Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Wash. initiative nonesense

Expand Messages
  • Richard Kelly
    So which of the many Democrats already running for President (in Feb. of 2007, by the way) will take up the cause? Which one will see the great wisdom of said
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      So which of the many Democrats already running for President
      (in Feb. of 2007, by the way) will take up the cause? Which
      one will see the great wisdom of said proposal, to punish
      and penalize the majority of voters to make a point. As
      for these various remarks on so many marriages not being
      perfect, your argument really is with human nature, the
      idea that perverse love is somehow purer, nobler, is just
      so much hogwash.

      Richard Kelly
    • Gregory
      Sad, very, very sad. And I feel sorry for you. That is the only way to sum up how I feel towards you tonight. My conversation with you is over. Gregory
      Message 2 of 6 , Feb 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Sad, very, very sad. And I feel sorry for you. That is the only way
        to sum up how I feel towards you tonight. My conversation with you
        is over.

        Gregory

        --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Kelly"
        <richwkelly@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > So which of the many Democrats already running for President
        > (in Feb. of 2007, by the way) will take up the cause? Which
        > one will see the great wisdom of said proposal, to punish
        > and penalize the majority of voters to make a point. As
        > for these various remarks on so many marriages not being
        > perfect, your argument really is with human nature, the
        > idea that perverse love is somehow purer, nobler, is just
        > so much hogwash.
        >
        > Richard Kelly
        >
      • THOMAS JOHNSON
        The solution that has been working best for me is to stay out of these conversations...
        Message 3 of 6 , Feb 7, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          The solution that has been working best for me is to
          stay out of these conversations...



          --- Gregory <greggolopry@...> wrote:

          > Sad, very, very sad. And I feel sorry for you. That
          > is the only way
          > to sum up how I feel towards you tonight. My
          > conversation with you
          > is over.
          >
          > Gregory
          >
          > --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "Richard
          > Kelly"
          > <richwkelly@...> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > So which of the many Democrats already running for
          > President
          > > (in Feb. of 2007, by the way) will take up the
          > cause? Which
          > > one will see the great wisdom of said proposal, to
          > punish
          > > and penalize the majority of voters to make a
          > point. As
          > > for these various remarks on so many marriages not
          > being
          > > perfect, your argument really is with human
          > nature, the
          > > idea that perverse love is somehow purer, nobler,
          > is just
          > > so much hogwash.
          > >
          > > Richard Kelly
          > >
          >
          >
          >
        • Ram Lau
          The whole gay rights movement is a non-issue to my generation. Keep in mind that any given generation s conservatives are more liberal than the previous
          Message 4 of 6 , Feb 8, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            The whole gay rights movement is a non-issue to my generation. Keep in
            mind that any given generation's conservatives are more liberal than
            the previous generations. For example, my guess is that even the vast
            majority of conservatives don't believe in lynching blacks anymore.
            Let me point out that it was then-Senator George Allen (R-VA) who
            co-sponspored an anti-lynching bill back in 2004.

            Anyway, it appears to me the "Plessy v. Ferguson" days of the gay
            rights movement are pretty much over. However, there was a
            half-century gap between 1896 and 1954, when the Brown v. Board of
            Education case finally came up. In this day and age, I'm optimistic to
            see that the episode takes a lot less time to come full circle. The
            conditions of the gays in 2007 is not nearly as bleak as the plight of
            the blacks a century ago.

            So where do the presidential candidates stand on the issue in 2008? On
            the Democratic side, most of the mainstream candidates are at least
            for civil unions, if not same sex marriage. That's where the country
            is at the moment. Giuliani is also for civil unions, and McCain seems
            to be for some sort of limited civil unions:

            http://mediamatters.org/items/200611270007

            As Media Matters noted, on the November 19 broadcast of This Week,
            McCain denied both that he was "for" civil unions and that he was
            "against" them. Host George Stephanopoulos specifically asked McCain:
            "Are you against civil unions for gay couples?" to which McCain
            responded: "No, I am not." Seconds later, however, Stephanopoulos
            asked: "So you're for civil unions?" to which McCain responded: "No."
            McCain said that he instead "believe[d] that people ought to be able
            to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that
            people who have relationships can enter into."

            McCain was a respectable candidate in 2000. He was.

            Ram


            --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Kelly"
            <richwkelly@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > So which of the many Democrats already running for President
            > (in Feb. of 2007, by the way) will take up the cause? Which
            > one will see the great wisdom of said proposal, to punish
            > and penalize the majority of voters to make a point. As
            > for these various remarks on so many marriages not being
            > perfect, your argument really is with human nature, the
            > idea that perverse love is somehow purer, nobler, is just
            > so much hogwash.
            >
            > Richard Kelly
            >
          • Gregory
            Ram, Thanks for a thoughtful follow up to the issue here. I think in some places younger generations are more charged on some issues than others areas of teh
            Message 5 of 6 , Feb 8, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Ram,

              Thanks for a thoughtful follow up to the issue here. I think in some
              places younger generations are more charged on some issues than
              others areas of teh nation. In WI last year colleges were bursting
              with energy and votes on the marriage amendment. I also understand
              that gay acceptance has reached such a level that it all is just
              taken for granted. That can be a good thing. But rights given are
              also rights than can be taken away.

              Black America has the civil rights they rightfully enjoy because so
              many Americans of all colors fought together, and in some cases died,
              to see those rights enacted into law. When we honor the life of Dr.
              King his words need to be a reminder to all of us, black and white,
              that the work for civil rights are not yet complete in our country.
              Martin Luther King said "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
              everywhere."

              Today the great fight for civil rights is with those pressing to end
              discrimination against gay America. I have no doubt that if Dr. King
              were living today he would give voice to ending this hatred and
              discrimination. I am sure he would understand that only bigotry
              drives the "don't ask, don't tell " policy that keeps qualified and
              skilled people from openly serving in the armed forces. I am
              convinced that he would advocate for the equal treatment of gay
              people in relation to marriage. And I am utterly convinced that King
              would have firm words for those within the African-American community
              that do not understand their role, duty, and responsibility to fight
              today for others in securing civil rights. (The vote in African-
              American sections of Milwaukee was troubling on the marriage
              amendment.) King would not be one of those who would pull the ladder
              up until everyone had made it to the `promised land' of full civil
              rights.

              "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" was not just a
              phrase for another era, another fight. It is a truism that all need
              to be mindful of as we continue to secure a better and more just
              nation.

              Gregory




              --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "Ram Lau" <ramlau@...> wrote:
              >
              > The whole gay rights movement is a non-issue to my generation. Keep
              in
              > mind that any given generation's conservatives are more liberal than
              > the previous generations. For example, my guess is that even the
              vast
              > majority of conservatives don't believe in lynching blacks anymore.
              > Let me point out that it was then-Senator George Allen (R-VA) who
              > co-sponspored an anti-lynching bill back in 2004.
              >
              > Anyway, it appears to me the "Plessy v. Ferguson" days of the gay
              > rights movement are pretty much over. However, there was a
              > half-century gap between 1896 and 1954, when the Brown v. Board of
              > Education case finally came up. In this day and age, I'm optimistic
              to
              > see that the episode takes a lot less time to come full circle. The
              > conditions of the gays in 2007 is not nearly as bleak as the plight
              of
              > the blacks a century ago.
              >
              > So where do the presidential candidates stand on the issue in 2008?
              On
              > the Democratic side, most of the mainstream candidates are at least
              > for civil unions, if not same sex marriage. That's where the country
              > is at the moment. Giuliani is also for civil unions, and McCain
              seems
              > to be for some sort of limited civil unions:
              >
              > http://mediamatters.org/items/200611270007
              >
              > As Media Matters noted, on the November 19 broadcast of This Week,
              > McCain denied both that he was "for" civil unions and that he was
              > "against" them. Host George Stephanopoulos specifically asked
              McCain:
              > "Are you against civil unions for gay couples?" to which McCain
              > responded: "No, I am not." Seconds later, however, Stephanopoulos
              > asked: "So you're for civil unions?" to which McCain
              responded: "No."
              > McCain said that he instead "believe[d] that people ought to be able
              > to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways
              that
              > people who have relationships can enter into."
              >
              > McCain was a respectable candidate in 2000. He was.
              >
              > Ram
              >
              >
              > --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Kelly"
              > <richwkelly@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > So which of the many Democrats already running for President
              > > (in Feb. of 2007, by the way) will take up the cause? Which
              > > one will see the great wisdom of said proposal, to punish
              > > and penalize the majority of voters to make a point. As
              > > for these various remarks on so many marriages not being
              > > perfect, your argument really is with human nature, the
              > > idea that perverse love is somehow purer, nobler, is just
              > > so much hogwash.
              > >
              > > Richard Kelly
              > >
              >
            • Gregory
              Was writing too fast this AM..so on reading my thoughts should have mentioned black, white, and brown, in terms of securing rights. I work better with coffee!
              Message 6 of 6 , Feb 8, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Was writing too fast this AM..so on reading my thoughts should have
                mentioned black, white, and brown, in terms of securing rights. I
                work better with coffee!

                Gregory


                --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "Gregory" <greggolopry@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > Ram,
                >
                > Thanks for a thoughtful follow up to the issue here. I think in
                some
                > places younger generations are more charged on some issues than
                > others areas of teh nation. In WI last year colleges were bursting
                > with energy and votes on the marriage amendment. I also understand
                > that gay acceptance has reached such a level that it all is just
                > taken for granted. That can be a good thing. But rights given are
                > also rights than can be taken away.
                >
                > Black America has the civil rights they rightfully enjoy because so
                > many Americans of all colors fought together, and in some cases
                died,
                > to see those rights enacted into law. When we honor the life of
                Dr.
                > King his words need to be a reminder to all of us, black and white,
                > that the work for civil rights are not yet complete in our
                country.
                > Martin Luther King said "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
                > everywhere."
                >
                > Today the great fight for civil rights is with those pressing to
                end
                > discrimination against gay America. I have no doubt that if Dr.
                King
                > were living today he would give voice to ending this hatred and
                > discrimination. I am sure he would understand that only bigotry
                > drives the "don't ask, don't tell " policy that keeps qualified and
                > skilled people from openly serving in the armed forces. I am
                > convinced that he would advocate for the equal treatment of gay
                > people in relation to marriage. And I am utterly convinced that
                King
                > would have firm words for those within the African-American
                community
                > that do not understand their role, duty, and responsibility to
                fight
                > today for others in securing civil rights. (The vote in African-
                > American sections of Milwaukee was troubling on the marriage
                > amendment.) King would not be one of those who would pull the
                ladder
                > up until everyone had made it to the `promised land' of full civil
                > rights.
                >
                > "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" was not just
                a
                > phrase for another era, another fight. It is a truism that all
                need
                > to be mindful of as we continue to secure a better and more just
                > nation.
                >
                > Gregory
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "Ram Lau" <ramlau@> wrote:
                > >
                > > The whole gay rights movement is a non-issue to my generation.
                Keep
                > in
                > > mind that any given generation's conservatives are more liberal
                than
                > > the previous generations. For example, my guess is that even the
                > vast
                > > majority of conservatives don't believe in lynching blacks
                anymore.
                > > Let me point out that it was then-Senator George Allen (R-VA) who
                > > co-sponspored an anti-lynching bill back in 2004.
                > >
                > > Anyway, it appears to me the "Plessy v. Ferguson" days of the gay
                > > rights movement are pretty much over. However, there was a
                > > half-century gap between 1896 and 1954, when the Brown v. Board of
                > > Education case finally came up. In this day and age, I'm
                optimistic
                > to
                > > see that the episode takes a lot less time to come full circle.
                The
                > > conditions of the gays in 2007 is not nearly as bleak as the
                plight
                > of
                > > the blacks a century ago.
                > >
                > > So where do the presidential candidates stand on the issue in
                2008?
                > On
                > > the Democratic side, most of the mainstream candidates are at
                least
                > > for civil unions, if not same sex marriage. That's where the
                country
                > > is at the moment. Giuliani is also for civil unions, and McCain
                > seems
                > > to be for some sort of limited civil unions:
                > >
                > > http://mediamatters.org/items/200611270007
                > >
                > > As Media Matters noted, on the November 19 broadcast of This Week,
                > > McCain denied both that he was "for" civil unions and that he was
                > > "against" them. Host George Stephanopoulos specifically asked
                > McCain:
                > > "Are you against civil unions for gay couples?" to which McCain
                > > responded: "No, I am not." Seconds later, however, Stephanopoulos
                > > asked: "So you're for civil unions?" to which McCain
                > responded: "No."
                > > McCain said that he instead "believe[d] that people ought to be
                able
                > > to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways
                > that
                > > people who have relationships can enter into."
                > >
                > > McCain was a respectable candidate in 2000. He was.
                > >
                > > Ram
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In prezveepsenator@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Kelly"
                > > <richwkelly@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > So which of the many Democrats already running for President
                > > > (in Feb. of 2007, by the way) will take up the cause? Which
                > > > one will see the great wisdom of said proposal, to punish
                > > > and penalize the majority of voters to make a point. As
                > > > for these various remarks on so many marriages not being
                > > > perfect, your argument really is with human nature, the
                > > > idea that perverse love is somehow purer, nobler, is just
                > > > so much hogwash.
                > > >
                > > > Richard Kelly
                > > >
                > >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.