When does this Gay Rights insanity stop?
by Craig Masters
A constitutional amendment to repeal Colorado’s gay marriage ban and replace it with language saying marriage is allowed regardless of sex could be on the 2012 ballot.
Supporters argue that step 1 is for the state title board to review the language of the petitions. That should be step 2!
Step 1 is for the State to identify who should be eligible for the special advantages another segregated group wants to be awarded at the expense of someone else. These people asking for special treatment because of their Lifestyle? Yet every homosexual screams foul whenever a scientist suggest a means of testing for a physical trait to determine if any particular human is not heterosexual. When it is convenient the homosexual community quickly rallies to the cry that their lifestyle is not Biology but a Choice. But granting special privileges to a particular choice of lifestyle opens a pathway for anyone who chooses to claim their lifestyle should be protected by privileged status laws as well.
So what about the physical / biology issue? The Americans with Disabilities Act has guidelines used to determine when an individual should be granted special privileges or accommodations under the law. On the other hand, civil rights legislation began based primarily on race. But as people of various races have procreated, their offspring have diluted the bloodlines of their parents. At what point do these diluted bloodlines no longer qualify for special privileges as the ‘race’ of their ancestors? Consider that these are laws for which a person or company can be fined or imprisoned or both. Is a company in violation of quota hiring laws if they count people who are only one-fourth or one-fifth of a particular privileged group? What about one-half or one-tenth? Which benefits is a person entitled to if they happen to be the children of a mixed couple where one or both of whom are offspring of a mixed couple? Say an American and Asian give birth to a child who marries the child of a Mexican and an African-American. When does it stop?
So now gays and lesbians want special privileges. They want their “lifestyle” to be defined in the law so they are entitled to more social and financial benefits they feel they are not currently permitted. I read the report by Jack Minor in this very newspaper about CISCO firing an outstanding employee based entirely on his non-work related activities as they pertained to his belief in marriage. One homosexual made one complaint based on a Google search and the guy got fired. The actions of CISCO clearly illustrate there is no equality or inclusion in their workplace, the homosexuals are already enjoying a huge advantage while those who have a different point of view are severely discriminated against.
I say it’s about time we did seek equality. Just as soon the question of what exactly is a homosexual is answered. Is this a physical trait which can be identified scientifically. I can remember a news story a dozen or so years ago that mentioned a researcher who had claimed to identify an abnormality in the brains of homosexuals – that could possibly be corrected. I don’t recall the details, but I do remember the streets of Ft. Lauderdale flooded with protestors.
Recently, in an article by the Associated Press and published on the website of KKTV television, reporting on the proposed Colorado Constitution changes, Executive Director of the Colorado Springs Pride Center, Charles Irwin, was quoted as saying, “In order for the GLBT community to move forward and obtain true equality we do sometimes have to go back and change things that are obsolete and don’t make sense, its time for us to make those changes”. What is he really saying? He wants special identification for his lifestyle defined in the law. If this is not true, let him and other leaders of the GLBT community step up and encourage the science be developed to identify who is truly unable to live a heterosexual lifestyle and who is simply choosing to be different in their sexual orientation. Then the truly abnormal can be granted all the necessary privileges to ensure they can live their life and pursue happiness in fair and equal competition with others.
But if is it simply a lifestyle choice, as is so often touted in parades and debates, it is fair to suggest that each and every one of us understand that choices have consequences. And to be equal means no special legal privileges after a choice is made.
Tags: African American, American, ballot, ban, birth, child, choice, CISCO, Colorado, company, Gay, Gay Rights, GLBT, heterosexual, language, law, person, Rights, sex, time
Trackback • Posted by editor@greeleygazette.com in Editorial and Opinion category
Please leave a reply...
© 2010 - 2013 Northern Colorado Gazette , PO Box 6, Greeley CO 80632 • All Rights Reserved •
| Powered By Zera Communications | Follow us |  |
 |  |
Entries(RSS)
This “insanity” stops when people like you get some common sense. You marginalize GLBT people in this article and paint a very one-sided view. The following quote is an excellent example of this:
“social and financial benefits they feel they are not currently permitted”
The use of the word “feel” in this statement glazes over the fact that these social and financial benefits are actually denied in the letter of the law. As it stands, opposite-sex couples are the ones who receive preferential treatment with “special identification for [their] lifestyle[s] defined in the law.” GLBT advocates want EQUAL, not special treatment.
What does classification of sexual orientation have to do with marriage? How many married couples do you know of had to prove their sexual orientation before being granted a marriage license? Introducing such a burden of proof is no better than literacy tests for voting. If you really think new versions of antiquated Jim Crowe laws are the future of this country, maybe you should open a history book.
What an ignorant piece of drivel- there’s so much obvious misinformation & bias that I won’t bother to respond directly. Sexual orientation is complex & according to many scientists, is a combination of both genetics and enviromental causes.Regardless,ask any gay or lesbian if they “choose” to be discriminated against,treated as less than or endure any other of the many difficulties they face. Who would choose that? They no more choose their sexual orientation than straight folks. It simply is. We can all,however,choose to be bigoted or accepting- which will you be?
I hope for your sake someone finds a cure for heterosexuality. I’m deeply sorry that you made the incorrect lifestyle choice. If I made such a poor life decision I would be upset too.
this author is ocmpletely ignorant-no gay person EVER claims sexual orientation is a choice-it is innate. ALL psychologists and medical professionals agree that being gay is AT LEAST partly innate, therefore partly nature. So, just as there is no blue eyed gene, there probably is no gay gene. Therefore, a gay person deserves EQUAL (not more, not less) protection and benefits under the law as EVERYONE else. The whole special privleges argument has been debunked. Straight couples enjoy 1138 federal tax benefits that gay couples do not enjoy-that is inequality. Gays can be fired for being gay in many states-that is inequality.
Stop parroting lies, itgnorant author-we just want equality.
AND WE WILL GET IT-there isnt a dman thing you can do to stop it. I dare your god to try.
Don’t even try, folks. Brett, Jack, and whoever this Craig is want to take certain portions of the Bible and apply them in the law. They claim the authority of God, so your rational analysis will get nowhere. It’s best to ask them how else they would use Leviticus or Deuteronomy to guide legislation. Or, since a rich man has no shot of gaining entry into heaven, ask Brett how many homes he owns or why his party is hell-bent on preserving the rich guy’s right to remain rich.
When does the battle for Gay rights stop? It stops when Gay and Straight Americans are treated fairly and equally. This isn’t about “special rights,” unless you consider marriage a “special right.”
In Loving v. Viginia, the U.S. Supreme Court called marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” and civil rights are NOT a popularity contest. If we had put the Civil Rights Act of 1964 up to a popular vote in the Deep South, I think we all know how THAT would have turned out!
Seeing how the only substantial difference between a married Gay couple and a married Straight couple is the gender (and, presumably, the sexual orientation) of the two people in the relationship, there is simply no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
Religious beliefs are irrelevant to this debate, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want.
Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.
This is simply a matter of treating Gay and Straight couples equally under the law. I can’t imagine how simply acknowledging the existence and rights of Gay couples is going to cause the collapse of civilization.
Well said, Chuck.
@ Darin
So since you are opposed to a “burden of proof” can I presume that you would not object to two heterosexuals of the same sex qualifying for same sex benfits. My mother is elderly and another woman lives with her and helps take care of her.
Shouldn’t these two women have the rigth to apply for the same sex benefits that homosexuals and lesbians are asking for? If you would say no, then what criteria do you propose the government use to deny them benefits?
DEAR MRSPOCK:
You write, “My mother is elderly and another woman lives with her and helps take care of her. Shouldn’t these two women have the rigth to apply for the same sex benefits that homosexuals and lesbians are asking for?”
When ANY couple, Gay or Straight, applies for a marriage license, there is no one investigating their bedroom(s) or their sexual habits. As I’m sure you know, there are many, MANY Straight married couples who have virtually nonexistent sex lives, and their marriages are still valid. Other couples are “swingers,” and have vigorous sex lives outside the bonds of their own marriage, yet the law takes no notice.
So frankly, if your mother and this other woman wish to register as a dependent couple, with all the legal benefits AND responsibilities that accompany that bond, it’s no skin of MY back. I just hope they never have to go through a painful divorce.
So then I guess it would also be all right for two college roomates of the same or opposite sex to qualify for “family” plans at work and other work and government benefits. If one of them moves out they can each re-file with the new roomate even if it is every six months to a year. The same would apply if two borthers or sisters are living together.
This would be a budget buster for many businesses and government agencies.
DEAR MRSPOCK:
You write, “This would be a budget buster for many businesses and government agencies.”
Well if saving money is your main concern, imagine how much money business and government could save if they got out of the marriage business altogether, for both Gay AND Straight couples! No more survivor benefits for spouses under Social Security, no more benefits for the spouses of employees, etc. Business and government could save a BUNDLE!
In MY humble opinion, however, the societal benefits of marriage outweigh these costs. Research has consistently shown the following:
Married couples typically contribute more and take less from society.
Married couples support and care for each other financially, physically and emotionally and often contribute more to the economy and savings.
Individuals who are married are less likely to receive government entitlements.
Individuals who are married statistically consume less health care services, and often give more to churches and charities.
Married couples are better able to provide care and security for children.
So maybe you can help me understand what negative impact committed loving relationships have on society, and why Gay couples should be excluded from the same benefits and responsibilities of marriage?
As long as the government has something to do with marriage, you wouldn’t see the frivolous marriages occurring (i.e., college roommates) since they’d have to go through the unwieldy and often expensive process of divorce. Red herring. Stupid. Try again.
@ Gus
I find it fascinating that rather than respond as to whether it would be right or wrong for two heterosexual roommates or two brothers or sisters to be able to qualify for same sex benefits, your response is simply the government regulations will make it impractical.
There are many government regulations that are unwieldy and cumbersome. Have you seen the paperwork requirements for getting on government assistance? That doesn’t stop people from abusing the system.
Again, are you saying it would be acceptable for two brothers or sisters to apply for same-sex benefits simply as a way to get the financial benefits?
@ Chuck you stated “there is simply no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.”
I would point out that was true in California prior to the passage of Prop. 8. Same sex couples had every single state benefit available to straight couples. The judge that ruled against Prop 8 ruled that was not good enough, they had to have the right to the title of marriage.
So those who say it is only about getting the same legal benefits under the law are not being truthful. That they want the title of marriage and not just the benefits proves it is about acceptance of their lifestyle and not just about equal rights.
What stops opposite couples from sham marriages. Mr. Spock, you are not too bright.
DEAR MRSPOCK:
Ultimately it’s not going to matter which states write discrimination against law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples into their constitutions, nor will it matter which states grant marriage equality to those same couples, because it is the FEDERAL government that bestows most of the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that married couples receive. This is an issue that the Supreme Court of the United States will eventually have to tackle, and I’m confident that they will decided that there is no Constitutional justification for denying Gay couples the same legal benefits that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
The main sticking point is the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by President Bill Clinton. DOMA is transparently unconstitutional, since it establishes differing legal standards for Gay and Straight couples in the United States.
Consider: A Straight couple legally married in Iowa is automatically entitled to 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO). Many of those benefits have to do with tax law, Social Security, inheritance rights, child custody, and so on. But because of DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa is still unrecognized by the federal government for those benefits.
Consider, also, the “Full Faith & Credit” clause of the Constitution. Because of this, any Straight couple can fly off to Las Vegas for drunken weekend, get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states, and at all levels of government. But thanks to DOMA, a Gay couple that is legally married in becomes UN-married if they relocate south to Missouri.
The ONLY real difference between a married Gay couple and a married Straight couple is the gender of the two people who have made the commitment. It has nothing to do with procreation, since couples do not need a marriage license to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. So there is really no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that married Straight couples have always taken for granted. This cannot be accomplished in a piecemeal, state-by-state fashion; it is the FEDERAL government which, through its own actions, has made this a federal issue.
Again, you will not answer the question of whether two brothers or sisters should have the right to same sex benefits. That is a simple yes or no question. Instead you answer with a question.
BTW, I will respond to your question. I knew of a Marine who was stationed in California. He “married’ a woman in Las Vegas solely for the purpose of them both getting military benefits. They never even lived together. I am opposed to that and I would certainly welcome any type of law that would prevent that.
Again, if the federal government were to grant all rights to same sex couples under the guise of a civil uion, gay and lesbian activists would still reject that. It is not about equal rights it is about the title of the word marriage. California’s Prop 8 ruling proves that.
No. Must be unrelated. What law would prevent the sham marriage you describe? Unworkable. You’re not improving much.
What is the basis for saying people must be unrelated to qualify for same sex benefits. Christians appeal to the Bible and are accused of forcing their view or morality on others. Your statement that they must be related is exactly the same thing. Your are forcing your view of morality on them.
Logically, if we say we cannot limit it to one man and one woman, then we can not place any restrictions on marriage. Doing so would be imposing some type of morality on people.
Two brothers or sisters can not reproduce so you cannot use the argument of intermarriage affecting the children. Again, on why do you have the right to forbid two same sex people from applying for benefits simply because they are related, yet if the voters want to exercise that same right to everyone of the same sex they should not be allowed to.
Also, define what it means to be related. Is it immediate family, what about cousins, adopted children etc. I am not saying they should be allowed to apply for same sex benefits. I am merely pointing out you are attempting to place restrictions on people while condemning conservatives for doing the same thing.
Remove all restrictions except number. Two people. I don’t care whether they’re related or not. It’s a legal relationship; not a spiritual or sexual or reproductive one. It comes with legal burdens and benefits. Your arguments are tired and illogical. I’m a Christian, and I don’t want the government doing anything on my behalf or on behalf of my beliefs. That’s not what the government is for in this country.
Why limit to two people? If there is so called discrimination then if three or 500 hundred or five million people want to marry then why should they be discriminated against? If the criteria for marriage is “love” then why should people who love more than one person be discriminated against? After all, if you love more than one person you are giving so much more love and why should you be discriminated against for offering so much love? The concept of “homosexual marriage is blatantly absurd, illogical , nonsensical and unnatural. Once marriage is destroyed to include homosexual “marriage” then if any other conceivable form of marriage is denied the same absurd argument of discrimination can and should be used.Marriage is the union of a man and a woman period. Nature has dictated that. Whether they want to admit it it or not homosexuals can’t reproduce and the major reason for marriage is to reproduce children within a legal union. Sure, some normal couples can’t reproduce because of infirmity or unwillingness to have children but the fact remains that if they didn’t have an infirmity or wanted to have children they could. HOMOSEXUALS CAN’T. You can’t distort nature which is what homosexuals do. That homosexuals have the gall to say that they have children, as though they could naturally have them, is the height of arrogance. They can’t even say they have adopted children but want it to appear as though homosexuals having children is “normal. And yes the man and dog argument does apply because if you love your dog you should marry your dog, or your aunt, your brother, a mummy whatever you want if not you are being discriminated against.If anybody thinks this through, which most people do not, and just repeat the specious idiotic mantra: “well if two people love each other they should be allowed to marry” then they will obviously realize homosexual “marriage” doesn’t make an iota of sense. That the courts even listen to arguments for homosexual “marriage,” much less rule in favor of it, shows the rampant homomania in our society where the bullying of the homosexual lobby has infiltrated the power structure. I want a lot of things and can’t have them. I don’t go whining and saying I have to have them. and if I did a judge would throw me out of court ridiculing me, The same rule should apply to homosexuals. Enough is enough.