December 10th - A Day without Gays

[quote name='thrustbucket']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.[/QUOTE]

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? ;)
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']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.
[/quote]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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

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? ;)[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='The Crotch']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.[/quote]

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 sued for refusing to shoot a gay marriage ceremony.

Doctor sued 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 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.
Click to expand...

EDIT: And it obviously don't count if whoever's being sued is receiving funds from the state.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']
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 sued for refusing to shoot a gay marriage ceremony.[/quote]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.

[quote name='thrustbucket'] Doctor sued in California for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian.[/quote]And what exactly is the problem with this?

[quote name='thrustbucket'] 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.[/quote]And the nature of that trouble? Lawsuit? Unhappy employers? Media stink? And what does this have to do about gay marriage?

[quote name='thrustbucket'] 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[/quote]Um. Could you link me to this article? What's this about a meeting?
[quote name='thrustbucket'] 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[/quote]... or they could have stopped receiving state funds. That would have worked.
[quote name='thrustbucket']Jan 2005 Canada - the BC Knights of Columbus are sued for not permitting the rental of their hall for a same sex wedding reception.[/quote]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.

[quote name='thrustbucket']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.[/quote]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.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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?[/quote]

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; 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".
 
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.
 
I'll be reading it shortly, still finishing up last weeks. Got behind being out of town a couple of weeks around thanksgiving.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']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".[/QUOTE]

I'd actually take pleasure in calling my marriage an "Unholy Matrimony."
 
[quote name='hostyl1']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; 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".[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']14th century England =/= 18th century England.

Probably boiled all their food still, but that's another point altogether.[/quote]

Pilgrims left England for Holland in the early 17th century so it's not too far of a stretch.
 
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.
 
[quote name='smalien1']Sarcasm, or explain?[/quote]

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.
 
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?
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
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".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top