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

Re: Wash. initiative nonesense

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.