"How can anyone legislate who you can love?.." THE STRUGGLE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS CONTINUES-Streisand

www.barbrastreisand.com ^ | March 8, 2004 | Barbra Streisand

[fight_truth_decay]

"How can anyone legislate who you can love?..."

THE STRUGGLE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS CONTINUES

Remarks by Barbra Streisand Upon Her receipt of The Human Rights Campaign Humanitarian Award, March 6, 2004

I have been fortunate to receive a few awards in my lifetime, and I always appreciate them, but I must say that this is a very special one because the gay community has supported me from the very beginning. I know that this is a challenging moment in your history. So I am very proud to accept this award from the Human Rights Campaign at this time. You are on the frontlines in the struggle for equal rights, even as continued prejudice stands in the way.

The American Constitution is a magical document that has evolved over 200 plus years. While we revere it, it did not start out as a perfect document. This Republic was founded with a Constitution that counted slaves as three-fifths human. It took decades and a Civil War, the deadliest in U.S. history, to erase that stain upon our country. It took over 100 years to bring women into the political system by giving them the right to vote. Interracial marriage was illegal in some states until 1967. Now the Bush Administration wants to change the positive inclusive direction of our Constitution by calling for an amendment that authorizes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Well, I say, no way. Dr. Martin Luther King taught us that the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice. We must always go forward, towards greater liberty and greater equality, not backward.

You know, for me, the realization that two people should have the right to form a sacred union regardless of their gender was strengthened when I saw a performance of the play The Normal Heart in 1985. After feeling the love those two men had for each other, I dare anybody not to want them to get married by the end.

The law cannot dictate matters of the heart. When two people form a deep bond, there is usually a soul connection, and the soul has no gender. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental rights in this country. Happiness can be many things - a good meal, a good friend, a warm puppy, and certainly...love. How can anyone legislate who you can love? That is a human right, the right to love and be loved.

And when you love someone, whether you're in a heterosexual or same-gender relationship, shouldn't you be able to visit them in the hospital when they're sick or dying? Shouldn't everyone have the right to enter into a loving, legally binding, committed relationship that takes on special responsibilities and obligations?

Current civil union legislation doesn't go far enough in protecting equal rights. We must not deny gay families many of the benefits that help keep families strong...social security, pensions, veteran's support, inheritance, the right to take unpaid leave to care for a spouse...the list goes on and on.

Instead of helping families, this president wants to spend a billion and a half dollars to bolster marriage. Turning government into a marriage counselor is a joke...a waste of time and money. It's not a policy; it's a diversion.

But this administration regularly uses the politics of diversion to their advantage. They cleverly use divisive cultural issues to avoid talking about other serious problems, such as unemployment and healthcare. They go after Saddam because they can't find bin Ladin ... They want to send missions to Mars instead of protecting the Earth... Tax cuts for the wealthy instead of assisting the poor...

You have to look at what Bush does, not what he says. Talk is cheap. He expresses empathy for military families and then cuts their benefits...He names a proposal "The Clear Skies Initiative" that pollutes the planet...He says he'll be a uniter and then drives us apart...He steals the slogan "No Child Left Behind" and then breaks his promise to fund his reforms.

Truly, I stand here flabbergasted at what is going on in today's world. Never in my life have I witnessed a president and an administration that is so out of step with the needs of the country, so threatening to our future and so abusive in its use of power.

The Clinton administration left this country with a budget surplus, and also a surplus in the goodwill we shared with our allies. Now we have a deficit in both.

Before the war in Iraq, I went to hear Scott Ritter speak - he had been a weapons inspector for seven years. He told us there was no imminent threat to the United States, that the program to develop nuclear weapons had been dormant since 1998. There was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda (one is a secular society and the other fundamentalist), that chemical weapons have a short shelf life and wouldn't be usable today...in short, everything Scott Ritter told us has turned out to be the truth.

But this president (the only one to cut taxes during a war) made terrorism a partisan cause. He charged Democrats with being soft on terror, a lie. He appointed John Ashcroft to trample our civil liberties as Attorney General, and, from a human rights point of view, his use of Guantanamo Bay has roused international protest.

Now as the president gears up for his re-election campaign, the right wing propaganda machine is ready to take the skin off of John Kerry, the Democratic Party's nominee. I've never seen anything as ruthless or as relentless as this. They can take a slur hatched at the Republican National Committee or a lie huckstered by the Heritage Foundation, repeat it on Fox, hit it on Limbaugh, print it in the Wall Street Journal, until it's coming out of every media outlet imaginable. Repeating lies over and over doesn't make them any more true. But it does make people believe the lies a little more until finally they stop demanding the truth.

I've seen their ferocity up close, as I witnessed the astounding assault on the CBS movie about Ronald Reagan, in which my husband starred and Craig and Neil produced. They attacked that movie and drove it off network television before any of them had ever seen it.

The Right Wing is very well-organized. They fight dirty. They project their own nastiness onto their opposition. Remember how they accused the Democrats of stealing the election in Florida, while they themselves were doing just that!

We're now in a period that whenever you say something that's critical of the government, you are accused of being unpatriotic. Bush even lent himself to an utterly despicable campaign in Georgia that impugned the patriotism of Senator Max Cleland, who had sacrificed three limbs in the same Vietnam War that the president ducked. Talking about patriotism, let's never forget Bush's fellow Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who in 1918 said, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Indeed, this country now faces a fundamental choice. Multilateral security or pre-emptive wars. Closing or widening the gaps between the haves and the have nots. Facing the truth or accepting the lies. The public taking an interest or tuning out. Extending our rights or turning them back.

Mr. Bush will dress himself up as a compassionate conservative once more for the election, but he has embraced a remarkably radical policy, which I pray the public finally sees. The mishandling of national and economic security. The shameless politics of special interests and crony capitalists. (And when you talk about special interests it's important to differentiate between public interests that benefit the larger good of the people, like protecting the environment or finding a cure for cancer, versus the special interests that are limited to a particular industry or corporation, like Enron or Halliburton).

Bush recently pushed through a prescription drug bill that actually gives a better deal to the drug companies than to the seniors who need the drugs. And what about the new energy plan that actually increases our dependence on Persian Gulf oil (even though he recently said just the opposite in his State of the Union speech).

The Republicans will try to win the election by convincing the American public that they are the father figures who can keep us safe. But the facts contradict the myth. Two and a half years after the largest attack on American soil, our borders remain easily penetrable. We have the capacity to inspect only 2% of cargo containers coming into our country. Local law enforcement has been weakened by spending cuts, and our intelligence lacks manpower and updated technology. And which party's budget provides the most for homeland security? The Democrats!

This president is so transparent. The only way he would agree to investigations of the mishandling of intelligence leading up to the Iraqi war, is if we wait until after the election to get the reports. Has this administration no shame? What job are we not doing that has allowed them to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people?

But...there is hope. It's starting to turn. I can feel it. The media is finally asking the president and his staff the tougher questions, and looking into the issues that should have been investigated years ago. The people are speaking out at all levels from the grassroots to Washington. All of the good work so many people are doing is finally making a dent. We won't be scared into submission.

What should scare us is that we have no checks and balances on this administration. They control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court. All we have is each other. So each of us must do what we can to create positive change in November. I know the Human Rights Campaign will be at the center of the struggle for equality. And let's be smart...Let's be pragmatic...Let's not allow the Republicans to use gay marriage as a political tool in this election year. Truth and justice eventually wins out.

I am proud to stand with you tonight as the recipient of this prestigious award. Together we can and we will win the fight.

[fight_truth_decay]

NBC's EXTRA filmed attendees: Liza Minnelli (ex David Gest is reportedly planning to tie the knot with Motown legend Diana Ross), John Travolta, a reported rare appearance by Janet Jackson, the Fab Five's (Queer Eye for the Straight Guy)Kyan commented, "It's every gay man's dream to meet Barbra Streisand."

[CzarNicky]

It's not about legislating love it is about preserving a unique form of bonding for a unique purpose. If you wish to engage in perversion of your own accord do so but do not expect to get a tax break for it.

[Jim Robinson]

Love, love, love. Love is all you need.

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/alluneed.htm

[fight_truth_decay]

Remember Adelman who Streisand filed a 10M dollar suit against for posting aerial photos of her California coastline mansion?

I guess the "court-ordered" legal fees ordered to be paid by Streisand holds no importance to this Diva; as Adelman claims the entertainment legend refuses to pay him $204,000 in fees. He is now seeking an additional $15,000 for fees he has spent to enforce the order.

[fight_truth_decay]

Great Jim, now I have that song stuck in my head!

[JoJo Gunn]

Leftists consider themselves "enlightened", but instead of embracing a Higher Power, they're crawling out of the woodwork like cockroaches to champion Regression.

[Charlespg]

its about denying societies right to draw the line at some point,another few years of this c***.and they will be a civil war all right

[Eva]

I didn't even read the article, the title was bad enough. This isn't about legislating who you can love. It's about what constitutes a legal marriage and freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion is the most important part.

[freeangel]

"how can anyone legislate who you love?"

Nobody is trying to legislate who you love, babs. They are just saying you can't boink just anyone and call it marriage.

[DallasMike]

So why does the gay community like Barbra Streisand?

One word:  Showtunes!

[Boundless]

Questions to have handy for those advocating that "marriage"
be legally re-defined to accomodate same-sex unions
(and this is an entirely separate issue from the same
relationship under other names, e.g. "civil union").

• What is your proposed new definition, precisely?
  
  
• Does it exclude consanguineous partners?
  Can someone marry their sibling, child, parent, cousin?
  If not, why not - there's no risk of genetic defects in the
  offspring if the partners are the same sex, after all.
  
  
• Does it limit a person to one partner?
  If so, why? That sounds pretty arbitrary and discriminatory.
  There's a lot more historical precedent for polygamy than for
  same-sex marriage. The polygamists await the answer.
  
  

And before laughing at the following, keep in mind a recent
nuptial in France wherein a bride was wed to her deceased finance.

• Does the new definition require a living partner?
  
  
• Does the new definition require a human partner?
  Any number of lonely sheep-herders await an answer.
  
  
• Does the new definition require any partner at all?
  Since this movement is in part a benefits grab, why bother
  requiring a partner at all? Just marry yourself.

[breakem]

I wanted to marry myself, but found out I was dating someone else.

[goldstategop]

Oh yes... the Constitution "evolves." Name me ONE liberal, Babs, who was FOR gay marriage back in 1968.

[Jim Robinson]

You'll go blind doing that.

[TX Bluebonnet]

I'd like to marry my dog and declare my 2 cats as dependents.

[small voice in the wilderness]

What should scare us is that we have no checks and balances on this administration. They control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court.

I love this part! Poor,poor Babs, wrinkled, shriveled, old, still stupid, and now, in the bitter winter of her life, paranoid.

[wtc911]

"I wanted to marry myself. but found out I was dating someone else"....

A clear case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.

[cwb]

Great point about polygamy having a much older...an even previously sanctioned, history. When homosexuals hear this question, they scoof at it as rediculous. Yet, not only has it existed in the past, some religions openly endorsed it. Don't these extended relationships have the same rights as homosexuals...expecially on the grounds of freedom of religion? Homos are such intolerant people:)

[breakem]

I'm a cat man myself, dogs are too dependent.

[breakem]

lol

[kcvl]

Enron's political activities were not limited to Republicans. During the 1990's Enron contributed nearly $2 million to Democratic causes. Kenneth Lay at times was President Clinton's golf partner and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom and other top Enron officials regularly attended Clinton's regular fund-raising "coffee klatches". A seat on Enron's board of directors was offered to Robert E. Rubin, President Clinton's Treasury secretary, in 1999 just before he left the government.

The degree to which Enron profited from its political activities is still being investigated. The Clinton administration provided more than $1 billion in subsidized loans to Enron projections overseas. It has become increasingly clear that Enron had a major role in engineering the electricity deregulation scheme which substantially affected the California economy. Not only was Enron the leading non-utility energy company to contribute to California politicians, including Gray Davis, it was the only major energy supplier who helped shape the deregulation plan which California adopted. Evidence is mounting that Enron exploited weaknesses in the California Power Exchange to manipulate the wholesale price of electricity within the state from 1999 to 2001 and that this was its true major revenue source.

[Sofa King]

"Dr. Martin Luther King taught us that the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice."

Completely untrue. Injustice is the standard through history, and still is in most of the world. Democracy has led to a small period of a better way, but if not protected from people who care more about enacting gay marriage than our constitution, it will have been a short one.

[kcvl]

Under the Clinton administration, Halliburton received hundreds of millions of dollars worth of construction contracts for rebuilding efforts in Kosovo and Haiti.

[Sofa King]

Let me guess: trying to respond to more than one thread at a time?

[GulliverSwift]

As a product of a mixed-specie marriage, Barbra is a bit conflicted.

[soozla]

"Before the war in Iraq, I went to hear Scott Ritter speak - he had been a weapons inspector for seven years. He told us there was no imminent threat to the United States, that the program to develop nuclear weapons had been dormant since 1998. There was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda (one is a secular society and the other fundamentalist), that chemical weapons have a short shelf life and wouldn't be usable today."

Babs, Babs, Babs, honey,.......he also told NY State authorities that HE WAS NOT ONLINE TRYING TO PROCURE A SEXUAL RENDEVOUS WITH A 16 YEAR OLD GIRL AT BURGER KING...so there ya go!!

[Windsong]

"It took decades and a Civil War..."

Bring it on.

[Free ThinkerNY]

"I hate Bush! People...People who hate people...are the ugliest people in the world."

[weegee]

States can/do legislate who you can have sex with. You can love anyone.

Even with sodomy laws struck down, sex is still legislated. The age of consent is 18 in some states and as low as 14 in other states. With Romeo & Juliet codes (and now Romeo & Romeo), minors who are BELOW the age of consent can still "CONSENT" to have sex.

As to who you can "love", sex is not a necessary compenent of love. You can love your parents, your siblings, your kids, your neighbor, and God without needing sex to make it "real".

Even the "desire" to have sex with someone can be kept in check. A wedding ring is a sign of commitment. Some men/women see that ring and don't pursue sexual relations with someone (not their own spouse) who wears that ring. Even in high school and college and later, some men respected their friends' and did not attempt to steal their girlfriends.

So an adult male can look at some teenage starlet, who although cute or even "sexy" is too young (maybe old enough in a state with an age of consent at 16 or 17) and realize that such a relationship would be inappropriate. An adult male can look at a cousin and find her attractive (and old enough to consent) while again realizing that such a relationship would be inappropriate. An adult male can look at a subordinate coworker and realize that such a relationship would be inappropriate.

A dog will hump your leg without asking yet some homosexual activists claim their own sexual fetish (same sex pairings) is different than beastiality because animals cannot consent. If the dog doesn't think it important enough to "ask" you before acting let alone STOP when you brush the animal off you leg (and shout at him) that defense does not hold water.

Some actions are inappropriate. This is why they are not tolerated by society.

And back to my earlier discussion of age of consent, the Lawrence v. Texas case struck down the legal barrier that permitted same sex sodomy only for persons over 18. This is NOT about consenting adults. This is about normalizing a perversion.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Civil Rights Then

"We shall overcome..."

Civil Rights Now

"We are family..."

[John Jorsett]

Someone needs to start a Most Annoying Human on the Planet award and give Streisand a lifetime achievement.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - Triple Bagger Projectile B.S. Alert.

For informational purposes only; a window into the mind of a one of the totems of the "gay" community.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist. It's a busy one.

[RightWingAtheist]

[onyx]

Excellent, Luis. Excellent.

[Tymesup]

Why is government legislating marriage in the first place?

What we currently consider strange may be appropriate or necessary someday. If there were a shortage of men or women, wouldn't we want youngsters to marry and procreate? Wouldn't polygamy be a good idea under this circumstance?

I particularly don't like government trying to encourage behavior by offering tax incentives. This takes money from one and gives it to another.

[Southack]

"How can anyone legislate who you can love?"

Actually, I've got a MUCH better question:

What do you call a government that *MANDATES* that its people change their culture, without putting such a change up for a nationwide vote of and by the people?

And here's a hint: it ain't called a "democracy" or even a "republic."

[cartoonistx]

Barbara, you ignorant slut! If loving someone very much was all that was needed for a marriage you wouldn't need Jim!

[BattleFlag]

Funny Girl

funny
adj. (funnier, funniest)

1) strange; peculiar.
2) arousing suspicion: there was something funny going on.
3) informal slightly unwell; out of sorts.
4) eccentric or slightly deranged.

Guess they got it right a loooong time ago....

[CyberAnt]

Is this woman totally devoid of a brain ..?? Don't answer that ..??

[mafree]

"How can anyone legislate who you can love?.."

You're right Babs- ain't a law in the world that could make me love or even like you.

[longtermmemmory]

its because they are trying to misdirect.
Love has nothing to do with the law.
The law does not have a love test for marriage.

The standards are:
1. Legal Age of Consent
2. Not closer than first cousin
3. Not married to another
4. One male one female (a mother and father child raising making pair)

NOTE: NO LOVE!

This is the amendment, NOTE: NOTHING about homosexuals
or any other sex act or LOVE
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Amendment Text:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law,
shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups.

[backhoe]

jeremiah, have you noticed how our "friends" on the Left try to dominate a debate and suppress dissent by opening the "dialogue" with a vague, open-ended question which ( in their minds, at least ) no decent person could oppose?

[little jeremiah]

One of the founders of ACT-UP admitted that the original group had read "Mein Kampf" for inspiration and techniques for the "gay" rights movement. The whole movement is very Nazi-esque in tone and method. Their propaganda methods include the use of the "big lie", accusing the opposition of the very tactics they use, denying the obvious up to their last breath, attack first, last, and always, and so on.

Just like the Nazis called Jews and other undesirables "subhumans", homo-nazis call those who disagree with them "homophobes", "haters", and "bigots" that cannot even be debated or respected.

If you haven't read "The Pink Swastika", you ought to check it out.

[Democratshavenobrains]

Are liberals incapable of understanding the true point of the 3/5 compromise? It was used to LESSEN SOUTHERN POWER!!!

[CWOJackson]

I don't mean this in a derogatory way, seriously.

But has anyone else noticed how Mzzzzzzz Streisand's face looks so much like a camel's?

I apologize if I have offended any dromedarys in my observations.