The Drum Corps Discussion Group
Presented by The Sound Machine Drum Corps Scores Archive

Links to Other Sites: 

* FAQ   * Search   * Login   * Register 
It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:40 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: "Please Don't Divorce Us!"
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:01 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
Very touching video....please take the time to sign the petition on the link!



http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/divorce
"Fidelity" used with permission from Regina Spektor and EMI Records.
We, the undersigned, share President Barack Obama's view
that for too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited
by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond
polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect."

Yet, on December 19, 2008, Ken Starr and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund filed legal briefs defending the constitutionality
of Prop 8 and seeking to nullify the marriages of 18,000
devoted same-sex couples solemnized before Prop 8 passed.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this case on March 5, with a decision expected within 90 days.
We, the undersigned, ask that the Court enforce the equality promised to each of us by our constitution and invalidate Prop
8. So doing will protect all loving, committed couples in
California -- including the 18,000 who said "I do" last year --
and prevent the initiative process from being a tool for
stripping vulnerable minorities of precious constitutional rights.

As Americans who believe in the rule of law and fundamental
civil rights, we know that Ken Starr and the Prop 8 Legal
Defense Fund's shameful attempt to nullify equal protection
and all these bonded unions will be condemned in the eyes of
history. We know that, ultimately, love will prevail, no matter
how hard they try to fight it.

Sincerely,

351,058 people have signed this letter*.
Please add your name now!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:33 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
Using irrelevant jargon does not do the argument any justice. This is not an equal protection situation. I cannot marry another man either. It simply is the result of a judiciary who legislates from the bench, an overused phrase I know, but appropriate here nonetheless. Now we have people in a state of limbo, but as a Californian, I have heard nothing about invalidating any "marriages". Only girding up for the vicious fight from the extreme anti Prop 8 people.

They are using Prop. 8 contribution lists to attack individuals for expressing their political voice; a voice that most certainly is a Constitutional right. Before you argue that these people are only expressing their constitutional rights, I will tell you why I believe that is incorrect. Supporting a ballot measure or voting in a legal election is and should be a protected right. If you perceive that the proposition is wrong or even if you believe it is ultimately reducing your rights, then you have a voice as well. Use it to the best of your ability. But when the attacks become personal; when individuals are actively sought out in an effort to ruin their business through protests, threats, boycotts, intimidation of customers, character assassinations, and the like, then I think a far greater right has been taken away then the right to marry.

I have seen much ugliness happen in the name of equal rights since the passage of Prop. 8 when the rights were never unequal to begin with.

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:14 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
when the rights were never unequal to begin with.


Excuse me?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:23 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
But when the attacks become personal; when individuals are actively sought out in an effort to ruin their business through protests, threats, boycotts, intimidation of customers, character assassinations, and the like, then I think a far greater right has been taken away then the right to marry.



In a way, I actually agree with this statement. But I'm curious what you think of organizations like the Christian Coalition and Family First or whatever that group is called that push for boycotts for companies that advertise in GLBT publications like The Advocate, Southern Voice, Out Magazine, Logo, Here Network, etc...? They have been successful in threatening companies that some have pulled their advertisements from these media completely. Isn't this the same as what you mention above?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:25 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:37 am
Posts: 1701
Location: Atlanta, GA
[quote="WE ARE SPARTACI"]This is not an equal protection situation./quote]

I know we are at odds with this as well...but I would like you to explain this statement too please.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:15 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
chadwick wrote:
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
when the rights were never unequal to begin with.


Excuse me?

In California, domestic partnerships are coequal with marriage. In fact the wording is not ambiguous at all but actually says that the rights are the same.

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:28 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
chadwick wrote:
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
This is not an equal protection situation./quote]

I know we are at odds with this as well...but I would like you to explain this statement too please.


I cannot marry someone of the same sex; you cannot marry someone of the same sex. Just because you may want to and I do not, there is no difference in the application of the law.

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:43 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
chadwick wrote:
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
But when the attacks become personal; when individuals are actively sought out in an effort to ruin their business through protests, threats, boycotts, intimidation of customers, character assassinations, and the like, then I think a far greater right has been taken away then the right to marry.



In a way, I actually agree with this statement. But I'm curious what you think of organizations like the Christian Coalition and Family First or whatever that group is called that push for boycotts for companies that advertise in GLBT publications like The Advocate, Southern Voice, Out Magazine, Logo, Here Network, etc...? They have been successful in threatening companies that some have pulled their advertisements from these media completely. Isn't this the same as what you mention above?


What I am speaking of is more than voicing an opinion by refusing to purchase a product. The active picketing with hateful slogans on signs and vile chants in an attempt to close down a business for simply supporting a political proposition is borderline thuggery.

I see it as the difference between my simply supporting Prop. 8 vs. my showing up at gay wedding and shouting down the ceremony while walking a picket line. The second is a personal attack at what would have been at the time, a legal proceeding. Not productive; not acceptable, and not effective at gaining any support for a cause. That''s how I see it anyway.

Now if a business were actively discriminating in their hiring practices or participating in any other illegal discriminatory activity, then protesting might be understandable.

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:47 pm 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Posts: 951
Location: North Louisiana
I really take no side in this, as I feel I have no legal standing to do so. However, I can safely tell you that the type of hatred you both speak of comes from both sides. As a Catholic I went to a Catholic Church and was told without question to boycott Disneyland; Disneyworld; any and all Disney products & stores; and generally anything with the name Disney on it. They were supporters of Satan and the homosexual filth that is spawned from it. Furthermore, if we were Masons & didn't resign immediately we were going to be excommunicated & burn in hell for eternity. That was my last visit to that church. I'm still Catholic but in a different church in a different diocese. The catholic community also actively picketed the movie "The Last Temtation of Christ".................................Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:35 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
With all due respect Bill, I don't follow your argument here. Ok, so in a private church, they tell the congregation to avoid using a particular product. As misguided as that may be, it is hardly the same as what I have seen at businesses here. I don't care if someone purposefully decides to not purchase from any organization for whatever reason they choose. Using the authority of the pulpit in your example is something they will be held accountable for, but it falls short of the activism which includes forcibly trying to close a business by keeping others out through intimidation and slanderous accusations.

The Last Temptation movie is another story. Picketing for the purpose of countering an attack on one's religion is somewhat understandable. However, trying to close down the studio that produced the movie sometime afterwards would be far different.

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:51 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 12:40 pm
Posts: 1030
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
With all due respect Bill, I don't follow your argument here. Ok, so in a private church, they tell the congregation to avoid using a particular product. As misguided as that may be, it is hardly the same as what I have seen at businesses here. I don't care if someone purposefully decides to not purchase from any organization for whatever reason they choose. Using the authority of the pulpit in your example is something they will be held accountable for, but it falls short of the activism which includes forcibly trying to close a business by keeping others out through intimidation and slanderous accusations.


How do these statements in Bill's post "fall short"? They seem to use "intimidation and slanderous accusations" the way I see it.

Quote:

Bill's post said...

They were supporters of Satan and the homosexual filth that is spawned from it. Furthermore, if we were Masons & didn't resign immediately we were going to be excommunicated & burn in hell for eternity.



Quote:
The Last Temptation movie is another story. Picketing for the purpose of countering an attack on one's religion is somewhat understandable. However, trying to close down the studio that produced the movie sometime afterwards would be far different.


Why is that understandable? They are impacting many people though intimidation in that case.

I fail to see why one is ZOK while another is not.

Mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:05 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
C'mon Mike. In a private setting, a church, a union hall, your living room, you can discuss whatever you want and try and persuade others to act on your ideals. It is far different to go to a place of business based on the owner's personal political views and to block the entrance and intimidate customers from entering just to get your pound of flesh and to do him harm. These customers are not part of your sphere of influence; people who willingly attend your church or union meeting or whatever.

These actions by the anti Prop 8 activists here were not designed to influence a future vote or to sway public opinion on a social matter, or even to protest illegal treatment of workers. No, these protests are designed to hurt one man and his place of business, as well as to intimidate the public from supporting certain political movements in the future. They have shown they will go after lists of donors and do their best to inflict financial harm. This is the First Amendment run amok. In fact they are doing their best to squash the First Amendment rights of others.

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:13 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 1:54 pm
Posts: 1859
I should also note that these financial contributions were personal contributions having no connection to the actual businesses. Yet the businesses and by extension their employees and customers, are the targets.

_________________
What, it should be Spartacuses??

Music is like candy; to get to the good stuff, you have to remove the rappers...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:25 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star

Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2002 3:21 pm
Posts: 951
Location: North Louisiana
It is truly difficult to explain how I feel. Hate is hate regardless of the form. Whether it is in the form of a protest or a noose. Escalation is the issue. I guess the people who intinidated the businesses you discussed got tired of the endless infringement of their rights or what they percieve to be their rights. Maybe they got tired of seeing people tied naked to a post in sub-zero cold in the middle of Wyoming or haveing a person just like them shot down in the street. Maybe they didn't like the defense of that to be someone eating a Twinkie. I don't know. But I do know this: The hate is ripping this country apart. It's doing that because of a non-issue to me. I'm not involved I guess. I really know nothing of being gay. Whether they are married or not doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect my marriage. It doesn't affect my family. Most importantly it doesn't affect my immortal soul. It's really none of my business. I can't really understand why any other straight person would care one iota whether anyone else, gay or straight was married or not.............Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:55 am 
Offline
All Star
All Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2002 12:40 pm
Posts: 1030
WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
C'mon Mike. In a private setting, a church, a union hall, your living room, you can discuss whatever you want and try and persuade others to act on your ideals. It is far different to go to a place of business based on the owner's personal political views and to block the entrance and intimidate customers from entering just to get your pound of flesh and to do him harm. These customers are not part of your sphere of influence; people who willingly attend your church or union meeting or whatever.


You make it sound like they are reasoning and discussing things in a rational manner to persuade their group to do their bidding. If you are a believer in the things that the church stands for...using the threat of excommunication of a church member would be a FAR worse consequence than standing in a picket line, so IMO that IS cooercion at it's worst.


Quote:
These actions by the anti Prop 8 activists here were not designed to influence a future vote or to sway public opinion on a social matter, or even to protest illegal treatment of workers. No, these protests are designed to hurt one man and his place of business, as well as to intimidate the public from supporting certain political movements in the future. They have shown they will go after lists of donors and do their best to inflict financial harm. This is the First Amendment run amok. In fact they are doing their best to squash the First Amendment rights of others.


Hmm....how about priests who refuse to let politicians take the sacraments because they do not vote as the church desires?

Mike


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group