Second Stonewall: One gay man's rant on the state of Queer Equality (Hurl-icious!)

Q Notes ^ | November 29, 2008 | Matt Comer

[Dilbert San Diego]

Yes, the culture has moved very much in the direction of acceptance of homosexuality.

Whether that translates into future acceptance of same-sex marriage is uncertain, but “gays” are not being forced back into the closet.

Living conditions are better for homosexuals in the year 2008 than they have ever been before in our history. Why then, is the homosexual community so angry at not having the right to call their relationships marriage? That’s what’s really at stake. In California, the domestic partner law gives same-sex couples virtually all rights of marriage, without the title. Everyday life for gay Californians did not change with the passage of Prop. 8. Prop 8 defined marriage and nothing else.

40 states don’t have any legal recognition of gay relationships at all. Realistically, they should work on some of those states, rather than have hissy fits about an alleged roll back of their rights in a liberal state where their relationships are fully recognized, but denied the label of marriage.

I might add that the federal gov’t doesn’t recognize gay marriage either. Where are the federal court lawsuits? Ellen De Generes and Mr. Sulu are still single under federal law, and would still be single under federal law even if Prop. 8 had failed.

[bboop]

I don’t think they are doing it for tax purposes. The California partnership arrangement is full of benefits. They are doing it to tear down our society; definition of marriage is Christian, and they HATE Christianity.

They are also doing it because, if it is LAW, then somehow that means to them that it is ok. And they know, in their little perverted hearts, that it is really NOT ok.

[Claud]

That’s an excellent point—I’m going to steal that!

A very similar argument can be made for the Pill...particularly when it came out that the synthetic estrogens in the sewer systems were harmfully affecting fish populations. The response from the enviro nuts was “oh well...we really can’t expect people to change their lifestyles.” Oh no? LOL

[Alia]

I learned about the deleterious effects of The Pill upon fowl in 1994. And posted on it; was soundly boo'd.

I have never taken The Pill; it was the "thing" the "savior" the Messiahess of Womynhood back in the day; and so many of my friends were "just doing it" because it was trendy. The "thing to do". The first sales point was NOT that The Pill would prevent unwanted pregnancies. We were in highschool, and the girl-to-girl word was that it would make one's boobs larger. So, it was marketed in Marin County to the underaged as the Wonder Attractant. I suppose having three boobs can be considered an attractant. OR, is that extra one a "lump"?

At any rate, no. I learned a lot from Star Trek and "Mudd's Women" in 1966. I would have nothing to do with The Pill.

[weegee]

I didn't know that Chuck Rosenthal was that big a dildo on gun rights. You mean he was prosecuting CHL holders? Or just people who were carrying weapons in reliance on the law about travellers?

Active protest against Houston DA regarding gun possession (Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 8:02:08 AM by WillMalven)

I just sent this letter to Houston DA Chuck Rosenthal.

"Sir,

Your stance on the enforcement of the Texas handgun travel law is unacceptable. The intent of the State Legislature and Governor in passing this law revision was and is very clear. Your declaration of intent to arrest and prosecute drivers without CCL’s found to be carrying firearms in their automobiles is just as clearly an effort to disregard the will of the people of Texas and Harris County as reflected in the State Legislature. In doing so you are in direct violation of your sworn duties. All data show that the restriction of gun possession leads to higher, not lower crime. The Bill of Rights guarantees each American Citizen the individual the right to keep and bear arms. Your decision in this case not only thwarts will of the Texas Legislature, but flies in the face of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your disrespect for the will of the people is both shameful and arrogant. Your Liberal agenda will not succeed.

Enjoy your brief day in the sun, it will not last. You may rest assured that you will not be re-elected to office. We gun owners will actively campaign against your re-election.

Sincerely

Will Malven The Tin Ear
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/malven"

www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3330553

More than 237,000 Texans have concealed handgun licenses. But many other law-abiding adults don't have licenses because they are disqualified by exceptions that have nothing to do with public safety, said Alice Tripp, a lobbyist for the Texas State Rifle Association, an NRA affiliate.

Tripp said people who have defaulted on student loans, who owe the state sales tax or franchise tax payments or are behind in child support payments are ineligible to receive a license.

Rosenthal's response to my e-mail (verbatim) (16 posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 9:52:13 AM by WillMalven)

"Well, as it so happens I am in favor of gun ownership. I took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, and I intend to do exactly that. There are a number of instances where the law permits the possession of handguns in cars we recognize those laws, but I believe that they should be sorted out in court, and not on the streets. Consider this scenario. Police officers stop a car for a traffic violation. While getting ID from the driver, he sees the butt of a handgun protruding from under the driver's seat. Office asks the driver where he is going. Driver answers that he is going to the liquor store 2 miles from his house. Driver meets the other requisites for "traveling". On the way back from the adult beverage store, driver sees someone who he thinks "disrespected" him some time back and shoots his acquaintance. Victim survives, finds out the police knew about the gun, the settled law is that he was not traveling; officer and his municipality are sued by the victim. Point is that not everyone is as judicious about gun ownership as you and your friends probably are. If the legislature had really meant to allow anyone who wanted to carry a handgun (note, the law does not apply to shoulder weapons) in their car, why do you suppose they did not repeal the laws with respect concealed carry permits? Presumptions are simply that. For instance all persons charged with crimes are presumed to be innocent, but that doesn't mean that they are in fact innocent. By the way, I'm up for re-election in '08."

That last seems a might arrogant to me...

I bring it up as a point to show that he may not have been completely honest when he gruffed that he didn't LIKE having to prosecute homosexuals but that he "had no choice" in the matter and then contributed to the fail defense of the Texas law against same sex sodomy.

I wouldn't call it a "loss" if the defense wanted to see the other team win in the end. I'd say it was a rigged game. And how "convenient" that it happened during Gay Pride Month. The timing of the Supreme Court decision is suspicious.

[MitchellC]

Queers are ALREADY equal to everybody else. It’s their BEHAVIOR that isn’t equal.

Anyway, this reminds me that I was hoping queer activist Jim Neal would have beat Kay Hagan in the Dem primary. Here’s to hoping he’s the candidate in 2010.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"They are said to have at least one closeted associate justice on the Supreme Court ready to help them win the case of their dreams"

If I had to guess, it would be Souter.

[Charlespg]

We’re here. We’re queer. And we deserve equality. How dare you take it away?

Eye Roll...