious posts are not permitted.

Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top