Would you have voted if you knew...

the true identity of who you voted for? With all these politicians coming out of the closet and claiming they voted against gay rights in order to satisfy their constituents, doesn't it seem odd that if they had been honest in the first place, they might not have their job?
Do you really think a conservative population who is against gay marriage would vote a homosexual into office? I think not. So when talking about outing a politician for being gay and voting against gay rights, this argument does not hold water.

More and more politicians are finding the climate they inhabit in becoming increasing intolerant of their behavior. Whereas, years gone by, the reporter doing a story might have overlooked a few indiscretions, now a days, these indiscretions are top of the hour news stories. We have become obsessed with everything non-news. While I certainly think it important to out these shameless fools, I don't think they deserve weeks and weeks of coverage. Just like their hetero counterparts, I say out them, let the heads roll then be done with it. That's what I have to say about the topic.

To Marry or Not To Marry II

In December 2009, NY voted down legalizing gay marriage. There was great hope that New York would be the first state in the Union to pass gay marriage by vote rather than have it court mandated. That hope was dashed by a vote of 38 to 24. This past year saw a slew of states voting down gay marriage as well. The most notably was California with the passage of Propositin 8 which overturned the CA Supreme Courts decision to legalize gay marriage. My question is: should gays and lesbians have the right to marry?

The traditional definition of marriage has changed throughout history but has always maintained at least one man and one woman. Do we as gays and lesbians have the right to demand our unions be recognized as legal unions? The argument against gay marriage contends that when marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, people will seek to further define it as unions between multiple partners, between familial relations and between people and animals. Sounds absurd, doesn't it? But it is through scare tactics like these that groups like the National Organization for Marriage use to portray gays and lesbians as the enemy.

I used to think why not just take the word marriage out of the equation and settle for domestic partnership or civil unions. But then, I heard a lesbian who is out and a celebrity explain it in the most simplest of terms. We want what every American wants, that is, to have our love recognized and to have it validated with the granting of over 1100 federal and state benefits. To settle for anything less than marriage is well...less. This celebrity went on to say that this issue is not a religious issue, nor a moral issue but rather a civil rights issue. And what I have been waiting to hear for so long, finally, she said it is rather amazing that we have allowed a majority to rule and vote on the civil rights of a minority. Amen!!

No other issue has divided the nation so vehemently as much, as well, another civil rights movement. I know the African American community cringes every time similarities are drawn between their own struggle for equal rights and the Gay and Lesbian fight, but how can you not see the parallels? If we took a popular vote pre-civil war to free the slaves or took a popular vote in the 1960's to further grant rights to the black community I think we would still have slaves. Likewise, if we took a popular vote to allow interracial marriages in the 1960's as well, I am sure it would still be illegal to mix races when marrying. So it only seems natural that while popular opinion continues to fight against what is just and right, the courts are needed to intercede and set things right. The people will follow suit when they see their fears are baseless and the world does not end.

To "Out" or Not to "Out"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.