References for the gay civil rights issue
Buddy Beaudoin
solely by shared sexual behavior (or alleged desire), warrant protected
class
status by any criteria which have given that status to legitimate ethnic
groups? Historically, courts and civil rights authorities have employed
three
"touchstones," in awarding protected class status to groups of people
who...
1.As an entire class have suffered a history of social oppression
evidenced by lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate
education, or cultural opportunity.
2.As an entire class exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing
characteristics, like race, color, gender or national origin, that
define
them as a discrete group.
3.As an entire class clearly demonstrate political powerlessness.
(Cf. "Frontiero vs. Richardson," 411 U.S. 677,684-687, 93 S.Ct. 1764,
1769-70, 36 LED 2nd Ed. 583, 1973; "San Antonio Independent School
District vs. Rodriguez," 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1293, 36 LED 2D16, 1973;
"Massachusetts Board of Retirement vs. Murgia," 96 S.Ct. 2562, 2566, 49
LED 2D520, 1976; "Plyler vs. Doe," 457 U.S. 202, 216, N14, p. 219-223,
102 S.Ct., 2382, 2394, N14, 2395-2397, 1982; "City of Cleburne
vs. Cleburne Living Center," 473 U.S. 432, 440-441, 105 S.Ct., 3249,
3254- 55, 87 LED P2D, 313, 1985; restated also in "Jantz vs. Muci,"
March 29, 1991, 759 Fed. Supp. 1543.)"
quoted from
"http://campus.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc-toc.html"
--
*********************************************************
The 2 second gospel: Therefore, if the Son makes you free,
you shall be free indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin buddyb...@hotmail.com ICQ# 18014594
********************** John 8:36 **************************
James Doemer
Buddy Beaudoin wrote in message <360F6660...@yahoo.com>...
>"The first question we must consider is this: Do gays, as a group linked
>solely by shared sexual behavior (or alleged desire), warrant protected
>class
>status by any criteria which have given that status to legitimate ethnic
>groups? Historically, courts and civil rights authorities have employed
>three
>"touchstones," in awarding protected class status to groups of people
>who...
>
> 1.As an entire class have suffered a history of social oppression
>evidenced by lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate
> education, or cultural opportunity.
> 2.As an entire class exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing
>characteristics, like race, color, gender or national origin, that
>define
> them as a discrete group.
> 3.As an entire class clearly demonstrate political powerlessness.
Buddy, you're still singing the same old tired song... The majority of
gays are not
asking for "protected class status", only equal rights and protections under
the law.
Mike Silverman
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[ garbage ]
One cite:
Romer v Evans
I'm just going to keep posting this cite till you at least try to address
it. I suggest others do the same whenever Buddy falls into his rather
ignorant "legal" mode.
--
Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
http://www.turnleft.com/personal
Buddy Beaudoin
Homosexuals already have equal rights and protections afforded all its
citizens. If they don't want "protected civil rights status", then why all the
fuss concerning Amendment 2 in Colorado? All Amendment 2 was a declaration by
the citizens of the state of Colorado that they did not recognize homosexuals
as a group as one with protected civil rights status.
--
********************************************************************
The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin buddyb...@hotmail.com ICQ#
18014594
************************** John 8:36 ********************************
Rev. Billy
>Homosexuals already have equal rights and protections afforded all its
>citizens. If they don't want "protected civil rights status", then why all the
>fuss concerning Amendment 2 in Colorado? All Amendment 2 was a declaration by
>the citizens of the state of Colorado that they did not recognize homosexuals
>as a group as one with protected civil rights status.
It was struck down by the Supreme Court, as it was attempting to ban
EQUAL rights. And that EVERYONE has protected civil rights. No State,
nor the Federal Government, or Religious Fanatic has any RIGHT to deny
anyone else their rights.
When Cubby Checker said "twist again" he didn't mean the truth
Buddy....
The Crotchety Buddy Beaudoin, with "termites in his smile" and "garlic
in his soul". http://www.risqilly.org/budlite/
James Doemer
>> citizens. If they don't want "protected civil rights status", then why
all the
>> fuss concerning Amendment 2 in Colorado? All Amendment 2 was a
declaration by
>> the citizens of the state of Colorado that they did not recognize
homosexuals
>> as a group as one with protected civil rights status.
Sorry, but Homosexuals do not have equal rights and protections, as yet.
Go and read
Colorado's "Amendment 2". Your assertion is ludicrous.
Scruffy van Piebles
wrote:
>
>Homosexuals already have equal rights and protections afforded all its
>citizens. If they don't want "protected civil rights status", then why all the
>fuss concerning Amendment 2 in Colorado? All Amendment 2 was a declaration by
>the citizens of the state of Colorado that they did not recognize homosexuals
>as a group as one with protected civil rights status.
>
Wrong, Bud. That's not "all" that Amendment 2 in Colorado was. The
practical effects of Amendment 2--known beforehand by its
proponents--were, among other things, to overturn almost every local
equal rights law in the state, making it legal in some municipalities,
like Boulder, to discriminate against women and people with dark skin
until the laws could be rewritten. It also made it legal for
employers throughout the state to fire anyone on the basis of
perceived, not actual, sexual orientation. Not only did an employer
not have to show that an employee was somehow incompetent or dishonest
or lazy, the employer also was not required to show that the fired
employee was homosexual. The employer only had to say that he
perceived the employee to be homosexual. Amendment 2 then made it
illegal for any court, board or commission to hear the case because it
was being brought forth by reason of legal discrimination against
homosexuality. The employee, even if heterosexual, would never be
given his day in court to "prove" that he was NOT a homosexual!
Do you not see how this could affect you as well? Would you like to
lose your livelihood, your home, your family because someone
dishonestly pretended to perceive you as a homosexual, Bud? The "fuss
concerning Amendment 2" is because it violated EVERY American's
constitutional right to petition the government for redress of
grievances. For instance, suppose I was your landlord and that I
didn't want a "2 Second" Christian living on my property. I wouldn't
be able to evict you because of your religion. Thanks to Amendment 2,
however, I could simply say that I disliked your homosexual lifestyle.
The fact that you are not a homosexual or that you do not live a
homosexual lifestyle would never even enter into it. Because I was
evicting you on the basis of your supposed homosexuality, no court or
state agency would be permitted to hear your complaint against me,
much less grant a stay to the eviction. You would be entirely
powerless to prevent my throwing you out into the street. Is that
really the way you want things to work in this country?
Scruffy
John De Salvio
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> James Doemer wrote:
>
> > Buddy Beaudoin wrote in message <360F6660...@yahoo.com>...
> > >"The first question we must consider is this: Do gays, as a group linked
> > >solely by shared sexual behavior (or alleged desire), warrant protected
> > >class
> > >status by any criteria which have given that status to legitimate ethnic
> > >groups? Historically, courts and civil rights authorities have employed
> > >three
> > >"touchstones," in awarding protected class status to groups of people
> > >who...
> > >
> > > 1.As an entire class have suffered a history of social oppression
> > >evidenced by lack of ability to obtain economic mean income, adequate
> > > education, or cultural opportunity.
> > > 2.As an entire class exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing
> > >characteristics, like race, color, gender or national origin, that
> > >define
> > > them as a discrete group.
> > > 3.As an entire class clearly demonstrate political powerlessness.
> >
> > Buddy, you're still singing the same old tired song... The majority of
> > gays are not
> > asking for "protected class status", only equal rights and protections under
> > the law.
>
> Homosexuals already have equal rights and protections afforded all its
> citizens. If they don't want "protected civil rights status", then why all the
> fuss concerning Amendment 2 in Colorado? All Amendment 2 was a declaration by
> the citizens of the state of Colorado that they did not recognize homosexuals
> as a group as one with protected civil rights status.
Yes?
THEN what happened, Buddy????
SCOTUS shot Amendment 2, and you, down.
What a maroon.
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net
Mike Silverman
> All Amendment 2 was a declaration by
> the citizens of the state of Colorado that they did not recognize homosexuals
> as a group as one with protected civil rights status.
And they were shot down hard by the US Supreme Court.
Deal with it, bigot.
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <36103E2C...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > All Amendment 2 was a declaration by
> > the citizens of the state of Colorado that they did not recognize homosexuals
> > as a group as one with protected civil rights status.
>
> And they were shot down hard by the US Supreme Court.
Just shows you that some branches of government don't care what the will of the
people want, and cater to special interest groups instead.
I'll send a few stone masons to Washington immediately.....Let's see...how does it
go.....
"Government of the special interest groups, for the special interest groups and
by the special interest groups."
Mike Silverman
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mike Silverman wrote:
>
> > In article <36103E2C...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > All Amendment 2 was a declaration by
> > > the citizens of the state of Colorado that they did not recognize
homosexuals
> > > as a group as one with protected civil rights status.
> >
> > And they were shot down hard by the US Supreme Court.
>
> Just shows you that some branches of government don't care what the will
of the
> people want, and cater to special interest groups instead.
Ever heard of checks and balances?
In the case of Romer v Evans, the system worked.
Rev. Billy
>Just shows you that some branches of government don't care what the will of the
>people want, and cater to special interest groups instead.
>go.....
> "Government of the special interest groups, for the special interest groups and
>by the special interest groups."
But Buddy, Xtian Fundies are a *special interest* group! Thank God we
are protected against you!
BuddyLite A REAL Hate Monger !Buddy Beaudoin!
(A Snake Eggs and Spam page)
http://www.risqilly.org/budlite/
James Doemer
Buddy Beaudoin wrote in message <36115FEB...@yahoo.com>...
>Mike Silverman wrote:
>
>> In article <36103E2C...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
>> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > All Amendment 2 was a declaration by
>> > the citizens of the state of Colorado that they did not recognize
homosexuals
>> > as a group as one with protected civil rights status.
>>
>> And they were shot down hard by the US Supreme Court.
>
the
>people want, and cater to special interest groups instead.
Buddy, you're still singing the same stale song.... Listen close....
Civil Rights are not
subject to the will of the mob.... You can no more vote to remove
people's civil rights
than you can vote to murder someone, or rob someone's home..
>
>I'll send a few stone masons to Washington immediately.....Let's see...how
does it
>go.....
> "Government of the special interest groups, for the special interest
groups and
>by the special interest groups."
>
>--
>********************************************************************
Wah! Shame of it is, it's not your special interest group.. The religious
right....
JayTeeFL
In article <36105D8D...@hotmail.com>, Ron Nicholson <r...@hotmail.com>
addresses the buddy thing:
>What is truely sad is that you believe this crud.
hang around a bit, ron. the buddy thing has all sorts of wierd and strange
theories it presents as fact. and that doesn't even include the outright lies
that it refuses to recant even when presented with direct evidence of the
contrary.
the buddy thing is amongst the least amusing trolls on usenet. you'll get
bored with it soon.
prince jace <---- thinks the buddy thing read too much joseph goebbels, and
continues to believe if it repeats its lies often enough that they will become
"truth"
http://members.aol.com/jayteefl/
"we're one, but we're not the same...we get to carry each other..."
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <36105D8D...@hotmail.com>, Ron Nicholson <r...@hotmail.com>
> addresses the buddy thing:
>
> >What is truely sad is that you believe this crud.
>
> hang around a bit, ron. the buddy thing has all sorts of wierd and strange
> theories it presents as fact. and that doesn't even include the outright lies
> that it refuses to recant even when presented with direct evidence of the
> contrary.
>
> the buddy thing is amongst the least amusing trolls on usenet. you'll get
> bored with it soon.
>
> prince jace <---- thinks the buddy thing read too much joseph goebbels, and
> continues to believe if it repeats its lies often enough that they will become
> "truth"
The only group that is akin to the Nazi movement and its propaganda machine of
the early thirties is the militant homosexual movement of the past thirty years.
--
********************************************************************
Mike Silverman
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> JayTeeFL wrote:
>
> > In article <36105D8D...@hotmail.com>, Ron Nicholson <r...@hotmail.com>
> > addresses the buddy thing:
> >
> > >What is truely sad is that you believe this crud.
> >
> > hang around a bit, ron. the buddy thing has all sorts of wierd and strange
> > theories it presents as fact. and that doesn't even include the
outright lies
> > that it refuses to recant even when presented with direct evidence of the
> > contrary.
> >
> > the buddy thing is amongst the least amusing trolls on usenet. you'll get
> > bored with it soon.
> >
> > prince jace <---- thinks the buddy thing read too much joseph goebbels, and
> > continues to believe if it repeats its lies often enough that they
will become
> > "truth"
>
> The only group that is akin to the Nazi movement and its propaganda machine of
> the early thirties is the militant homosexual movement of the past
thirty years.
>
Actually, the so-called "Christian Right" has a lot in common with the
Nazi movement. Both groups are based on hate, and both have in their goals
first the elimination of the civil rights of unpopular minorities, and
then harsher measures once power is achieved.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>Mike Silverman wrote:
>
>> In article <36103E2C...@yahoo.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
>> <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > All Amendment 2 was a declaration by
>> > the citizens of the state of Colorado that they did not recognize homosexuals
>> > as a group as one with protected civil rights status.
>>
>> And they were shot down hard by the US Supreme Court.
>
>Just shows you that some branches of government don't care what the will of the
>people want, and cater to special interest groups instead.
>
>I'll send a few stone masons to Washington immediately.....Let's see...how does it
>go.....
> "Government of the special interest groups, for the special interest groups and
>by the special interest groups."
There are two inescapable flaws in the above nonsense -
First, the assumption that fundy nut-cases are, somehow, NOT a special
rights group.
Second, and this is the most poisonous, the assumption that
homosexuals are not "people."
ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that in any
harmless matter he is FREE to act as he will. He is NOT to be
restricted by prejudices and animosity amongst his neighbors --
if THEY wish to restrain him from his freedom, THEY must
demonstrate the public interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Allen James
<joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The only group that is akin to the Nazi movement and its propaganda machine of
> the early thirties is the militant homosexual movement of the past
thirty years.
>
You are either being deliberately stupid, or you are in dire need of
psychoactive medication.
What, been reading "The Protocols of the Elders of Zi....."(Oops, I mean
"The Pink Triangle". Sorry, wrong bit of defamatory propaganda. They all
sort of sound alike, after a while....) again? Really gets you all hot and
bothered, don't it? All those big, strong, blond homosexuals in
uniforms..... It's pornography, and BORING pornography, at that.
How on EARTH do you equate a movement to ensure equality for ALL citizens
regardless of sexual orientation with a movement dedicated to ERADICATING
anyone who didn't fit the preferred racial stereotype? Please, Mr.
Beaudoin, explain to me how I am a fucking Neo-Nazi. Or, you could always
try to act like the honest man you wish you were, and admit that you're
dead-out WRONG.... again.
Allen James
%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%*%
"To judge by the notions expounded by most theologians,
one must conclude that God created most men simply with
a view to crowding Hell."
Marquis de Sade
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>JayTeeFL wrote:
>
>> In article <36105D8D...@hotmail.com>, Ron Nicholson <r...@hotmail.com>
>> addresses the buddy thing:
>>
>> >What is truely sad is that you believe this crud.
>>
>> hang around a bit, ron. the buddy thing has all sorts of wierd and strange
>> theories it presents as fact. and that doesn't even include the outright lies
>> that it refuses to recant even when presented with direct evidence of the
>> contrary.
>>
>> the buddy thing is amongst the least amusing trolls on usenet. you'll get
>> bored with it soon.
>>
>> prince jace <---- thinks the buddy thing read too much joseph goebbels, and
>> continues to believe if it repeats its lies often enough that they will become
>> "truth"
>
>The only group that is akin to the Nazi movement and its propaganda machine of
>the early thirties is the militant homosexual movement of the past thirty years.
Oh YES! Those liberal Nazis were struggling continually with quesitons
of advancing the cause of human rights, democracy, and the cause of
justice.
try again!
Steve Caldwell
-snip-
> The only group that is akin to the Nazi movement and its propaganda machine of
> the early thirties is the militant homosexual movement of the past thirty
> years.
Buddy,
Nazis wanted to eradicate homosexuals and homosexuality in the
concentration camps. Modern homosexual political movements want equal
rights and treatment before the law. Perhaps you can explain how two
movements with diametrically opposed goals are somehow "akin"?
Steve
--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Steve Caldwell
srca...@iamerica.net http://cust.iamerica.net/srcaldwe
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare."
--Blair Houghton
Buddy Beaudoin
> Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Homosexuals already have equal rights and protections afforded all its
> >citizens. If they don't want "protected civil rights status", then why all the
> >fuss concerning Amendment 2 in Colorado? All Amendment 2 was a declaration by
> >the citizens of the state of Colorado that they did not recognize homosexuals
> >as a group as one with protected civil rights status.
>
> It was struck down by the Supreme Court, as it was attempting to ban
> EQUAL rights. And that EVERYONE has protected civil rights. No State,
> nor the Federal Government, or Religious Fanatic has any RIGHT to deny
> anyone else their rights.
There is no wording in Colorado's Amendment 2 that speaks of banning any rights of
anybody.
>
>
> When Cubby Checker said "twist again" he didn't mean the truth
> Buddy....
When you point that finger, remember that there are four pointing back.
Sheeesh....I forgot, it's a fist in your case.
>
>
> The Crotchety Buddy Beaudoin, with "termites in his smile" and "garlic
> in his soul". http://www.risqilly.org/budlite/
Buddy Beaudoin
> On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 16:08:06 -0500, Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >JayTeeFL wrote:
> >
> >> In article <36105D8D...@hotmail.com>, Ron Nicholson <r...@hotmail.com>
> >> addresses the buddy thing:
> >>
> >> >What is truely sad is that you believe this crud.
> >>
> >> hang around a bit, ron. the buddy thing has all sorts of wierd and strange
> >> theories it presents as fact. and that doesn't even include the outright lies
> >> that it refuses to recant even when presented with direct evidence of the
> >> contrary.
> >>
> >> the buddy thing is amongst the least amusing trolls on usenet. you'll get
> >> bored with it soon.
> >>
> >> prince jace <---- thinks the buddy thing read too much joseph goebbels, and
> >> continues to believe if it repeats its lies often enough that they will become
> >> "truth"
> >
> >The only group that is akin to the Nazi movement and its propaganda machine of
> >the early thirties is the militant homosexual movement of the past thirty years.
>
> Oh YES! Those liberal Nazis were struggling continually with quesitons
> of advancing the cause of human rights, democracy, and the cause of
> justice.
Tell me another good story and I will be sure that you receive a good "sheepskin"
[Pun intended]
The only things that the homosexuals really want yo advance is their own agendas.
And they do this by riding in on the backs of legal protected minorities. Ya
know....I've never seen (or heard of) a Gay Pride parade in an African-American
neighborhood. They would need an armored division to protect them.
Buddy Beaudoin
> What is truely sad is that you believe this crud.
In your mind, anything against the promotion of same-sex sexual behavior is "crud".
Mike Silverman
<buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There is no wording in Colorado's Amendment 2 that speaks of banning any
rights of
> anybody.
"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies
homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but
to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado
cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a
stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal
Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme
Court of Colorado is affirmed."
-United States Supreme Court
Mike Silverman
<buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The only things that the homosexuals really want yo advance is their own
agendas.
Yeah, you know, stuff like equality under the law...radical shit.
> And they do this by riding in on the backs of legal protected minorities. Ya
> know....I've never seen (or heard of) a Gay Pride parade in an
African-American
> neighborhood. They would need an armored division to protect them.
Most of the "blacks on the street" who are politically involved favor
equal rights for gays. The leadership of the civil rights movement is in
favor of equal rights for gays. You lack of understanding about race is as
bad as you lack of understanding about homosexuality. But then again, you
you are equally bigoted against both blacks and gays, so this is of no
surprise.
J. Northwood
<buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>There is no wording in Colorado's Amendment 2 that speaks of banning any rights of
>anybody.
http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/top/052096/topstory_1587.html
You should read it some time.
Amendment 2 made it _illegal_ to have laws against discrimination
w/r/t sexual orientation. It was _against the law_ to say that (x)
did not discriminate based on (religion/race/age &cet) and sexual
orientation.
I know you're pathologically incapable of anything approaching
honesty, but this is a little blatant even for you.
J. Northwood
<buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The only things that the homosexuals really want yo advance is their own agendas.
>And they do this by riding in on the backs of legal protected minorities. Ya
>know....I've never seen (or heard of) a Gay Pride parade in an African-American
>neighborhood.
You don't pay attention, then, do you?
Mike Silverman
<buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Nicholson wrote:
>
> > What is truely sad is that you believe this crud.
>
> In your mind, anything against the promotion of same-sex sexual behavior
is "crud".
Actually, the preferred term isn't "crud" rather it is "bigotry"
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <3616F651...@hotmail.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The only things that the homosexuals really want yo advance is their own
> agendas.
>
> Yeah, you know, stuff like equality under the law...radical shit.
>
> > And they do this by riding in on the backs of legal protected minorities. Ya
> > know....I've never seen (or heard of) a Gay Pride parade in an
> African-American
> > neighborhood. They would need an armored division to protect them.
>
> Most of the "blacks on the street" who are politically involved favor
> equal rights for gays. The leadership of the civil rights movement is in
> favor of equal rights for gays. You lack of understanding about race is as
> bad as you lack of understanding about homosexuality. But then again, you
> you are equally bigoted against both blacks and gays, so this is of no
> surprise.
Prove it....next year parade in Bedford-Styvesant and Harlem.
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <3616E9FE...@hotmail.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There is no wording in Colorado's Amendment 2 that speaks of banning any
> rights of
> > anybody.
>
> "We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies
> homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but
> to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado
> cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a
> stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal
> Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme
> Court of Colorado is affirmed."
>
> -United States Supreme Court
And just why didn't you quote the entire text of Amendment 2, Mike? It's
because what I said was true and you so desparately trying to keep walking in
denial.
Allen James
<buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ya
> know....I've never seen (or heard of) a Gay Pride parade in an
African-American
> neighborhood. They would need an armored division to protect them.
>
What, EXACTLY, are you saying? Do you believe that African-Americans are
more violent than whites, Buddy? More crime-prone? Do tell us what you
meant by the above.....
Mike Silverman
<buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mike Silverman wrote:
>
> > In article <3616F651...@hotmail.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The only things that the homosexuals really want yo advance is their own
> > agendas.
> >
> > Yeah, you know, stuff like equality under the law...radical shit.
> >
> > > And they do this by riding in on the backs of legal protected
minorities. Ya
> > > know....I've never seen (or heard of) a Gay Pride parade in an
> > African-American
> > > neighborhood. They would need an armored division to protect them.
> >
> > Most of the "blacks on the street" who are politically involved favor
> > equal rights for gays. The leadership of the civil rights movement is in
> > favor of equal rights for gays. You lack of understanding about race is as
> > bad as you lack of understanding about homosexuality. But then again, you
> > you are equally bigoted against both blacks and gays, so this is of no
> > surprise.
>
> Prove it....next year parade in Bedford-Styvesant and Harlem.
Sure, right after the St. Patricks Day Parade is held in Bedford-Sty.
And how about the Cinco De Mayo day parade in Greenwich Village, too as
long as we are at it?
For that matter, how about you walk by yourself in Harlem and see how long
you would last. A nice white bigot like you.
What a dipshit.
Mike Silverman
<buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Mike Silverman wrote:
>
> > In article <3616E9FE...@hotmail.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There is no wording in Colorado's Amendment 2 that speaks of banning any
> > rights of
> > > anybody.
> >
> > "We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies
> > homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but
> > to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado
> > cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a
> > stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal
> > Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme
> > Court of Colorado is affirmed."
> >
> > -United States Supreme Court
>
> And just why didn't you quote the entire text of Amendment 2, Mike?
Because I couldn't easily find it online. Why don't you quote it if you
have it handy?
I think the Supreme Court's judgement speaks for itself.
John Rutledge
J. Northwood <jmno...@gte.uce_is_icky.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 22:22:45 -0500, Buddy Beaudoin
><buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>There is no wording in Colorado's Amendment 2 that speaks of banning any rights of
>>anybody.
>
>
>You should read it some time.
>
>Amendment 2 made it _illegal_ to have laws against discrimination
>w/r/t sexual orientation. It was _against the law_ to say that (x)
>did not discriminate based on (religion/race/age &cet) and sexual
>orientation.
Not exactly. Amendment 2 did not use the phrase "sexual orientation."
Amendment 2 was not neutral on the basis of sexual orientation. In
fact, it created a special rights for heterosexuals. It only made it
illegal to have anti-discrimination laws against "lesbian, gays, and
bisexuals." It left open the possibility of having anti-
descrimination laws for heterosexuals. This creation of two groups
of citizens (one being lesbians, gays, and bisexuals; the other
heterosexuals) and treating them differently (in the guise of
removing "special rights" no less) is why the US Supreme Court
stuck it down. Amendment 2 created two classes of citizens with
differing access to the political process without the justfication
required under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.
Now, if the the people of Colorado really wanted to ban anti-
descrimination laws based on sexual orientation, that would be
constitutional. But the fact the supporters of Amendment 2 did
not immediately jump at this obvious correction to Amendment 2
indicates that they had purpose of creating special rights for
heterosexuals all along. The whole "remove special rights for
homosexuals" campaign was really to create special rights for
heterosexuals. These special rights were to be created by
removing a right, petitioning for anti-descrimination laws, from
one group while leaving it intact for another.
>I know you're pathologically incapable of anything approaching
>honesty, but this is a little blatant even for you.
Oh yess, Buddy. I remember my last debate with him. He made a
cliam. I asked for support. He provided "support" but it actaully
contradicted his original cliam (and added support for my counter
claim.) When I pointed out this contradiction, he immediately
distanced himself from his support.
Based on this and other debates with Buddy, he will never back
down from his unsupportable, and easily contradicted, claim that
Colorado Amendment 2 did not take away rights.
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| | "If only it were a modern document, with |
| John Lawrence Rutledge | a smart index and hyper links stretching |
| Research Assistant | all through the world data net. It was |
| Distributed Multimedia | terribly frustrating to flip back and |
| Systems Lab | forth between the pages and crude flat |
| Computer Science Department | illustrations that never even moved. Nor |
| UMass - Lowell | were there animated arrows or zoom-ins. |
| 1 University Ave. | It completely lacked a feel for sound. |
| Lowell, MA 01854 | "Most baffling of all was the problem |
| | new words... In normal text you'd only |
| | have to touch an unfamiliar word and the |
| jrut...@cs.uml.edu | definition would pop up just below." |
| http://www.cs.uml.edu/~jrutledg | from David Brin's _Earth_ |
+---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
robbie_c
message <3616F651...@hotmail.com>...
>Tell me another good story and I will be sure that you receive a good
"sheepskin"
>[Pun intended]
>
Bad pun, Budster, the condoms are called "lambskins." But we don't use them
anymore because they are more porous than latex, and allow HIV to pass
through.
>The only things that the homosexuals really want yo advance is their own
agendas.
>And they do this by riding in on the backs of legal protected minorities.
Ya
>know....I've never seen (or heard of) a Gay Pride parade in an
African-American
>neighborhood. They would need an armored division to protect them.
>
You amaze me, Butty, you really do. Allen James and others have been making
mincemeat of your biblical-based rants, yet you come back, again and again,
and demonstrate your profound ignorance of the lives of gay people in the
United States.
Now, it's my turn.
So you've never seen (or heard of) a Gay Pride parade in an African-American
neighborhood? Well, Bud, this is your lucky day! You are actually going to
learn something!
Saturday, July 11, 1998, was a beautiful sunny day in the South Bronx (yes,
THE South Bronx!) Just imagine, Budster, all those colored folks. Puerto
Ricans, blacks, Dominicans, Haitians. Those people.
A perfect day for the Bronx Gay Pride parade. Spectators lined the Grand
Concourse as the parade made it's way down to the Bronx County building at
161st Street. The Building was draped with a large rainbow flag. The Borough
President (who is Puerto Rican) marched the entire length of the parade
route. Joyce Kilmer park was filled with gay people setting up tables. A
thoroughly delightful day.
Oh, and by the way, the police made no arrests for disorderly conduct or
assault. Or for any crime related to the parade.
robbie
A long time Bronx resident
--
------- bdcp...@epic.prodigy.net ------ [bruce c] ------
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/n/y/c/nycrobbie/nycrobbie.html
[Legitimate e-mailers: remove 'epic' from my address]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If God is telling us he can't do anything about starving kids in
the Sudan but he has the time and energy to make gay people
straight, then God is one hurting buckaroo."
---------------------Colin McEnroe
>Ward Stewart wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 16:08:06 -0500, Buddy Beaudoin <joh...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >JayTeeFL wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <36105D8D...@hotmail.com>, Ron Nicholson
<r...@hotmail.com>
>> >> addresses the buddy thing:
>> >>
>> >> >What is truely sad is that you believe this crud.
>> >>
>> >> hang around a bit, ron. the buddy thing has all sorts of wierd and
strange
>> >> theories it presents as fact. and that doesn't even include the
outright lies
>> >> that it refuses to recant even when presented with direct evidence of
the
>> >> contrary.
>> >>
>> >> the buddy thing is amongst the least amusing trolls on usenet. you'll
get
>> >> bored with it soon.
>> >>
>> >> prince jace <---- thinks the buddy thing read too much joseph
goebbels, and
>> >> continues to believe if it repeats its lies often enough that they
will become
>> >> "truth"
>> >
>> >The only group that is akin to the Nazi movement and its propaganda
machine of
>> >the early thirties is the militant homosexual movement of the past
thirty years.
>>
>> Oh YES! Those liberal Nazis were struggling continually with quesitons
>> of advancing the cause of human rights, democracy, and the cause of
>> justice.
>
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <3617FEDB...@hotmail.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Mike Silverman wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3616F651...@hotmail.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > > <buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The only things that the homosexuals really want yo advance is their own
> > > agendas.
> > >
> > > Yeah, you know, stuff like equality under the law...radical shit.
> > >
> > > > And they do this by riding in on the backs of legal protected
> minorities. Ya
> > > > know....I've never seen (or heard of) a Gay Pride parade in an
> > > African-American
> > > > neighborhood. They would need an armored division to protect them.
> > >
> > > Most of the "blacks on the street" who are politically involved favor
> > > equal rights for gays. The leadership of the civil rights movement is in
> > > favor of equal rights for gays. You lack of understanding about race is as
> > > bad as you lack of understanding about homosexuality. But then again, you
> > > you are equally bigoted against both blacks and gays, so this is of no
> > > surprise.
> >
> > Prove it....next year parade in Bedford-Styvesant and Harlem.
>
> Sure, right after the St. Patricks Day Parade is held in Bedford-Sty.
> And how about the Cinco De Mayo day parade in Greenwich Village, too as
> long as we are at it?
>
> For that matter, how about you walk by yourself in Harlem and see how long
> you would last. A nice white bigot like you.
>
> What a dipshit.
Whjat wa the name of that city where the people boycotted the parade. A parade
with no one to watch. Gee, maybe you can get some of the police to round up the
people and make them watch. A mass sensitivity activity.
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <3616F651...@hotmail.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> <buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ya
> > know....I've never seen (or heard of) a Gay Pride parade in an
> African-American
> > neighborhood. They would need an armored division to protect them.
> >
>
> What, EXACTLY, are you saying? Do you believe that African-Americans are
> more violent than whites, Buddy? More crime-prone? Do tell us what you
> meant by the above.....
Another eisegesist. I'm impressed. I implied nothing concerning violence.
I just want to know why Gay Pride Parades aren't held in African-American
neighborhoods. How about Port-au-Princel, Jamaica then?? I know....you
guys are overseas travelers. How about Tehran??
Mike Silverman
<buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Whjat wa the name of that city where the people boycotted the parade. A
parade
> with no one to watch. Gee, maybe you can get some of the police to round
up the
> people and make them watch. A mass sensitivity activity.
A translation of the above to English would be appreciated.
Mike Silverman
<buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I just want to know why Gay Pride Parades aren't held in African-American
> neighborhoods. How about Port-au-Princel, Jamaica then?? I know....you
> guys are overseas travelers. How about Tehran??
We were going to have a big gay pride parade in Tehran, but we decided not
to after seeing what happened to the Christian Coalition convention their.
Buddy Beaudoin
John Rutledge wrote:
> In article <6v77i4$2aq$8...@news-2.news.gte.net>,
> J. Northwood <jmno...@gte.uce_is_icky.net> wrote:
> >On Sat, 03 Oct 1998 22:22:45 -0500, Buddy Beaudoin
> ><buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>There is no wording in Colorado's Amendment 2 that speaks of banning any rights of
> >>anybody.
> >
> >http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/top/052096/topstory_1587.html
> >
> >You should read it some time.
Doggone it, Rutledge.....I thought you had copy of Amendment 2. I wonder if the homos
have obliterated all copies from the web? I'll find one yet.
Colorado Amendment 2 was a statement of the citizens of Colorado that they did not
recognize homosexuals as a legal protected civil rights group. It is nothing more than
a "political special interest group" running around attempting to convince all that
they need rights, which the Constitution already affords them. There never was a time
when any part of the Constitution was denied them. As a group, they do not meet the
criteria which identifies them as a group which needs Constiutional assistance.
>
>
> +---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
> | | "If only it were a modern document, with |
> | John Lawrence Rutledge | a smart index and hyper links stretching |
> | Research Assistant | all through the world data net. It was |
> | Distributed Multimedia | terribly frustrating to flip back and |
> | Systems Lab | forth between the pages and crude flat |
> | Computer Science Department | illustrations that never even moved. Nor |
> | UMass - Lowell | were there animated arrows or zoom-ins. |
> | 1 University Ave. | It completely lacked a feel for sound. |
> | Lowell, MA 01854 | "Most baffling of all was the problem |
> | | new words... In normal text you'd only |
> | | have to touch an unfamiliar word and the |
> | jrut...@cs.uml.edu | definition would pop up just below." |
> | http://www.cs.uml.edu/~jrutledg | from David Brin's _Earth_ |
> +---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
Allen James
> Allen James wrote:
>
> > In article <3616F651...@hotmail.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ya
> > > know....I've never seen (or heard of) a Gay Pride parade in an
> > African-American
> > > neighborhood. They would need an armored division to protect them.
> > >
> >
> > What, EXACTLY, are you saying? Do you believe that African-Americans are
> > more violent than whites, Buddy? More crime-prone? Do tell us what you
> > meant by the above.....
>
> Another eisegesist. I'm impressed. I implied nothing concerning violence.
>
> I just want to know why Gay Pride Parades aren't held in African-American
> neighborhoods. How about Port-au-Princel, Jamaica then?? I know....you
> guys are overseas travelers. How about Tehran??
>
Coward. Your OWN WORDS show you to be a bare-faced liar, Neighbor
Beaudoin. Read what you wrote, and admit what you meant by it, coward. Or
should I say, SISSY.
I'm a white homosexual, and I do not deny it. I live in a working-class
MEXICAN/AFRICAN AMERICAN neighborhood. I get along with my neighbors just
fine. They've got no reason whatsoever to dislike me, as I am a damn good
neighbor and am always ready to lend a hand when needed.
Oh, and given your own yearnings for a theocratic society, Teheran is more
your speed than mine.
Mike Silverman
<buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Colorado Amendment 2 was a statement of the citizens of Colorado that
they did not
> recognize homosexuals as a legal protected civil rights group. It is
nothing more than
> a "political special interest group" running around attempting to
convince all that
> they need rights, which the Constitution already affords them. There
never was a time
> when any part of the Constitution was denied them. As a group, they do
not meet the
> criteria which identifies them as a group which needs Constiutional
assistance.
>
So do you have any actual evidence to back up your wild assertions?!?!
Like, say, the text of Amendment 2?
J. Northwood
<buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Doggone it, Rutledge.....I thought you had copy of Amendment 2. I wonder if the homos
>have obliterated all copies from the web? I'll find one yet.
=============================
Amendment [*3] 2 provides:
No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual
Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its
branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political
subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt
or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby
homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle
any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status
quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This
Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.
=============================
"Or claim of discrimination".
According to the supporters, employers should have the right to fire
homosexuals with impunity, and apartment owners should have the right
to evict and/or not rent with impunity.
That's not equality, Budster.
>Colorado Amendment 2 was a statement of the citizens of Colorado that they did not
>recognize homosexuals as a legal protected civil rights group. It is nothing more than
>a "political special interest group" running around attempting to convince all that
>they need rights, which the Constitution already affords them. There never was a time
>when any part of the Constitution was denied them. As a group, they do not meet the
>criteria which identifies them as a group which needs Constiutional assistance.
So it would be okay if we removed the "special rights" that churches
and Christians enjoy -- start taxing the churches, and fire the
Christians because of their religious beliefs?
After all, if they _really_ wanted a job, they could always convert.
John De Salvio
<buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Allen James wrote:
>
> > In article <3616F651...@hotmail.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> > <buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ya
> > > know....I've never seen (or heard of) a Gay Pride parade in an
> > African-American
> > > neighborhood. They would need an armored division to protect them.
> > >
> >
> > What, EXACTLY, are you saying? Do you believe that African-Americans are
> > more violent than whites, Buddy? More crime-prone? Do tell us what you
> > meant by the above.....
>
> Another eisegesist. I'm impressed. I implied nothing concerning violence.
>
> I just want to know why Gay Pride Parades aren't held in African-American
> neighborhoods. How about Port-au-Princel, Jamaica then?? I know....you
> guys are overseas travelers. How about Tehran??
How about a Christian Pride parade in Tehran?
That ought to go over big...
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net
John Rutledge
Buddy Beaudoin <buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Colorado Amendment 2 was a statement of the citizens of Colorado that they did not
>recognize homosexuals as a legal protected civil rights group. It is nothing more than
>a "political special interest group" running around attempting to convince all that
>they need rights, which the Constitution already affords them. There never was a time
>when any part of the Constitution was denied them. As a group, they do not meet the
>criteria which identifies them as a group which needs Constiutional assistance.
The problem is that it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's
equal protection clause to single out a group of citizens and say
that group can never be a legally protected civil rights group. The
very act of identifying homosexauls citizens as different than
heterosexual citizens is the very heart of the problem. If the
poeple of Colorado don't want homosexauls to be a legally protected
civil rights group, they must also state that heterosexuals cannot
be a legally protected civil rights group. Equality must be
maintained across all groups of citizens under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
It is just as unconstitutional to state that whites cannot be a
legally protected civil rights group. This is why civil rights
use the word "race" instead of "non-whites." The Fourteenth
Amendment forces legislatures to protect whites and non-whites
equally even though its only really non-whites that need the
protection. Similarly, for the people of Colorado to keep
homosexuals from becoming a legally protected civil rights group,
they must also deny similar civil rights protections to non-
homosexuals even though no one is trying to non-homosexuals such
protection.
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>In article <3616F651...@hotmail.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
><buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The only things that the homosexuals really want yo advance is their own
>agendas.
>
>
>Yeah, you know, stuff like equality under the law...radical shit.
>
>> And they do this by riding in on the backs of legal protected minorities. Ya
>> know....I've never seen (or heard of) a Gay Pride parade in an
>African-American
>> neighborhood. They would need an armored division to protect them.
>
>Most of the "blacks on the street" who are politically involved favor
>equal rights for gays. The leadership of the civil rights movement is in
>favor of equal rights for gays. You lack of understanding about race is as
>bad as you lack of understanding about homosexuality. But then again, you
>you are equally bigoted against both blacks and gays, so this is of no
>surprise.
His ignorance, like his malice, is "not so wide as a gate nor so deep
as a well," but it will suffice --
Here in Honolulu Gays AND Blacks sit on the committees of the
Gay-rights groups AND the Black-rights groups -- we share in and
participate in each other's parades, petitioning and demonstrations --
it is CLEARLY recognized that we have common cause against the forces
of dark hatred.
ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"The default condition for a citizen in our republic is that in any
harmless matter he is FREE to act as he will. He is NOT to be
restricted by prejudices and animosity amongst his neighbors --
if THEY wish to restrain him from his freedom, THEY must
demonstrate the public interest in so restricting him."
Uncle Ward
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
JayTeeFL
In article <wfoneybj-ya0240800...@news.aa.net>, wfon...@nn.arg
(Jeff Barlow) writes:
>> A translation of the above to English would be appreciated.
>
>Translating Budstereeze to English is kind of like converting dry ice to
>its gaseous state.
actually, this makes some sense. the buddy thing's rantings are best
understood when compared to noxious gases.
prince jace <--- has no idea if the gaseous form of dry ice even has a scent,
but the buddy thing's opinions reek to high heaven.
http://members.aol.com/jayteefl/
"we're one, but we're not the same...we get to carry each other..."
JayTeeFL
In article <cubsfan-0510...@port415.cjnetworks.com>,
cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman) writes:
>In article <36193C5A...@hotmail.com>, the buddy thing
><buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Whjat wa the name of that city where the people boycotted the parade. A
>parade
>> with no one to watch. Gee, maybe you can get some of the police to round
>up the
>> people and make them watch. A mass sensitivity activity.
>
>
>A translation of the above to English would be appreciated.
sorry, mike, i don't have a delusional fanatic-to-english dictionary.
prince jace <---- sometimes takes the low road.
L. Michael Roberts
>
> In article <wfoneybj-ya0240800...@news.aa.net>, wfon...@nn.arg
> (Jeff Barlow) writes:
>
> >
> >its gaseous state.
>
> actually, this makes some sense. the buddy thing's rantings are best
> understood when compared to noxious gases.
>
> prince jace <--- has no idea if the gaseous form of dry ice even has a scent,
> but the buddy thing's opinions reek to high heaven.
CO2 is ouderless, colourless and tasteless... the latter is very much
in keeping with the Blowhard's and the sapling's posts....
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my E-ddress
"Life is a sexualy transmitted, terminal, condition"
+==================================================================+
Buddy Beaudoin
> In article <36195DF5...@hotmail.com>,
> Buddy Beaudoin <buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Colorado Amendment 2 was a statement of the citizens of Colorado that they did not
> >recognize homosexuals as a legal protected civil rights group. It is nothing more than
> >a "political special interest group" running around attempting to convince all that
> >they need rights, which the Constitution already affords them. There never was a time
> >when any part of the Constitution was denied them. As a group, they do not meet the
> >criteria which identifies them as a group which needs Constiutional assistance.
>
> The problem is that it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's
> equal protection clause to single out a group of citizens and say
> that group can never be a legally protected civil rights group.
Once again, as an group, they do not meet the criteria established by the courts in
determining suspect protected civil rights status.
> The
> very act of identifying homosexauls citizens as different than
> heterosexual citizens is the very heart of the problem.
The homosexuals are the ones who have established themselves as a separate identifiable
entity. Heterosexuals have not done this to them.
> If the
> poeple of Colorado don't want homosexauls to be a legally protected
> civil rights group, they must also state that heterosexuals cannot
> be a legally protected civil rights group.
It isn't a heterosexual/homosexual thing. The people of Colorado have put their foot down
in declaring that they don't recognize this group as a legal rights group.
> Equality must be
> maintained across all groups of citizens under the Fourteenth
> Amendment.
Equality isn't the issue. Protected civil rights status is afforded to those who can prove
that they are consistantly deprived, as an entire group, of social, educational and
economic necessities, because of their benign characteristics, such as skin color or
ethnicity.
Homosexuals merely have to say that they are homosexual. I have never heard of an
African-American having to "prove" who they are. And I have never heard of an
African-American hiding who they are for fear of rejection.
No Mr. Rutledge, homosexuals are attempting, as a special interest group, to ride in on
the back of legal civil rights groups, such as the African-Americans. Why?? For the sole
purpose of getting their sexual proclivites legitimized, and protected, by governmental
law.
--
**************************************************************
The 2 second gospel:Therefore, if the Son makes you free,
you shall be free indeed.
Buddy Beaudoin ICQ# 18014594
*********************** John 8:36 **************************
Mike Silverman
<maw...@goodtimes.com> wrote:
> Once again, as an group, they do not meet the criteria established by
the courts in
> determining suspect protected civil rights status.
I'll take the judgement of the Supreme Court over your uninformed opinion,
thank you very much.
Ron Nicholson
> > The problem is that it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's
> > equal protection clause to single out a group of citizens and say
> > that group can never be a legally protected civil rights group.
>
> Once again, as an group, they do not meet the criteria established by the courts in
> determining suspect protected civil rights status.
>
There is also more than one Amendment that this issue is being fought on, see ya in court?
>
> > The
> > very act of identifying homosexauls citizens as different than
> > heterosexual citizens is the very heart of the problem.
>
> The homosexuals are the ones who have established themselves as a separate identifiable
> entity. Heterosexuals have not done this to them.
>
Are you stark raving mad? I was informed that I was identifiable on many occasion and with
varying degrees of venom based on someone's perception of what gay looked like.
>
> > If the
> > poeple of Colorado don't want homosexauls to be a legally protected
> > civil rights group, they must also state that heterosexuals cannot
> > be a legally protected civil rights group.
>
> It isn't a heterosexual/homosexual thing. The people of Colorado have put their foot down
> in declaring that they don't recognize this group as a legal rights group.
>
> > Equality must be
> > maintained across all groups of citizens under the Fourteenth
> > Amendment.
>
> Equality isn't the issue. Protected civil rights status is afforded to those who can prove
> that they are consistantly deprived, as an entire group, of social, educational and
> economic necessities, because of their benign characteristics, such as skin color or
> ethnicity.
>
Equality is the issue. If you can't write a piece of legislation that includes all members of
society it is unfair and deserves to be challenged.
>
> Homosexuals merely have to say that they are homosexual. I have never heard of an
> African-American having to "prove" who they are. And I have never heard of an
> African-American hiding who they are for fear of rejection.
Hate crimes against Jews have been prosecuted and won when the victim wasn't Jewish. Equality
under the law requires the perception of the offender, not the reality. Frankly, there are
plently of cases of heterosexual men being discriminated against because they fit someone's
definition of a fag. Again, equality protects heterosexuals too.
>
> No Mr. Rutledge, homosexuals are attempting, as a special interest group, to ride in on
> the back of legal civil rights groups, such as the African-Americans. Why?? For the sole
> purpose of getting their sexual proclivites legitimized, and protected, by governmental
> law.
Ya, right. If kissing, hand holding, marriage, oral sex, anal sex, or any other act or action
is legal for a consensual heterosexual (single, commonlaw, or married), give us the reason why
it shouldn't extend to all productive, taxpaying members of that community, state, or country.
Ron Nicholson
the beliefs of a Church that would marry us. This unacceptable. Which is why secular marriage is
important to us.
I don't know where you live, but here I have legal protection againt laws that discriminate based
on orientation -- getting them enforced is tedious.
Exactly the point, that we are not specifically named in legislation makes the constitutional
challenge more difficult. It is, however, the Defence of Marriage Act that does and the instant gay
marriage is legal in any US jurisdiction...guess who'll be going to court.
D.West wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 11:57:33 -0400, Ron Nicholson <r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Ya, right. If kissing, hand holding, marriage, oral sex, anal sex, or any other act or action
> >is legal for a consensual heterosexual (single, commonlaw, or married), give us the reason why
> >it shouldn't extend to all productive, taxpaying members of that community, state, or country.
>
>
> The right to marry is not based on whether one is heterosexual or
> homosexual. It's based on the gender of the persons wishing to have their
> marriage recognized by governmental entities. As we all know the
> requirement is that there be a male and a female married for there to be
> the desired recognition. There are no laws which deny homosexuals of the
> same gender the right marry. In fact you do it all the time. Our laws, like
> those in most of the civilized world do not require the government to
> recognize non-traditional marriage. Where they otherwise it would be
> detrimental to maintaining good order in our society.
>
> Regarding all the other things you mention: "kissing, hand holding, oral
> sex, anal sex, or any other act or action", with one exception you are
> allowed to do those things just as is every heterosexual in America is.
> "While in military service." these acts are justifiably forbidden because
> laws state that in that environment it would be detrimental to discipline
> and good order. Two elements critical to maintaining an effective armed
> force. It might interest you to know that there are a number of other civil
> rights denied a citizen while he or she is a member of the armed forces
> that all other Americans enjoy.
Ezekiel Krahlin
<maw...@goodtimes.com> wrote:
>Once again, as an group, they do not meet the criteria established by the courts in
>determining suspect protected civil rights status.
Wrong. They certainly do...and our courts are finally reaching this
conclusion, having removed their blinders of homophobia. Just as they
once finally removed their blinders of sanctioned slavery.
>The homosexuals are the ones who have established themselves as a separate identifiable
>entity. Heterosexuals have not done this to them.
Wrong again, fool. Centuries of persecution by fanatic heterosexuals
has forced gays to be separate from the rest of society...very much
against their wishes. As a survival mechanism, and as a matter of
pride, we gays have evolved a self identity separate from, and above,
the narrow and bigoted practice called heterocentrism. Throughout
history, most persecuted minorities did not choose to be separated
from mainstream society...but were forced into that situation. Just
like African Amerikans via slavery, and Jews of Europe via
ghettoization...both examples which were the result of centuries of
persecution and stigmatization, same as homosexuals.
>It isn't a heterosexual/homosexual thing. The people of Colorado have put their foot down
>in declaring that they don't recognize this group as a legal rights group.
Yes, they put their collective foot down. Now, they will shoot it.
>Homosexuals merely have to say that they are homosexual. I have never heard of an
>African-American having to "prove" who they are.
That is an issue of skin color...impossible to hide. Therefore,
African-Amerikans had instant proof of who they are, without requiring
any verbal statement.
Homosexuals have no clear, visible identifier as to their sexual
proclivity...but this does not justify in any way, seeing their cause
as irrelevant. Jewish people likewise (for the most part) have no
visible distinguishing characteristics to mark them as different from
mainstream society. Yet many people do recognize them as a legitimate
minority that deserves protection from persecution.
I am all for gays evolving their subculture, to create wearing an item
as a definite statement that they are homosexual. We do have the pink
triangle, but we need to further develop our cultural pride, in order
to expand it into more recognizeable aspects of a legitimate culture
separate from all others...and possibly superior.
>And I have never heard of an African-American hiding who they are for fear of rejection.
Then you are terribly ignorant of the basic history of blacks in
Amerika. No surprise there!
>No Mr. Rutledge, homosexuals are attempting, as a special interest group, to ride in on
>the back of legal civil rights groups, such as the African-Americans. Why?? For the sole
>purpose of getting their sexual proclivites legitimized, and protected, by governmental
>law.
What nonsense! Homosexuality goes far beyond--even supercedes--the
sexual aspect. This is why I propose replacing the word "homosexual"
with "homo-affectional"...as it would more accurately describe our
humanity as a minority. We choose partners of the same gender, for
intimacy, friendship, and marriage. Just as sex should not be the main
issue in a hetero marriage, it should not in a gay marriage. Love,
friendship, devotion, and trust, are the main ingredients to a
successful marriage...with sex running a distant fifth place. Gays are
no more sexually fixated, than straights. It is only your own
homophobia that persists in coloring homosexuals as perverted, dirty,
and a threat to hetero families.
But I do not support this tiresome project many gays put upon
themselves, to educate outrageous bigots such as yourself. I believe
the only thing that will work to liberate gays in Amerika, is "Zero
Tolerance" of homophobia. Your kind has already declared war on
us...and it won't be much longer before you take your hatreds from
these newsgroups, and onto the streets. Civil war is upon us...and
guess what, buster: I'm ready for ya...and a whole lot of hetero
perverts will go down before I ever do!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
writing free of charge (including translation into any
language)...under condition that no profit is made therefrom,
and that it remain intact and complete, including title and
credit to the original author.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
ezek...@iname.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
NEW DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Š 1998 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
I hereby declare war against the United States
Government, and to all its people who support the federal
sanction against same-sex marriage... which may be a majority.
The moment government permits any state to officially and
intentionally deny a gay citizen's right to the pursuit of
happiness--as indeed marriage is a blissful goal--the door is
open to establishing all homophile women and men as second
class citizens in perpetuity.
I perceive this unconstitutional, ungodly sanction as the
first step towards eradicating all known homosexuals in our
sorry nation. The bombing of the Lesbian lounge in Atlanta is
just the beginning...unless the federal government and
mainstream Christian churches--including African-American
congregations--immediately step in and aggressively fight back
against the jihad these homophobes have declared. (I'm not
holding my breath.) Their continued silence and foot-dragging
on the noble issue of same-sex-lover rights, puts blood on
their hands as surely as if they were right-wing fanatics
themselves!
I urge all lesbians, gays, bisexuals, gender changers,
their supporters, and other so-called queer types to bear arms
and take to the streets...and push back the beast of
homophobia that now rears its ugly head in the eyes of the
majority, who prowl this gutted country like ghouls from The
Night Of The Living Dead. For all intent purposes, President
Clinton has nodded his head in approval of a nationwide witch
hunt to kill us anywhere and everywhere we are seen or known
to abide...or at best to deny us jobs, shelter, friendship,
and equal treatment. Our President's wavering on the "gays in
the military" issue, along with the signing of DOMA...places
him in direct responsibility for exacerbating the hostility
against a basically harmless, and decent, group of citizens:
gay women and men.
Likewise for our so-called "liberal" straight
friends...who are too cowardly to display a pink triangle on
their own clothing, or a T-shirt or bumper sticker
proclaiming: "Another Hetero for Lesbian & Gay Rights". Yet
they proudly wear slogans and icons promoting the rights of
African-Americans, women, children, trees, animals, and so on.
The Danes in World War II sported stars of David to conceal
Jewish folk from Nazis...but I hear of none who displayed the
pink triangle.
If you are heterosexual, and perceive yourself as a true
"progressive", then you would have no qualms in taking up this
noble banner of Homophile Liberation in the ways I have
suggested...else you, too, have blood on your hands. But if
heteros at large still refuse to see this as their fight,
too...we homosexuals can flood the straight bars, clubs, and
other hetero hangouts. Our presence, with pink triangles
emblazoned on our shirts and jackets, will turn these straight
clubs into targets of the Army of God and their ilk. Then, of
course, we'll have a lot more allies in the resistance--albeit
unwilling.
Be it known that I am proudly homosexual, that I am a
Christian who respects all other beliefs as equal, that I
presently go by the name Ezekiel Krahlin (formerly Gene
Catalano). Be it also known that I propose the new label
"Thracian" over "gay male," to symbolize the new-found
empowerment of the homophile community in this century's
closing decade. The word "gay" perpetuates a stereotype of
ourselves as flighty, emotional, and frivolous...not to be
taken seriously, as a citizen, as a human being, or as
anything else! (Surely, women have a similar complaint
against male chauvanists.)
"Lesbian" is a beautiful term for the homosexual female;
as its name comes from a Greek Island with a rich, classical
history. The region of Thrace also has a great history, and
likewise plays an honored role in Hellenic culture...hence I
coin the term "Thracian" for those who are commonly thought of
as "gay male". Ancient Greeks first called their northern
neighbors "Thracians," and later, "Macedonians"...the people
from whom arose Alexander The Great. "Hellenic" can be the
general term for both homophile women and men, who are sick of
the belittling and ineffectual descriptor, "gay". This caps a
nice balance on the other two Greek words, to form an elegant
triad: Hellenic, Lesbian, Thracian. It also does away with
the chauvanistic stance of using "Gay" to represent both male
and female members, as well as males only. (Credit for the
idea of "Hellenic" to replace "Gay" goes to Fireweaver, an
Internet friend.)
Heterosexism, chauvinism, misogyny, mysandry, homophobia,
pedophilia, racism, and bestiality are all blasphemies in God's
eyes, and in mine, and in the eyes of all good people. Under this
inspiration, I declare Northern California a safe haven, and
demand protection by the United Nations Global Peacekeepers. I
also call for the secession of this region, and its establishment as a
government solely for and by Hellenes...where all beliefs are to be
equally respected. Let this new nation be named "Athenia," to
honor woman's suffrage as well as symbolize wisdom and valor. As
a body politik, we are as the victorious David against Goliath: the
giant of homophobia shall be toppled and slain in our time.
Let it also be known that not every gay person is a
friend. Like any group of human beings, they have their ranks
of evil forces. True hearts are few and far between...love
and be constant to such friends--if indeed you have even
one--for you are well blessed. For wherever there are two
kindred hearts, there Your Angel will be also, in spirit. Do
not judge any person by any category (such as gay or hetero,
Jew or Christian, ugly or handsome, poor or rich, white or
black, etc.) But do judge her by what comes from the heart, as
expressed in words and deeds.
Civilization (for what it's worth) is about to go
berserk; the capitalist world as we know it is doomed. I
trust that those whom I can reach through this letter, already
are taking action. If you are wicked (homophobic), it is not
yet too late to change. I stand by you in prayer, and hope
you will join the valorous. For until the last enemy is fallen, it
is my duty to fight for every lost soul until the final moment.
Yes, I pray most ardently for the lost, not for the risen.
In closing, I humbly attempt to give solace to my
Hellenic sisters and brothers, with this quote from Psalm 35
(1-8):
Plead my cause, O Lord, with those who strive with me;
Fight against those who fight against me.
Take hold of shield and buckler,
And stand up for my help.
Also draw out the spear,
And stop those who pursue me.
Say to my soul,
"I am your salvation."
Let those be put to shame and brought to dishonor
Who seek after my life;
Let those be turned back and brought to confusion
Who plot my hurt.
Let them be like chaff before the wind,
And let the angel of the Lord pursue them.
For without cause they have hidden their net for me in
a pit,
Which they have dug without cause for my life.
Let destruction come upon him unexpectedly,
And let his net that he has hidden catch himself;
Into that very destruction let him fall.
-----finis
---
I cum like a thief in the night!
The Final Testament, a Bible by and for Gays only:
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/
GodHates...@HetBeGone.com
---
Charles Schulz's lawyers are after my ass
for my gay-rights parody of Peanuts!
http://www.2xtreme.net/jwd/k6/copyrite.htm
Mike Silverman
D.West<westd-...@leading.net> wrote:
> On 9 Oct 1998 09:27:09 -0500, cub...@cjnetworks.com (Mike Silverman)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <361E0E20...@goodtimes.com>, Buddy Beaudoin
> ><maw...@goodtimes.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Once again, as an group, they do not meet the criteria established by
> >the courts in
> >> determining suspect protected civil rights status.
> >
> >
> >I'll take the judgement of the Supreme Court over your uninformed opinion,
> >thank you very much.
>
> But if past agreement with the Supreme Court is to be used as a guide then
> your agreement with their judgement is limited to only to those cases in
> which homosexuals benefit.
Of course.
Everyone does this.
The same conservatives who think the SC is the greatest thing since sliced
bread with regard to Bower v Hardwick all the sudden have a change of
heart regarding th Court when they talk about Roe v Wade.
Taking this universal bias into account, I can still state that I approve
of the Court's decision in Romer v Evans (establishing that gays are a
"legitimate" minority group) independently of my opinion of the Court in
other cases.
Mike Silverman
> The right to marry is not based on whether one is heterosexual or
> homosexual. It's based on the gender of the persons wishing to have their
> marriage recognized by governmental entities.
A gross violation of the Equal Rights Amendment which many states have as
part of their constitutions.
(marriage is a state issue, you know)
Allen James
> > The
> > very act of identifying homosexauls citizens as different than
> > heterosexual citizens is the very heart of the problem.
>
> The homosexuals are the ones who have established themselves as a
separate identifiable
> entity. Heterosexuals have not done this to them.
Really? So, HOMOSEXUALS insisted on all those 'sodomy' laws, and upon all
laws criminalizing same-sex sexual realtions?
The ONLY thing about me that isn't just like the majority of heterosexuals
is that I don't become romantically/sexually involved with women.
That's IT. Seriously. And I'M not the one who insisted upon MAKING A
GODDAMN BIG DEAL OUT OF IT. Tight-assed religious lunatics with MAJOR
'control issues' and totalitarian attitudes did. Are you being
deliberately obtuse AGAIN, Neighbor Beaudoin? We're not the ones who
insisted upon criminalizing our own existence.
How, then, did we allegedly " established themselves as a separate identifiable
entity"? By refusing to just drop dead?
Mr. Horrible
>
> John Rutledge wrote:
>
> > >recognize homosexuals as a legal protected civil rights group. It is nothing more than
> > >a "political special interest group" running around attempting to convince all that
> > >they need rights, which the Constitution already affords them. There never was a time
> > >when any part of the Constitution was denied them. As a group, they do not meet the
> > >criteria which identifies them as a group which needs Constiutional assistance.
> >
> > equal protection clause to single out a group of citizens and say
> > that group can never be a legally protected civil rights group.
>
> determining suspect protected civil rights status.
Could you please explain exactly where it says that the courts decide "protected civil rights
status" for different groups? What kind of protections require that to happen first? Which
law or part of the constitution requires it?
>
> > The
> > very act of identifying homosexauls citizens as different than
> > heterosexual citizens is the very heart of the problem.
>
> The homosexuals are the ones who have established themselves as a separate identifiable
> entity. Heterosexuals have not done this to them.
They don't want to be seperate -- that's why they seek equal treatment. It's heterosexuals
who persecute them and make the seperate.
>
> > If the
> > poeple of Colorado don't want homosexauls to be a legally protected
> > civil rights group, they must also state that heterosexuals cannot
> > be a legally protected civil rights group.
>
> It isn't a heterosexual/homosexual thing. The people of Colorado have put their foot down
> in declaring that they don't recognize this group as a legal rights group.
How can you claim that the constitution already affords gays rights (above) and then claim
that a state can refuse to recognize them as a "legal rights group", whatever that is? If
status as a "legal rights group" was required to exercise rights, most of us wouldn't have
them.
>
> > Equality must be
> > maintained across all groups of citizens under the Fourteenth
> > Amendment.
>
> Equality isn't the issue. Protected civil rights status is afforded to those who can prove
> that they are consistantly deprived, as an entire group, of social, educational and
> economic necessities, because of their benign characteristics, such as skin color or
> ethnicity.
Wrong.
There is no group with "protected civil rights status." Only individuals have rights. They
are protected against certain kinds of discrimination based on certain characteristics. For
example, everyone is protected from racial discrimination -- blacks, whites, Asians, etc.
>
> Homosexuals merely have to say that they are homosexual. I have never heard of an
> African-American having to "prove" who they are.
So what? Religion is not an "immutable" characteristic either, but it's protected.
> And I have never heard of an
> African-American hiding who they are for fear of rejection.
You need to read history.
To the extent they could, many many blacks did exactly that. Light-skinned blacks or people
of mixed race have often "passed for white."
Of course, most blacks don't hide their color, because they can't. But there are also many
instances of people hiding their religion or national origin, two other protections in
federal law.
You are an ignorant person.
>
> No Mr. Rutledge, homosexuals are attempting, as a special interest group, to ride in on
> the back of legal civil rights groups, such as the African-Americans. Why?? For the sole
> purpose of getting their sexual proclivites legitimized, and protected, by governmental
> law.
Well, that's the first time you've sounded about right. strike the word "legitimized" and
you'd about have it. The next question is, "so what?"
Mr. H
ital...@hotmail.com
You 'normal people' don't engage in silly trappings whose sole purpose is to
legitimize sexual proclivities like weddings, wedding showers, bachelor
parties, circle jerks, shore leave, stripper clubs, etc.
An of course *none* of you appear on Jerry Springer to reveal some of the
*really* silly things you do to legitimize your sexual proclivities.
No. Not you.
--
Steve Giammarco
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
L. Michael Roberts
>
> On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 11:57:33 -0400, Ron Nicholson <r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Ya, right. If kissing, hand holding, marriage, oral sex, anal sex, or any other act or action
> >is legal for a consensual heterosexual (single, commonlaw, or married), give us the reason why
> >it shouldn't extend to all productive, taxpaying members of that community, state, or country.
>
>
> homosexual. It's based on the gender of the persons wishing to have their
> marriage recognized by governmental entities.
Gender based discrimination is illegal where I live... Our Charter of
Rights and Freedoms says so but I still can't marry the paertner of my
choice!
> As we all know the
> requirement is that there be a male and a female married for there to be
> the desired recognition.
There is no such requirement in the Canadian federal marriage act, The
axt is slient on the gender(s) of the persons wishing to enter into a
civil marriage contract... and as far as I understand, in the state of
Hawaii's mariage statute is also silent on the gender of the persons -
yet gays are still not allowed to marry in those jurisdictions.
> There are no laws which deny homosexuals of the
> same gender the right marry. In fact you do it all the time. Our laws, like
> those in most of the civilized world do not require the government to
> recognize non-traditional marriage. Where they otherwise it would be
> detrimental to maintaining good order in our society.
So your arguement is that allowing people joint tax filing, joint
health/other insurance, joint property tights and pension rights is
"detrimental to maintaining good order in our society"? Please expound
on this point....
>
> Regarding all the other things you mention: "kissing, hand holding, oral
> sex, anal sex, or any other act or action", with one exception you are
> allowed to do those things just as is every heterosexual in America is.
Try holding hans with your same sex partner on main-street America and
see how long you are 'allowed' to do that before the bashers
intervine....
> "While in military service." these acts are justifiably forbidden because
> laws state that in that environment it would be detrimental to discipline
> and good order. Two elements critical to maintaining an effective armed
> force. It might interest you to know that there are a number of other civil
> rights denied a citizen while he or she is a member of the armed forces
> that all other Americans enjoy.
But not in the Israili or Canadian Military.... and I don's see thos
two groups as any less effective for treating all service persons
equally....
Ward Stewart
>Buddy Beaudoin wrote:
>>
>> Homosexuals merely have to say that they are homosexual. I have
>never heard of an African-American having to "prove" who they are.
>for fear of rejection.
That YOU have "never heard" of such a thing does NOT make it so, not
in the remotest degree.
Never heard of a Black being passed up for an acting job by reason of
pigment? Are you so young as to remember the time when blacks were
INVISIBLE in the movies, in theater, on television, and as models?
Even for YOU this is stupid --
ward
^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
Ward and George
42 years together,
yet strangers
before the law.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
JTEM
: There are untold numbers of non-homosexuals who cohabitate and who would
: also like to have such benefits but the same laws that exclude
: homosexuals also excludes non-homosexuals. No discrimination there.
...then you woke up and finally realized what your mother meant
when she said that you were a complete loser and would never amount to
jack shit.
Heterosexuals can get married. Gay people can not.
Heterosexuals can get it all by just getting married. Gay people are
discriminated against, denied the option.
Not the same thing at all, is it?
But, then, you knew this already. It's just that you're such a complete
loser is that the only way you can get anyone to pay attention to you is
to say something blatently stupid. So stupid, in fact, that it insults the
intellegience (later I'll tell you what that means) of anyone reading it.
Wow. Gosh. And suicide hasn't occured to you yet? Honestly?
John
:
: >> Regarding all the other things you mention: "kissing, hand holding, oral
: >> sex, anal sex, or any other act or action", with one exception you are
: >> allowed to do those things just as is every heterosexual in America is.
:
: > Try holding hans with your same sex partner on main-street America and
: >see how long you are 'allowed' to do that before the bashers intervine....
:
: Obviously you don't get out much. I see it quite often and I don't live in
: a major US city. Perhaps you should spend a few days in San Francisco, New
: York, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago or hundreds of other smaller places about
: the country where what you say doesn't happen..."Happens every day." The
: last time I looked the sky wasn't falling...Honest.
:
: >> "While in military service." these acts are justifiably forbidden because
: >> laws state that in that environment it would be detrimental to discipline
: >> and good order. Two elements critical to maintaining an effective armed
: >> force. It might interest you to know that there are a number of other civil
: >> rights denied a citizen while he or she is a member of the armed forces
: >> that all other Americans enjoy.
: >
: > But not in the Israili or Canadian Military.... and I don's see thos
: >two groups as any less effective for treating all service persons
: >equally....
:
: Different countries, different cultures, different laws. There is much that
: IS permitted in the US that would not be permitted in these foreign
: countries. As private citizens we enjoy much greater freedom than those in
: either of the countries mentioned.
:
:
: >+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
: > This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
: >Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove 'SpamSux' from my E-ddress
: > "Life is a sexualy transmitted, terminal, condition"
: >+==================================================================+
:
JayTeeFL
In article <3621cec5...@news.leading.net>, D.West<we...@leading.net>
writes:
>> Try holding hans with your same sex partner on main-street America and
>>see how long you are 'allowed' to do that before the bashers intervine....
>
>Obviously you don't get out much. I see it quite often and I don't live in
>a major US city. Perhaps you should spend a few days in San Francisco, New
>York, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago or hundreds of other smaller places about
>the country where what you say doesn't happen..."Happens every day." The
>last time I looked the sky wasn't falling...Honest.
funny...i have lived in miami, been to sfo, visited new york, and currently
live in washington, dc...and i cannot remember the last time i saw a same
gender couple exchanging even the most innocuous sort of affection (ie, holding
hands) in public.
oh, wait a second, i am being disingenuous...i *can* remember...it was at the
1992 (? might have been '93) sec championship game in atlanta...just after we
(the florida gators, natch) narrowly defeated 'bama i was so happy that i
*kissed* my boyfriend full on the lips.
however, the original statement stands...we are far too afraid of the
histrionic reactions of the small, bigoted-and-often-violent minority to
display affection for our loved ones in public.
prince jace <--- remembers being more afraid that he was in an interracial
couple than being in a gay one, but it turned out nobody around us cared about
either
John Wilkinson
>There are untold numbers of non-homosexuals who cohabitate and who would
>also like to have such benefits but the same laws that exclude homosexuals
>also excludes non-homosexuals. No discrimination there.
Nonsense. Just who makes up these "untold numbers"?
Those who are too young merely have to wait until they reach the age of consent.
Those who are too closely related are excluded from marrying one other named
person.
So who are these untold numbers, who, like gay people, are excluded from
marriage in toto?
---
__ John G. Wilkinson (jw...@eskimo.com)
\/ Seattle, Washington, USA
http://www.eskimo.com/~jwilk/
John Rutledge
>> In article <36195DF5...@hotmail.com>,
>> Buddy Beaudoin <buddyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >recognize homosexuals as a legal protected civil rights group. It is nothing more than
>> >a "political special interest group" running around attempting to convince all that
>> >they need rights, which the Constitution already affords them. There never was a time
>> >when any part of the Constitution was denied them. As a group, they do not meet the
>> >criteria which identifies them as a group which needs Constiutional assistance.
>>
>> equal protection clause to single out a group of citizens and say
>> that group can never be a legally protected civil rights group.
>
>Once again, as an group, they do not meet the criteria established by the courts in
>determining suspect protected civil rights status.
However, Amendment 2 changes this. Under Amendment 2, even if
homosexuals meet the protected civil rights group criteria, they STILL
would be denied civil rights protections. Amendment automatically
denies "protected status or claim of discrimiation" in "any statue."
Amendment 2 makes sure homosexual can never get protected status
even if it is shown they diserve it. It's this ability to even be
considered a protected civil rights group that is being denied to
homosexuals under Amendment 2.
It is this removal of this consideration only from homosexuals and
not from heterosexuals that the US Supreme Court found objectionable.
All supporters of Amendment 2 have to do is equally remove this
consideration from heterosexuals. The fact that this is not even
being talked about as an option by Amendment 2 supporters indicates
the true nature of the amendment. It is only a small wording change
that needs to be done. However, Amendment 2 supporters refuse to
remove these words becuause it is these words that single out
homosexuals. Without these words, they can no longer point at the
state's Constitution and say, "see it state homosexuals are bad."
Here is all that needs to be done to keep any homosexual in the
state of Colorado from ever receiving a civil rights violation.
Just enact the following:
No Protected Status Based on Sexual Orientation. Neither
the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or
departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions,
municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt
or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy
whereby sexual orientation shall constitute or otherwise be
the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to
have or claim any minority status quota preferences,
protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section
of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.
Simple, yet no one is trying to enacted it. Come Buddy, why is this
different from what Amendment 2 actually tried to do? How is this
not equivilant to Amendment 2? Why don't the supporters pass
this the first changce the get?
>> The
>> very act of identifying homosexauls citizens as different than
>> heterosexual citizens is the very heart of the problem.
>
>The homosexuals are the ones who have established themselves as a separate identifiable
>entity. Heterosexuals have not done this to them.
So what? Jews, Catholics, Moslems, Buddists, liberals, conversatives,
the Religious Right, and even Americans have also established
themselves as a separate identifiable entity. This does not justify
differeing treatment by the government under the Fourteenth Amendment.
>> If the
>> poeple of Colorado don't want homosexauls to be a legally protected
>> civil rights group, they must also state that heterosexuals cannot
>> be a legally protected civil rights group.
>
>It isn't a heterosexual/homosexual thing. The people of Colorado have put their foot down
>in declaring that they don't recognize this group as a legal rights group.
However, they did it in a way that violates the Fourteeth Amendment
to the US Constitution. Unless your proposing that state
constitutions can override the US Constitution, this cannot be
allowed. Also, there are other ways that Colorado can achieve this
goal. It is still possible for the people of Colorado to put their
foot down in declaring that they don't recognize this group as a
legal rights group. All they have to do is adopt my modified amendment
above.
A similar thing happened recently in Massachusetts. The courts threw
out the law that guaranteed a person would not be fired for refusing
to work on a religious holiday. Instead of claiming that the court's
are violating the will of the people of Massachusetts, they amended
the statue in question to address what the State Supreme Court saw as
a violation of the Lemon test.
Ezekiel Krahlin
wrote:
>> "While in military service." these acts are justifiably forbidden because
>> laws state that in that environment it would be detrimental to discipline
>> and good order. Two elements critical to maintaining an effective armed
>> force. It might interest you to know that there are a number of other civil
>> rights denied a citizen while he or she is a member of the armed forces
>> that all other Americans enjoy.
The finest armies in history, were homosexual ones. What immediately
come to mind are: Sparta, The Sacred Band of Thebes, and Alexander the
Great.
Gays make better soldiers than heteros. Period. This has always been
true, and will always remain true. Too bad, hetvert!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Permission granted by author for anyone to distribute this
writing free of charge (including translation into any
language)...under condition that no profit is made therefrom,
and that it remain intact and complete, including title and
credit to the original author.
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
ezek...@iname.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
THE BLUE ROSE MILITIA (world's first *queer* militia)
(c) 1997 by Ezekiel J. Krahlin
(Jehovah's Queer Witness)
(Note: The word "Thracian" is used throughout this manifesto,
as an empowering adjective intended to replace the word "Gay
Male". Likewise for "Hellenic" and "Hellene" to replace "Gay"
in general, as in "Gay Community". Credit for the idea of
"Hellenic" goes to Fireweaver, an Internet friend.)
Founded December 1, 1996 by Hellenic Rights activist
Ezekiel Krahlin (formerly Gene Catalano), The Blue Rose
Militia is a ParaNormalMilitary organization dedicated to the
defense of homosexual civil rights within the borders of the
United States Of America. It seeks to establish Northern
California as a safe haven for the homosexual populace and its
refugees...via new and inviolable federal and state laws, or
through secession and formation of a new nation. The Militia
is a loosely bound federation of community clusters throughout
the nation, whose leadership is entrusted to the inspiration
of each local group. This new alliance is born of outraged
response to President Clinton's signing of the notorious
"Defense Of Marriage Act."
The Blue Rose Militia encourages all Thracians and
Lesbians, their heterosexual supporters--and other
non-heterosexist types--to bear arms at all times, in order to
protect one's self and one's friends, from the outrageous
brutality of a homophobic populace. The Militia implores its
advocates to carry pepper spray as a minimal deterrent from
violent attacks...and supports the legal acquisition of more
serious arms for the sake of self defense.
While The Militia does encourage members and sympathizers
to bear arms, to a greater degree it supports the application
of creative genius to achieve its goals of homosexual
liberation.
To become a member: apply the emblem of a blue rose to a
camouflage jacket--wear this jacket for one full day--and you
become a member. This simple gesture indicates your sincerity
to help the cause of homosexual civil rights... and will link
your spirit to the telepathic network that is The Blue Rose
Militia. You will then--through dreams, ideas, or psychic
signals--receive inspirations to perform actions that further
Lesbian/Thracian liberation. You will also be showered with a
thousand blessings of gratitude by the angelic forces...but
that is merely frosting on the cake (or "wings on the
toaster," so to speak). Please note that if you do not
believe in angels or psychic forces, you are still welcome to
contribute your own actions to the cause. The Blue Rose
Militia respects all religions and world views--including
atheistic and agnostic perceptions--and will never reject
anyone on grounds of personal beliefs...except those that
preach malicious intent to harm others (such as Satanic,
terrorist, bible-thumping, pedophiliac, or hard drug cults).
Create your own blue rose patch on a circle of scrap
cloth two to three inches in diameter, and paint, draw, or
embroider the rose. (Or find a patch with a rose design, and
color the rose blue.) Attach to jacket with velcro or safety
pin. Or find an old political button--paint a blue rose over
the original design--and pin it on. Any other method to create
a blue rose logo is acceptable. The ideal design for the logo
is: a single sky-blue rose with lime-green stem and two
leaves, on a wine-red background. Blue stands for loyalty,
red for life force, and green for healing powers.
None of the inspirations you receive will violate your
own values and beliefs, or interfere in any significant way
with your vocation or personal relations...unless you
specifically desire to live out a more wild and free-spirited
adventure. Examples of inspired actions: financial donation
to a Hellene group, speaking out against a homophobic slur,
reading an informative book on homosexuality, freely copying
and distributing this Blue Rose Militia bulletin, reaching out
to a homosexual acquaintance, writing a letter to a newspaper,
wearing a homo-supportive T-shirt, calling a radio talk show,
participating in a pro-homosexual demonstration, attaching
pro-gay stickers to outgoing mail, or even starting or joining
an auxiliary Blue Rose Militia in your own neighborhood. You
may even have a special calling above and beyond the examples
herein...in such a case, let your conscience be your guide. I
give no further examples, in order that your inspiration may
remain unfettered, and your imagination soar!
The Blue Rose Militia places absolute trust into the
hands of anyone so inspired...and requires no report from any
member, or conferral, before he or she takes action. Should a
member choose to confer with another, that is fine...and for
that reason local groups may be formed and dissolved in
spontaneous fashion, without first consulting the founder or
its headquarters. Wear the blue rose logo anywhere on your
person, backpack, briefcase, or purse (camouflage jacket is
optional after the first time worn). In this manner, you will
meet other members who recognize the emblem.
-----finis
---
God's shit doesn't stink, but everyone else's does.
Think about it.
Ron Nicholson
ezek...@my-dejanews.com
Well, sometimes it gets confusing, figuring out who posted what. And I'm sure
my article nonetheless provided the necessary impact. And my apologies for
mistaking your message as another's.
--
The Final Testament: a bible by and for gays alone.
http://members.xoom.com/ezekielk/