December 10th - A Day without Gays

[HotShotX]

Tomorrow, December 10th, will be a day in which gays and lesbians around the country will close up shop, or take a day off work (calling in "gay"), in an effort to show the impact of Gay and Lesbian culture on American productivity and society.

Editor's note: David Craig is a film, television and Web producer, an adjunct professor at the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Southern California, and a gay rights activist.

David Craig says there's growing support for recognition of gay unions and gay marriage.

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- My battle for marriage equality began in 1990, after my partner, Brian Binder, and I had a commitment ceremony. The ceremony was held at the end of a conference for Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gays and was attended by more than 300 friends and members of both our families.

We were featured in a couple of books on gay marriage because the concept was so new at the time. We also registered as domestic partners and entered into every possible form of legal recognition available at the time.

A few years later, Brian was visiting his parents in Nevada to inform them that he was giving up his battle with AIDS. Something went horribly wrong, and he was rushed to the hospital. I flew there immediately.

As his caretaker, I knew his medical condition and had been involved in every medical decision. We had shared the joy of making a commitment to one another and the pain and suffering of a horrible disease.

But when I arrived, I was told I could not see him because I was not "family" and because my legal documents were valid only in California. Even as I heard him calling out my name, they refused to let me see him because we were not married. Brian died in 1992.

In 1995, I helped organize the first Freedom to Marry March in Los Angeles. Ten years later, the idea for A Day Without Gays was conceived.

I was discussing same-sex marriage with Delia Fine, my colleague at the A&E Network. I proposed a gay version of Lysistrata, an ancient Greek satire about Athenian women who withheld sex from their husbands until they agreed to stop going to war.

She replied, "what if gays went on strike instead?" and the idea was born.
We convinced A&E to produce a movie based on the idea, which became a romantic comedy called "Wedding Wars" that aired on the network in 2006. Critics compared the film to "A Day Without a Mexican," which led to the one-day protest by the Latino community called A Day Without Immigrants.

In the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which banned same-sex marriage, I posted the event on Facebook. My fellow organizer, Steve Holzer, inspired by the Latino protests, suggested we call it A Day Without Gays.

We soon discovered that other organizers had conceived of the same idea simultaneously, and we all agreed to schedule the protest for December 10, which is International Human Rights Day. A week later, Join The Impact, the group that organized City Hall rallies nationwide November 14, joined forces with us.

Our goal is to raise awareness that marriage is a "basic human right" as declared by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, the case that ended race-based restrictions on marriage.

We believe that to deny gays and lesbians that right, and the 1,400 state and federal legal and economic benefits of marriage, is discrimination and in violation of the 14th Amendment.

We are asking people who support us to "call in gay" to their workplace by taking the day off or to shut down their businesses. Our goal is to raise awareness that we are gay and lesbian Americans who work, own businesses, pay our taxes and support the economy to the tune of $712 billion a year, according to an analysis by Witeck-Combs Communications, a public relations agency that specializes in the gay and lesbian consumer market. This is a declaration that we take our rights seriously and demand full equality.

Our Facebook site has had a million visitors, and more than 225,000 people indicate that they will or might participate. There are also more than 17,000 postings from participants who have taken the time to debate, support and/or deride these issues.

There is still much to do. Thirty states have passed bans on same-sex marriage. Thirty states allow employers to fire someone based on sexual orientation, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Some states have instituted or are considering bans that directly or indirectly prevent gays and lesbians from adopting or fostering children.

In addition, the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act by Congress in 1996 denies civil unions what Barack Obama's campaign described as the more than 1,100 benefits of marriage including immigration, taxation, Social Security and veteran's benefits.

A recent Newsweek poll reflects that, for the first time, a majority of Americans now believe that gay and lesbian couples deserve recognition, with 55 percent supporting legally sanctioned unions. It found increased backing for inheritance and other rights and found that 39 percent favor gay marriage.

The tide is clearly turning in our favor, and I believe that love, equality and support for all families will triumph. In the words of Tony Kushner, "We will be citizens. The time has come."

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Craig.~HotShotX

[Sarang01]

Yeah I heard about this. You and your wife participating HotShotX? I know Kansas's bill even denies Civil Unions so it's clearly against gays for no real reason.

[KingBroly]

You know...maybe this isn't the best time for them to be doing this.

[Synergy]

I'm participating.

I won't be going to work or buying anything at all. I do have to attend class since it's my last classes of the semester.

I hope there's a good turnout in terms of participation.

[thrustbucket]

There was a small humble mexican taco shop by my house I use to love to frequent. Then they decided to close down for Cinco De Mayo a couple years ago, to go along with the nationwide protest by some Latinos against anti-illegal alien sentiment (to supposedly show everyone just how important they are to the economy).

I haven't been there since. And if any business I go to tomorrow is closed, I won't go there again either.

Call in to work and say you aren't coming in because you are protesting for gays? Seriously? Stuff like this really helps stomp out hiring discrimination as well, right? Talk about shooting your cause in the foot.

Worked wonders for Latin Americans two years ago, so makes sense why the gays would want to mimic. :roll:

[HotShotX]

Yeah I heard about this. You and your wife participating HotShotX? I know Kansas's bill even denies Civil Unions so it's clearly against gays for no real reason.

My girlfriend and I aren't married, and aren't gay/lesbian, so how exactly would we participate?

~HotShotX

[Hex]

I would participate, except I'm not going to work anyway- picking up family flying in from Virgina.

[crystalklear64]

: /

Hope no one gets fired in these tough economic times because of this. A decent idea, but like someone else said, probably could have had better timing.

[Xevious]

I support my gay friends- they have the right to get married.

[tivo]

I support my gay friends- they have the right to get married.

...to the opposite sex.

[Sarang01]

My girlfriend and I aren't married, and aren't gay/lesbian, so how exactly would we participate?

~HotShotX

To show your support for Gay's having the same rights as Straights? From that article I got the impression that Straights were welcome to join in as well.
Oh and for the Latino thing what they should've done was have INS check the documentation on those marching. I mean it wasn't like most of those people were Americans when they were waving the Mexican flag. You do the math. Their loyalty is to Mexico.

[mykevermin]

There was a small humble mexican taco shop by my house I use to love to frequent. Then they decided to close down for Cinco De Mayo a couple years ago, to go along with the nationwide protest by some Latinos against anti-illegal alien sentiment (to supposedly show everyone just how important they are to the economy).

I haven't been there since. And if any business I go to tomorrow is closed, I won't go there again either.

Call in to work and say you aren't coming in because you are protesting for gays? Seriously? Stuff like this really helps stomp out hiring discrimination as well, right? Talk about shooting your cause in the foot.

Worked wonders for Latin Americans two years ago, so makes sense why the gays would want to mimic. :roll:

I don't understand your resentment.

As for me, I'll probably pick up some food on the way home this morning, since I've been in airports for 34 of the past 48 hours, living on a healthy diet of black coffee, orange juice, and blueberry muffins from my whopping choice of starbucks or au bon pain. Whee-ha; I'm gettin' hot dogs from O'Bettys today. I may be buying on the wrong day, but the food's phallic, so that counts for something, no?

[HotShotX]

To show your support for Gay's having the same rights as Straights? From that article I got the impression that Straights were welcome to join in as well.
Oh and for the Latino thing what they should've done was have INS check the documentation on those marching. I mean it wasn't like most of those people were Americans when they were waving the Mexican flag. You do the math. Their loyalty is to Mexico.

Ah, well, we're both college students, and while I finished my only final yesterday, she has her 2nd to last final at 8am this morning.

I don't think she's calling in gay for that. :)

~HotShotX

[detectiveconan16]

Ah great, first the financial markets, and now them? Are they trying to destroy the American economy?!

[hostyl1]

I'm not going in to work today. But that has more to due with my wife having a dentist's appoinment in the morning, me having a physical in the afternoon, and no babysitter for da kid. But if someone wishes to interpret that as a support for gays so be it.

(Though I have no concrete evidence, the office scuttlebutt is my boss is gay.)

That being said, IMO, the argument isnt whether gays should have the right to "marry", but rather does the state have the authority to perform "marriages". To me, marriage is a religious institution (for those who wish to be institutionalized :)) and should be held in that context. The state is within its power to create a state of being where two people link up in a "legal" sense, but then, that becomes something that should be open to all people gay/straight. Otherwise, you run into "equal protection" issues.

Hence, my opinion is that no state should issue "marriage" licenses to gay or straight, rather all should be "civil unions", a legal term created by the state. This would be open to any two adults (and two adults only) and would have all of the 'normal' rights associated with it (survivorship, hosptial visitation, etc.)

P.S. I remember in college there were several "Day Without Blacks" protests. Similarly, I remember recently email campaigns to have "A Day Without Gas" where you were supposed to shun the pumps. I dont know that any of them have been effective beyond a moment or two of visibility for the particular cause. But hey, maybe that's enough.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

We should have a "Day without Assholes." Then, nobody would call my job. Of course, I wouldn't be there to answer the phone anyways.

[VioletArrows]

My professor better friggin show up today. I'm too damn old to be sitting up all night writing papers on this exact topic just for her to run off when I could just as well sleep off making myself sick over this exam.

What do you do if you're bi? *badum psh*

[fatherofcaitlyn]

What do you do if you're bi? *badum psh*

Half day.

If you're a man, work morning to lunch hour.

If you're a woman, work lunch hour to end of shift.

[homeland]

and I thought it was going to be a sequel to the "day without mexicans" movie.. Very misleading OP..

[HowStern]

I would make damn sure to get my ass to work today.

I kid.

And, yeah, like fatherofcaitlyn said. Bi = half day. :)

[Quillion]

I support my gay friends- they have the right to get married.
That's right. Why should they be denied the same misery as the rest of us?

[lilboo]

Nice!
IM NOT COMING IN! IM GAY!!!!!!

"...we know that, Tom, but why aren't you coming in"
I LOVE BUTT SEX! IM GAY

"....please never come back"

Actually I have a half day tomorrow thanks to my Dr's appointment. :whee:

[homeland]

id be gay too if i didnt have to work for the day..playing video games all day. now thats happiness


im actually on unemployment...but if i did work

[mykevermin]

I'm not going in to work today. But that has more to due with my wife having a dentist's appoinment in the morning, me having a physical in the afternoon, and no babysitter for da kid. But if someone wishes to interpret that as a support for gays so be it.

(Though I have no concrete evidence, the office scuttlebutt is my boss is gay.)

That being said, IMO, the argument isnt whether gays should have the right to "marry", but rather does the state have the authority to perform "marriages". To me, marriage is a religious institution (for those who wish to be institutionalized :)) and should be held in that context. The state is within its power to create a state of being where two people link up in a "legal" sense, but then, that becomes something that should be open to all people gay/straight. Otherwise, you run into "equal protection" issues.

Hence, my opinion is that no state should issue "marriage" licenses to gay or straight, rather all should be "civil unions", a legal term created by the state. This would be open to any two adults (and two adults only) and would have all of the 'normal' rights associated with it (survivorship, hosptial visitation, etc.)

P.S. I remember in college there were several "Day Without Blacks" protests. Similarly, I remember recently email campaigns to have "A Day Without Gas" where you were supposed to shun the pumps. I dont know that any of them have been effective beyond a moment or two of visibility for the particular cause. But hey, maybe that's enough.

Not a single person has been able to demonstrate to me how religious institutions have dominion over the word "marriage" such that they should be able to control how and when it is used. Find me an etymologist!

Riddle me this: why couldn't everyone keep the term "marriage" and religious folks can have "religious unions"? Why don't the plurality get to decide how and who the term applies to?

[Quillion]

Not a single person has been able to demonstrate to me how religious institutions have dominion over the word "marriage" such that they should be able to control how and when it is used. Find me an etymologist!

Riddle me this: why couldn't everyone keep the term "marriage" and religious folks can have "religious unions"? Why don't the plurality get to decide how and who the term applies to?
Myke, I think the plurality have decided. I don't agree with this, but as Huckabee (I can't believe I'm quoting him) said on The Daily Show last night, 30 states have had a gay-marriage ban on the ballot and it's passed in all 30. That seems to be a pretty clear rejection by the plurality of American public. At least the ones who vote.

Even my brother, who holds no love for conservatives, supports "Civil Unions" but not "Marriages" for gays. All the same rights and privileges, just a different term. If the gay community wants it called the same, if the descriptive term for it is that important, I think they're fighting a losing battle.

[dmaul1114]

Not a single person has been able to demonstrate to me how religious institutions have dominion over the word "marriage" such that they should be able to control how and when it is used. Find me an etymologist!


Agreed. Churches/religions can simply refuse to perform or recognize gay marriages. No need for them to hoarde the term though.

But like the above guy says, it's a plurality of ignorance in this country (what else do you get with religion?) so I don't see it changing any time soon.

[Kirin Lemon]

Myke, I think the plurality have decided. I don't agree with this, but as Huckabee (I can't believe I'm quoting him) said on The Daily Show last night, 30 states have had a gay-marriage ban on the ballot and it's passed in all 30. That seems to be a pretty clear rejection by the plurality of American public. At least the ones who vote.

I see this argument often. You can't legislate human rights (well, apparently these 30 states can). Slavery didn't hinge on a public referendum, so why should this?

[gareman]

Myke, I think the plurality have decided. I don't agree with this, but as Huckabee (I can't believe I'm quoting him) said on The Daily Show last night, 30 states have had a gay-marriage ban on the ballot and it's passed in all 30. That seems to be a pretty clear rejection by the plurality of American public. At least the ones who vote.

Even my brother, who holds no love for conservatives, supports "Civil Unions" but not "Marriages" for gays. All the same rights and privileges, just a different term. If the gay community wants it called the same, if the descriptive term for it is that important, I think they're fighting a losing battle.
So separate but equal?

[thrustbucket]

I don't understand your resentment.
It's mostly two-fold:

1) If I were a business owner, I would be pissed if my employees called in and said they weren't coming to work out of protest any cause. Screw their cause, I have a business to run, and they are being selfish. It might make me think twice about who I hire. Which leads to:

2) It's very myopic of anyone to do this right now in this financial crisis. Unless they are purposely hoping to ride the wave of the bad economy, by making it worse, to get their point across; in which case it's just selfish.

But in the case of cinco de mayo, I just thought it was outright ignorant to be boycotting the right to illegal activity.


Agreed. Churches/religions can simply refuse to perform or recognize gay marriages. No need for them to hoarde the term though.

That's fine as long as you can guarantee that no church/religion/organization of any kind can be sued for refusing to recognize a gay marriage for any of their charitable services or otherwise.

[Quillion]

I see this argument often. You can't legislate human rights (well, apparently these 30 states can). Slavery didn't hinge on a public referendum, so why should this?
I don't see marriage as an inalienable human right. It's a religious union given governmental sanction. (I feel that it's in violation of the first amendment anyway)

This has nothing to do with slavery or universal suffrage or Jim Crow. It's a governmental intrusion into a religious institution.

So separate but equal?

I say ban ALL marriage. Let everyone have "Civil Unions". Two consenting adults only. Nothing else matters.

[gareman]

But in the case of cinco de mayo, I just thought it was outright ignorant to be boycotting the right to illegal activity.

Well it would be pretty ignorant to stand up against a non-existent law.

[thrustbucket]

I don't see marriage as an inalienable human right. It's a religious union given governmental sanction. (I feel that it's in violation of the first amendment anyway)

This has nothing to do with slavery or universal suffrage or Jim Crow. It's a governmental intrusion into a religious institution.
I say ban ALL marriage. Let everyone have "Civil Unions". Two consenting adults only. Nothing else matters.
I've tried this argument for pages and pages in the past. You are wasting your breath.

Meaning, you are right though.

Well it would be pretty ignorant to stand up against a non-existent law.
Exactly. They were protesting the fact that people demanded congress actually start enforcing our existing immigration law and protect the border. Ridiculous isn't it.

[The Crotch]

That's fine as long as you can guarantee that no church/religion/organization of any kind can be sued for refusing to recognize a gay marriage for any of their charitable services or otherwise.
Which is a great boogeyman that has yet to manifest itself anywhere that I'm aware of.

EDIT: Man, between the avatar and the signature, I must look at least three times gayer than normal.

Also, anyone who wants to argue the whole "marriage has always been religious and not a matter of the state" should talk to a Mr. Strellington.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

^Yes, you do and who is Mr. Strellington?

[The Crotch]

Sorry, fucked up his name: Sir Strellington III, Esquire (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/member.php?u=2432).

[Quillion]

Which is a great boogeyman that has yet to manifest itself anywhere that I'm aware of.

EDIT: Man, between the avatar and the signature, I must look at least three times gayer than normal.

Also, anyone who wants to argue the whole "marriage has always been religious and not a matter of the state" should talk to a Mr. Strellington.
I didn't say it's "Always been religious". I said it should only be religious. I know there's a place for those protections in government, So let's let the religious types have whatever definition of "Marriage" they so choose, and Have the government call it something different. Civil Union, or Secular Commitment. Whatever.

[The Crotch]

Actually Quillion, that was more directed at hostyl1/people who have made the argument in the past. If I wanted to go after your post in particular, my response simply would have read "Fuck the tyranny of the majority."

[gareman]

I didn't say it's "Always been religious". I said it should only be religious. I know there's a place for those protections in government, So let's let the religious types have whatever definition of "Marriage" they so choose, and Have the government call it something different. Civil Union, or Secular Commitment. Whatever.
Why? (to all of the above)

[dmaul1114]

That's fine as long as you can guarantee that no church/religion/organization of any kind can be sued for refusing to recognize a gay marriage for any of their charitable services or otherwise.

Agreed, and that's the way it should be. Separation of church and state.

[dmaul1114]

Why? (to all of the above)

Simply put, religious homophobes who view homosexuality as a sin don't want what they consider to be a sacred religion term/institution associated with homosexuals.

Maybe he has a different reason, but that's what I've heard personally from religous acquaintances who oppose gay marriage but are ok with civil unions etc. They view marriage as something that should be religious and not used for gays who they view as sinners.

[RAMSTORIA]

of the 3 gays in my office (that i know of) 2 of them are here today. the other i dont usually see unless we run eachother in the breakroom. i guess they care more about the money theyd lose by not showing up then making a point.

[gareman]

Simply put, religious homophobes who view homosexuality as a sin don't want what they consider to be a sacred religion term/institution associated with homosexuals.

Maybe he has a different reason, but that's what I've heard personally from religous acquaintances who oppose gay marriage but are ok with civil unions etc. They view marriage as something that should be religious and not used for gays who they view as sinners.


My point is...one can't make a point by simply writing "should" before every assertion.

[gareman]

Exactly. They were protesting the fact that people demanded congress actually start enforcing our existing immigration law and protect the border. Ridiculous isn't it.


And they were countering by showing those who were demanding that the law be enforced that maybe there is a reason why they were so lax about it.

I think it was a very good concept. These people are calling for strict enforcement of a law. So the target of these laws wanted to show in a very literal way of what the outcome could be.

[dmaul1114]

My point is...one can't make a point by simply writing "should" before every assertion.

One can't make a valid point by using should. :D But I agree with you totally, they can't give a valid reason why, as it all comes back to homophobia and viewing homosexuality as a sin. Many don't want to come out and bluntly say that, so they just say "marriage should/is a religious institution and should be limited to heterosexuals."

And they were countering by showing those who were demanding that the law be enforced that maybe there is a reason why they were so lax about it.

I think it was a very good concept. These people are calling for strict enforcement of a law. So the target of these laws wanted to show in a very literal way of what the outcome could be.

Agreed again. They weren't so much promoting illegal immigration as showing "hey we're needed and you should be letting more of us here legally so we don't have to break the law".

[thrustbucket]

Agreed, and that's the way it should be. Separation of church and state.
But marriage, as it is now, is very much part of church AND state. That's the problem.

If a religious affiliated organization refused to service or help someone because they refuse to recognize their state recognized lifestyle, they very much can be sued.

Gay marriage, as it's proposed by most of it's proponents, is very much a "you don't have to like it, but you'll have to acknowledge it" agenda. This has all kinds of lawsuits built in for various business and services.


I think it was a very good concept. These people are calling for strict enforcement of a law. So the target of these laws wanted to show in a very literal way of what the outcome could be.
And I haven't spent a dime at that taco shop since. I don't know of any industry that suffered from that boycott. The only thing that comes of stuff like this is erecting virtual neon signs that announce to everyone which side of a controversial political topic your business stands for. Which is a stupid and dangerous business decision. Which is going to cause more change - pissing off a lot of customers, or joining a one day boycott and closing your doors. The only change you'll get is a smaller bottom line.

One can't make a valid point by using should. :D But I agree with you totally, they can't give a valid reason why, as it all comes back to homophobia and viewing homosexuality as a sin. Many don't want to come out and bluntly say that, so they just say "marriage should/is a religious institution and should be limited to heterosexuals."

I believe in the all or nothing philosophy. If we are going to continue to (wrongly) have marriage recognized by government and have government be involved in defining it's meaning, why not save the time and be truly fair by letting all forms of marriage anyone can think of be valid?

Isn't the ultimate argument: Who is the government, or anyone, to say what a marriage should be......... right?

And I'll say it again -anyone for gay marriage and against polygamy is a hypocrite. Because I've yet to hear valid argument for one that doesn't apply to the other.

Simply redefining marriage to make it more fair to one group, doesn't make everything ok for everyone else's alternative lifestyles. They also, should have government recognition.

In other words, if you want to bring the first can of worms into the kitchen and open it (hetero marriage), then you better be ready to allow everyone else to bring their can of worms into the kitchen and open it. Or, we could just take worms off the menu - but apparently that's unacceptable to most.

Agreed again. They weren't so much promoting illegal immigration as showing "hey we're needed and you should be letting more of us here legally so we don't have to break the law".

Wow. You didn't just say that.

"Have to break the law"? Seriously? Who has to break the law? Even if I'm starving and steal food from a store, I still broke the law, and would be a fool to think I didn't deserve it when I was arrested.

Protesting to change immigration laws is fine, and a worth-while cause in that case. One I myself would join. But you are delusional if you don't also realize that particular protest was also protesting enforcement of existing laws as well.

[GuilewasNK]

We should have a "Day without Assholes." Then, nobody would call my job. Of course, I wouldn't be there to answer the phone anyways.

I see what you did there.

of the 3 gays in my office (that i know of) 2 of them are here today. the other i dont usually see unless we run eachother in the breakroom. i guess they care more about the money theyd lose by not showing up then making a point.

I can understand that.

[dmaul1114]

"Have to break the law"? Seriously? Who has to break the law?


Meh. That's just playing on the semantics of how I phrased. Let me reword it.

They were saying "You need our labor and need to change laws to give more of us legal passage to come and legally fill these low wage positions."

Yes there was some protest against deportation etc. And I have no problem with that personally. If we want to enforce laws focus on going after the companies hiring illegals, not the illegals breaking their backs for less than minimum wage. Though I know you disagree and want all efforts made at enforcing laws both on the companies and the illegals, and I don't have interest in spending time on that debate--especially since this is getting way off topic for this thread.

[thrustbucket]

Meh. That's just playing on the semantics of how I phrased. Let me reword it.

They were saying "You need our labor and need to change laws to give more of us legal passage to come and legally fill these low wage positions."
How badly we need their labor is questionable, especially with so many unemployed people these days (myself included). But I get what you are saying.

Yes there was some protest against deportation etc. And I have no problem with that personally. If we want to enforce laws focus on going after the companies hiring illegals, not the illegals breaking their backs for less than minimum wage. Though I know you disagree and want all efforts made at enforcing laws both on the companies and the illegals
Well let me put it to you this way:

On immigration paperwork, there are lots of questions about criminal history. Which is a good idea, I'm sure you'll agree, to know who is trying to get in the country and what they are like, right?

Let's say there is a question that asks "How likely are you to obey the law if you don't like it?".
Every illegal alien has already answered failed that question.

I don't know about you, but I am uncomfortable living around people that couldn't pass that question, and it isn't fair to immigrants that do have respect for the law, for their less law-abiding unscreened compatriots to get a wink and nod by Uncle Sam. It's not just unfair, it's unsafe.

--especially since this is getting way off topic for this thread.
True that. Damn you dmaul, you always know how to make me go way off topic! But I do enjoy our discussions, usually.
;)

Although it's not WAY off topic, really, since the last thing we've had closest to the OP is cinco de mayo.

[gareman]

How badly we need their labor is questionable, especially with so many unemployed people these days (myself included). But I get what you are saying.


Well let me put it to you this way:

On immigration paperwork, there are lots of questions about criminal history. Which is a good idea, I'm sure you'll agree, to know who is trying to get in the country and what they are like, right?

Let's say there is a question that asks "How likely are you to obey the law if you don't like it?".
Every illegal alien has already answered failed that question.

I don't know about you, but I am uncomfortable living around people that couldn't pass that question, and it isn't fair to immigrants that do have respect for the law, for their less law-abiding unscreened compatriots to get a wink and nod by Uncle Sam. It's not just unfair, it's unsafe.


True that. Damn you dmaul, you always know how to make me go way off topic! But I do enjoy our discussions, usually.
;)

Although it's not WAY off topic, really, since the last thing we've had closest to the OP is cinco de mayo.


I am not going to reply to this as to not get further off topic of the thread, but I just wanted to say Thrustbucket, I do enjoy your honesty, your ability to actually put together an argument, and willingness to entertain conflicting ideas and beliefs......even though you're an evil cold-hearted conservative:lol:

[mykevermin]

It's mostly two-fold:

1) If I were a business owner, I would be pissed if my employees called in and said they weren't coming to work out of protest any cause. Screw their cause, I have a business to run, and they are being selfish. It might make me think twice about who I hire. Which leads to:

2) It's very myopic of anyone to do this right now in this financial crisis. Unless they are purposely hoping to ride the wave of the bad economy, by making it worse, to get their point across; in which case it's just selfish.

But in the case of cinco de mayo, I just thought it was outright ignorant to be boycotting the right to illegal activity.



That's fine as long as you can guarantee that no church/religion/organization of any kind can be sued for refusing to recognize a gay marriage for any of their charitable services or otherwise.

That's a better picture of what you're arguing. I don't agree with your points at all, because it really seems (not attempting a straw man here) that you're disagreeing with the very idea of protest.

Social movements scholars refer to protest quite simply as "politics by other means." Which is what happens when it has to be that way, when the traditional venues of enacting change or fighting for the status quo are unavailable. People tend to not put themselves through the effort and difficulty of organizing, educating, acting out, etc., if the traditional means of change are available to them.

I like that simple definition of protest. It refers to groups of people who feel that they don't have a "seat at the table" when it comes to being involved in the political dialogue. As a non-Democrat-non-Republican, I'm certain that feeling is something you're familiar with.

So, yes, you have a business to run. And running it is harder without your employees. But that's the very point, isn't it? ;)

[The Crotch]

But marriage, as it is now, is very much part of church AND state. That's the problem.

If a religious affiliated organization refused to service or help someone because they refuse to recognize their state recognized lifestyle, they very much can be sued.
Do you have me on ignore? Or are the laws in all the gay-marriage-recognizing countries so vastly different that my question didn't even deserve a response? Because gay marriage has been legal here and in other places for years and years and I've yet to hear of a lawsuit. Could you point me to one? Preferably one that didn't get its ass handed to it in court? Because even if your country is legendarily lawsuit-happy, it would take only a semi-competentliteratesentient judge to give that case the old heave-ho.

EDIT: And it obviously don't count if whoever's being sued is receiving funds from the state.

[mykevermin]

'Merica's propensity for litigiousessnessessssss is Hulk Hogan sized compared to other nations, though, Crotch.

[Zoglog]

Voted no on Prop 8, but stuff like this is pretty retarded.

First off it works for Latinos since much of the latino population do the jobs other people don't want to do at lower wages... not so much for gay people...

Second, it doesn't help their image problem. People against gay marriage is not only a religious problem but a social image problem. I know plenty of non-religious people who voted yes on prop 8.

[GuilewasNK]

I'd wager that the people they are trying to make a point to, the bigots and such, by staying out aren't going to suddenly see the light by a protest like this anyway.

[VioletArrows]

I'm thinking this didn't turn out too well. Looking all over some news sites, and the only news I've seen actually cover it is AP and Fox News, who should've been the last one who to report on this...

[BigT]

Geez, even the Mexicans were better organized...

The only good thing about the day illegals stayed home was that traffic on the freeways was better. It didn't affect my life otherwise. If we balance out the benefits of illegal alien labor vs. the side effects (huge health care costs that are eaten by hospitals and the state, education spending on illegal's children, jail/prison costs, etc) I'd say we end up with the short end of the stick...

The day without gays seems to have been a bigger failure... traffic didn't get better, most people still showed up at work, etc.

[thrustbucket]

I like that simple definition of protest. It refers to groups of people who feel that they don't have a "seat at the table" when it comes to being involved in the political dialogue. As a non-Democrat-non-Republican, I'm certain that feeling is something you're familiar with.

So, yes, you have a business to run. And running it is harder without your employees. But that's the very point, isn't it? ;)

I agree with you. It's just that, to me, it's unethical, and downright disrespectful to call in to work and tell your boss he can't count on you today because you've got to protest something, regardless of how he feels about it. That's not really a protest, imo.

I am all for boycotting goods and services from certain company's or locations. Lord knows I have plenty of friends that refuse to shop at McDonalds or Walmart. That's legitimate protest.

Do you have me on ignore? Or are the laws in all the gay-marriage-recognizing countries so vastly different that my question didn't even deserve a response? Because gay marriage has been legal here and in other places for years and years and I've yet to hear of a lawsuit. Could you point me to one? Preferably one that didn't get its ass handed to it in court? Because even if your country is legendarily lawsuit-happy, it would take only a semi-competentliteratesentient judge to give that case the old heave-ho.

First of all, I hope you are right. And you could be. It might just be a lot of worry for nothing. But then again, no other country you mention that recognizes gay marriage was founded by and continues to have a healthy population of religious extremists.

It isn't just about religious groups. That's my point. Lawsuits will fly everywhere.

New Mexico Photographer (http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/300004nm04-11-08.htm) sued for refusing to shoot a gay marriage ceremony.

Doctor sued (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=34383)in California for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian.

I also recall reading about a psychiatrist that refused council to a lesbian about her gay relationship and referred her to a college, getting in big trouble.

March 10 2006 in Massachusetts (where same sex marr is legal) a father who said his kindergartener could not learn about same sex marriage was handcuffed and taken to jail for refusing to leave the meeting

March 01 2006 Catholic Charities in Massachusetts was forced to close its doors after 100 years of adoption services becoz they will not give children to same sex couples

Jan 2005 Canada - the BC Knights of Columbus are sued for not permitting the rental of their hall for a same sex wedding reception.

That's just a few examples. Additionally, there is a think tank called the Becket Fund that did surveyed over 1,000 state anti-discrimination laws; specifically those for prosecuting sexual discrimination, to try and assess how dissenters to same-sex marriage might be affected if same-sex marriage were made legal.

Here (http://www.becketfund.org/files/34a97.pdf)is a 53 page summary of their findings, but in a nutshell:

The study found that all 50 states prohibit gender discrimination in some way, and only 37 states have explicit religious exemptions to these provisions, many of them quite narrow. This lack of robust exemptions could become a problem if (as has happened in some instances) religious objections to same-sex marriage are treated as a kind of gender discrimination. In addition, 33 states prohibit at least some discrimination based on marital status, and only 13 of these states provide religious exemptions, some with a wide latitude of exemption, others with only narrow exemptions. Of the 20 states that prohibit sexual orientation-based discrimination, 18 provide exemptions for religious objection.

Based on the data, The Becket Fund concludes that if same-sex marriage is recognized by courts or legislatures, people and institutions that have conscientious objections to facilitating same-sex marriage will likely be sued under existing anti-discrimination laws—laws never intended for that purpose.

EDIT: And it obviously don't count if whoever's being sued is receiving funds from the state.
Now that's a good point. Clearly there are a lot of orgs out there doing good, possibly against gay marriage, that have a lot to lose if public funding were cut.

It really depends on location. It's not that hard these days to find an activist judge sympathetic to your cause. And if the above study shows anything, it's that there is a lot of very amorphous discrimination laws in this country that can be picked apart and interpreted many ways.

[The Crotch]

First of all, I hope you are right. And you could be. It might just be a lot of worry for nothing. But then again, no other country you mention that recognizes gay marriage was founded by and continues to have a healthy population of religious extremists.

It isn't just about religious groups. That's my point. Lawsuits will fly everywhere.

New Mexico Photographer (http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/300004nm04-11-08.htm) sued for refusing to shoot a gay marriage ceremony.I don't have a subscription to that website so I can't check out the story. I'll get a free trial some time when I'm less busy. As it is, I should have a textbook open right now, not CAG.

Doctor sued (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=34383)in California for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian.And what exactly is the problem with this?

I also recall reading about a psychiatrist that refused council to a lesbian about her gay relationship and referred her to a college, getting in big trouble.And the nature of that trouble? Lawsuit? Unhappy employers? Media stink? And what does this have to do about gay marriage?

March 10 2006 in Massachusetts (where same sex marr is legal) a father who said his kindergartener could not learn about same sex marriage was handcuffed and taken to jail for refusing to leave the meetingUm. Could you link me to this article? What's this about a meeting?
March 01 2006 Catholic Charities in Massachusetts was forced to close its doors after 100 years of adoption services becoz they will not give children to same sex couples... or they could have stopped receiving state funds. That would have worked.
Jan 2005 Canada - the BC Knights of Columbus are sued for not permitting the rental of their hall for a same sex wedding reception.I have no godly idea if the KoC receives money from the state. I'll have to look that one up. I'll also have to look up whether this - and the other lawsuits you mentioned - got its ass forked in court.

Now that's a good point. Clearly there are a lot of orgs out there doing good, possibly against gay marriage, that have a lot to lose if public funding were cut.A good point that I think you might have taken in the exact opposite way as me. You're worried about charitable groups losing funding, I'm worried about groups getting government money - or, if I talk like a libertarian, my money - to discriminate.

[mykevermin]

I agree with you. It's just that, to me, it's unethical, and downright disrespectful to call in to work and tell your boss he can't count on you today because you've got to protest something, regardless of how he feels about it. That's not really a protest, imo.

I am all for boycotting goods and services from certain company's or locations. Lord knows I have plenty of friends that refuse to shop at McDonalds or Walmart. That's legitimate protest.

Protest is protest. The legitimacy of the protest is determined by the reaction to it by the public at large. Protests demand legitimacy, and it's conferred by its reaction.

Protesting for free banana pudding, hypothetically, would likely not receive the same reaction (and legitimacy) as a protest against the auto bailout (scuse me, "emergency loan"). ;)

The boss can react how they want. Suppose the boss supports their protest? You're no longer eating at an enjoyable, tasty mexican restaurant for a silly reason: you've assumed you know the owner's feelings. And even if you *do* know the owner's feelings, I'm sure they'd still like to have your money regardless. Punishing the owner for the deeds of the employees is something that's legit, but kinda nonsensical if your underlying argument is "call in gay punishes the employers." Well, not shopping at this place or that place punishes the owners as well. Right? Right.

[hostyl1]

Not a single person has been able to demonstrate to me how religious institutions have dominion over the word "marriage" such that they should be able to control how and when it is used. Find me an etymologist!

Riddle me this: why couldn't everyone keep the term "marriage" and religious folks can have "religious unions"? Why don't the plurality get to decide how and who the term applies to?

Quite honestly, I dont give a rat's ass *what* term is used for either situation. But I do think it should be a clear distinction between the two rituals. Call my religious ceremony "Jumping the Broom", or "Christian Union". Doesnt make me any difference.

That being said, the word apparently originated into English in the late 13th / 14th Century (http://www.takeourword.com/et_k-m.html#marry); a time when English government was heavily influenced by religion. I'll leave it to you and the etymolgists to determine if the term was intended primarily for secular or religious purposes.

P.S. While the state doesnt seem to make any distinction b/w religious unions and ones carried out by a Justice of the Peace, I'd note that most Christian ceremonies call the union, as performed in a church "Holy Matrimony", suggesting that there is the possibility for matrimony other than "holy".

[depascal22]

Did anyone read Newsweek this week? They used some great arguments using the Bible to defend gay marriage.

The best part was the example of King David and Johnathon. Second best was how most of the Fathers of Christianity and Judaism were polygamists.

To the people that called out to protest. Way to go. You used your Constitutional rights for something and it might end up bad in the short term but, who knows, it might be beneficial in the long run. I'm sure everyone that did sit ins back in the 60s got fired, arrested, beat down, etc. but they did it anyway.

[dmaul1114]

I'll be reading it shortly, still finishing up last weeks. Got behind being out of town a couple of weeks around thanksgiving.

[Kirin Lemon]

P.S. While the state doesnt seem to make any distinction b/w religious unions and ones carried out by a Justice of the Peace, I'd note that most Christian ceremonies call the union, as performed in a church "Holy Matrimony", suggesting that there is the possibility for matrimony other than "holy".

I'd actually take pleasure in calling my marriage an "Unholy Matrimony."

[mykevermin]

Quite honestly, I dont give a rat's ass *what* term is used for either situation. But I do think it should be a clear distinction between the two rituals. Call my religious ceremony "Jumping the Broom", or "Christian Union". Doesnt make me any difference.

That being said, the word apparently originated into English in the late 13th / 14th Century (http://www.takeourword.com/et_k-m.html#marry); a time when English government was heavily influenced by religion. I'll leave it to you and the etymolgists to determine if the term was intended primarily for secular or religious purposes.

P.S. While the state doesnt seem to make any distinction b/w religious unions and ones carried out by a Justice of the Peace, I'd note that most Christian ceremonies call the union, as performed in a church "Holy Matrimony", suggesting that there is the possibility for matrimony other than "holy".

Thanks for looking that up; that leaves enough ambiguity so as to not conclusively solve the debate. :lol:

You may be willing to call it holy matrimony, or jumping the broom, or whathaveyou, but the argument here is that those who wish to ban gay marriage are more concerned about protecting a *word* than they are about protecting *rights* of people. So you're one of a few who don't emphasize the importance of the word itself.

[depascal22]

Isn't it ironic that the concept and word came out of Medieval England. Isn't that the same Medieval England that the Pilgrims tried to escape because of religious persecution?

[mykevermin]

14th century England =/= 18th century England.

Probably boiled all their food still, but that's another point altogether.

[depascal22]

14th century England =/= 18th century England.

Probably boiled all their food still, but that's another point altogether.

Pilgrims left England for Holland in the early 17th century so it's not too far of a stretch.

[smalien1]

I feel that the right to get married is obvious, any argument against gay marriage is nearly invalid, BUT, I don't feel this is such an important issue- we're in an economic crisis and a war, and marriage is a meaningless symbol that I don't give a shit about. If gays were being (openly) denied jobs, or rounded up into camps or something, THAT'D be an issue, but honestly, this is a near nonissue. However, if, it came down to a vote, that didn't absorb any other resource I'd vote correctly- in favor of gay marriage.

[mykevermin]

gay marriage is good for the economy.

[smalien1]

gay marriage is good for the economy.

Sarcasm, or explain?

[Frogurt.man]

Sarcasm, or explain?

It shouldn't need that much explanation. When people get married they get a shat ton of gifts. People have to buy gifts. Buy with money. People spending money = good for economy.

And don't forget honeymoons.

[mykevermin]

or divorces!

EDIT: If you truly think that I was being sarcastic by saying gay marriage is good for the economy, why don't you contact the Massachusetts Tourism Board and ask them what they think of same-sex marriage?

[Hex]

I feel that the right to get married is obvious, any argument against gay marriage is nearly invalid, BUT, I don't feel this is such an important issue- we're in an economic crisis and a war, and marriage is a meaningless symbol that I don't give a shit about. If gays were being (openly) denied jobs, or rounded up into camps or something, THAT'D be an issue, but honestly, this is a near nonissue. However, if, it came down to a vote, that didn't absorb any other resource I'd vote correctly- in favor of gay marriage.

Just because you happen to be disenfranchised with marriage doesn't make this a non-issue. I'm going to assume you're straight- if so, of course you can easily brush this off as a non-issue, because you're not personally affected. :roll: Guess what? I don't care that you don't care about whether or not marriage is equal, it's pretty fuckin' important to me. To me, it's as important as universal health care, the economy, and the war. It's easy for you not to care, 'cause tomorrow you could go get hitched in some shitty Vegas drive-thru. Don't say my issues are any less important.

[depascal22]

It's times like these that make these issues even more important. It shows that we can realize that there are more important things in life than revitalizing the economy by "going shopping".