Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Icz ([info]iczer6) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2003-12-21 02:16:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:Righteous

Wank in the News
Now I'm sure we all know about the fight going on for Gay Marriage, however according this article it's not going well.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20031220143209990001

Here's the article itself for those without AOL

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found widespread support for an amendment to the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage. It also found unease about homosexual relations in general, making the issue a potentially divisive one for the Democrats and an opportunity for the Republicans in the 2004 election.

Support for a constitutional amendment extends across a wide swath of the public and includes a majority of people traditionally viewed as supportive of gay rights, including Democrats, women and people who live on the East Coast.

Attitudes on the subject seem to be inextricably linked to how people view marriage itself. For a majority of Americans — 53 percent — marriage is largely a religious matter. Seventy-one percent of those people oppose gay marriage. Similarly, 33 percent of Americans say marriage is largely a legal matter and a majority of those people — 55 percent — say they support gay marriage.

The most positive feelings toward gay people were registered among respondents under 30, and among those who knew gay people.

The nationwide poll found that 55 percent of Americans favored an amendment to the constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman, while 40 percent opposed the idea.


The findings come after the highest court in Massachusetts ruled 4 to 3 last month that same-sex marriage was permissible under the state's Constitution. That ruling followed a 6-to-3 decision in late June by the United States Supreme Court striking down antisodomy laws.

President Bush had been noncommittal about a constitutional amendment immediately after the Massachusetts ruling, with the administration worried that support for a ban on gay marriage would alienate moderate voters. But last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that."

The statement signals the White House's increasing confidence that it can exploit the matter in the presidential campaign, both to energize its evangelical supporters and to discredit the eventual Democratic nominee.

Most of the Democratic candidates oppose gay marriage but favor civil unions. Howard Dean, who is leading in the polls for the Democratic nomination, signed a law when he was governor of Vermont allowing civil unions, an action that Republicans have already used to portray him as too liberal for mainstream America.


"We have found that the more people focus on it, the less they support it."
-Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition

The court rulings generated extensive publicity and concern, not only about same-sex marriage but also about having the courts set social agendas that have not been approved by the legislative process.

"We have found that the more people focus on it, the less they support it," said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, which strongly opposes gay marriage and is working actively for a constitutional ban.

The Times/CBS News poll was conducted from Dec. 10 through Dec. 13 in telephone interviews with 1,057 people. It carries a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Responses about gay rights tend to be influenced somewhat by the wording of the questions.

This poll and other surveys show that as the courts have extended legal rights to gays this year, Americans have become increasingly uncomfortable with same-sex relations.

For decades, a majority of Americans have not approved of homosexual relations. That had begun to change, until the Supreme Court ruling in June and the Massachusetts ruling in November. A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in July found that 54 percent of respondents said homosexual relations should be legal. Only 41 percent of the respondents in the latest poll said they should be legal.

Richard Waters, 71, a retired elementary school teacher in Little Valley, N.Y., and a Republican, said in a follow-up interview to the poll that he strongly supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

"I think any kind of amendment that says `You shall not' will help," Mr. Waters said. "I just don't think it's right for two men to go parading around in public or for two women to be doing the things they do. It's against God's law. That's right in the Bible that it's wrong."

Theresa Eaton, 49, a financial analyst in Corona, Calif., and also a Republican, agreed.


"There is no consensus among conservatives, libertarians and Republicans ... but to amend the Constitution for social issues is a very bad idea."
-Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign

"I still believe that marriage should be between a man and woman," she said. "If I knew that we had a neighbor who was gay, I would not let my nieces and nephews go close by there. I don't want to accept their lifestyle. It can be acquired and it is not right."

The poll also found that by a 61-34 margin, Americans oppose gay marriage. They are slightly more accepting of civil unions to give gays some of the same legal rights as married couples, with 54 percent opposed to civil unions and 39 percent supportive.

The Massachusetts ruling also gave new impetus in Congress to sponsors of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. An amendment, which would require passage by two-thirds of the House and Senate and three-fourths of the states, would override any state court ruling or legislation.

Representative Marilyn Musgrave, Republican of Colorado, who introduced a constitutional amendment in the House in May, said on Friday that she had 106 co-sponsors. The companion measure in the Senate still has only a handful of supporters.

"Homosexual activists have known that they're not going to get their way in the legislative arena, and they shopped around for activist judges," Ms. Musgrave said. "But if the definition of marriage is to be changed, it should be done by the American people, not four judges in Massachusetts."

Her measure would ban gay marriage. Some gay rights groups say its language is ambiguous on civil unions, but she said on Friday that her intent was to allow states to conduct civil unions but not let them be recognized in other states.

At the moment, only Vermont allows civil unions. In California, a domestic partnership bill giving gay couples limited rights is to go into effect in 2005, but it is under threat of a legal challenge.

Some groups on the religious right who are eager for a constitutional ban on gay marriage said Ms. Musgrave's measure did not go far enough. Mr. Sheldon, for one, said his group was seeking to ban civil unions and domestic partnership laws as well as same-sex marriage.

He said his group and others were lobbying President Bush to assert in his State of the Union address in January that he will also seek a ban on civil unions and domestic partnership laws. The groups are preparing to flood the White House with e-mail messages on the subject.

Jan LaRue, counsel to Concerned Women for America, a conservative religious policy organization, said her group was involved in a public education campaign on "why marriage is important and needs to be protected." She added, "We are part of a broad coalition that is using bumper stickers, newspaper ads, articles on our Web sites and assisting with amicus briefs."


Gay rights groups expressed dismay with the poll results but said they doubted that a constitutional amendment would pass the initial stage through Congress.

"The Republican House leadership is having its own internal fight to determine what to do," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign.

"There is no consensus among conservatives, libertarians and Republicans," she said. "Many of them say they don't support marriage for same-sex couples, but to amend the Constitution for social issues is a very bad idea."

The last time the Constitution was amended for social purposes was in 1920, when alcohol was outlawed, but that prohibition was repealed in 1933.

Sanford Levinson, a constitutional expert at the University of Texas Law School in Austin, said it was extremely hard to amend the Constitution. If the ban on gay marriage passed the House and Senate, he said, opponents could stop it by getting the support of one house of the legislature in just 13 states.

Mr. Levinson said President Bush's support was "a free pass" because he probably knows how difficult it would be to get through Congress, let alone through 38 states.

"The idea is for Bush to throw red meat to the Republican right, secure in the knowledge that this is not going to go anywhere," he said. "If it did go anywhere, it would tear the Republican Party apart."

Even in an age when gay couples are routinely portrayed on television and constitute a prosperous demographic that advertisers have been overtly appealing to, the Times/CBS News poll found the country still sharply divided over homosexuality.

Half of the respondents said they viewed homosexual relations between adults as morally wrong. Moreover, an overwhelming majority, 87 percent, said they thought most people would not accept having same-sex couples married within their church, synagogue or place of worship. Sixty percent said they themselves would not accept such unions in their own places of worship.

"I want my children to grow up and be normal people like me and my father and my grandfather was," said Ziad Nimri, 41, a salesman and a Democrat who lives in Spokane, Wash. "I don't want my children to start getting ideas. They see it's out in the open and you see men kissing men on television these days."

Mr. Nimri said he was also worried that if gays were allowed to marry, they would get other rights too, like tax benefits. "Because they're a minority, they're going to start actually giving them more privileges than normal people would have," he said. "Minorities always tend to get more than your average person does."

One of the few people interviewed who was not opposed to legally recognized same-sex marriages was Cliff Martin, 47, an unemployed Democrat in Gainesville, Fla. "I think gays should be allowed to marry because it's not something that threatens other people," he said.


12/21/03

Copyright © 2003 The New York Times Company.






But for me the wank is in the quotes from folks on the street, like this one:

"I think any kind of amendment that says `You shall not' will help," Mr. Waters said. "I just don't think it's right for two men to go parading around in public or for two women to be doing the things they do. It's against God's law. That's right in the Bible that it's wrong."

And:"I want my children to grow up and be normal people like me and my father and my grandfather was," said Ziad Nimri, 41, a salesman and a Democrat who lives in Spokane, Wash. "I don't want my children to start getting ideas. They see it's out in the open and you see men kissing men on television these days."

God forbid your children learn things like tolerance and respect, I wish that one day people like this guy aren't allowed to breed.

If this is too OT let me know.



(Post a new comment)


[info]crickets
2003-12-21 09:14 am UTC (link)
You know what gets me the most? (Aside from the bad taste of bigotry.) The US Constitution is meant to spell out all of the rights every citizen is entitled to have, rather than the things you are not entitled to have.

Mr. Waters is an idiot.

Imagine tacking something like this on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Speaking of which:
Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Damn right.

And unfortunately I couldn't get to the article itself: "We are sorry, but you will need to enable cookies and Javascript to use your Screen Name with this site." AOLers only?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]iczer6
2003-12-21 09:31 am UTC (link)
[And unfortunately I couldn't get to the article itself: "We are sorry, but you will need to enable cookies and Javascript to use your Screen Name with this site." AOLers only?]

Yup, I'll C&P the whole article then.



(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]eljuno
2003-12-21 02:21 pm UTC (link)
You know, every once in a while my father feels the need to tell me that Massachusetts is not the "real world" (I've lived here my whole life.)

You know what? If the "real world" is like that, you folks can keep it.

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2003-12-21 03:36 pm UTC (link)
but are we to FORCE people to have 'tolerance and respect' for [insert what ever sub grouping you'd like]? This is the U.S.A., if someone doesn't like someone or something, they are free to feel that way. As long as they don't ACT on their likes/dislikes to a dangous or unlawful manner, i'm fine by what ever they think or say.

man, at least have some tolernce for those who don't have any. other wise... you will become the thing you hate.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]yadda
2003-12-21 03:43 pm UTC (link)
*pinches anon's cheeks*

What a cute little wanker you are! Does the little anon have trouble using the shift key? Awww, poor little guy! All he wants is us to be open minded about close minded people!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]lurker32
2003-12-21 04:25 pm UTC (link)
As long as they don't ACT on their likes/dislikes to a dangous or unlawful manner

Like, oh, say, trying to force the rest of us to conform to their likes/dislikes?

:P I think this is in jurisimprudence somewhere, isn't it?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]eljuno
2003-12-21 04:29 pm UTC (link)
Why, yes it is.

Mpoetess's Law of Intolerance

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]banal_o_rama
2003-12-21 05:55 pm UTC (link)
Yep, they sure are allowed to feel that way. As long as they don't act upon it.

By, say, depriving a goodly section of the population of a standard human right.

::patpat:: Try another martyr suit--this cut looks lousy on you.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rann
2003-12-21 07:05 pm UTC (link)
Everyone else has already covered all the bases on you, so I'll just sub in for Red Foreman.
You're a dumbass.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]gairid
2003-12-22 01:59 am UTC (link)
*soulfully* My ass wears a hat for [info]rann AND Red Foreman!

I made a quick foray into the wank that is that message board and I never thought I would say this but sometimes the can be TOO MUCH wank.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]psychofangirl
2003-12-21 07:07 pm UTC (link)
"As long as they don't ACT on their likes/dislikes to a dangous or unlawful manner, i'm fine by what ever they think or say. "

But, many of the anti-gays would LOVE to see gays with absolutely NO rights. THAT is dangerous.


"man, at least have some tolernce for those who don't have any."

Ah yes, that way the intolerant can walk all over everyone. Tolerence is a two way street.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sorchar
2003-12-22 10:51 am UTC (link)
*points to icon* Wanda says it all.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]pyratejenni
2003-12-21 04:38 pm UTC (link)
Mr. Nimri said he was also worried that if gays were allowed to marry, they would get other rights too, like tax benefits. "Because they're a minority, they're going to start actually giving them more privileges than normal people would have," he said. "Minorities always tend to get more than your average person does."

I love the assumption that the "average person" is a white male, don't you?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]feloniousfeline
2003-12-21 07:23 pm UTC (link)
I always knew I was above average.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]gairid
2003-12-22 02:03 am UTC (link)
I like the assumption that I am not a 'normal' person, you know, because of being teh eval dyke and all.

And it's not possible that we would just want the same rights that are accorded to others in this country. But wait! Equality is a privilege now! DOH!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]bubosquared
2003-12-22 12:34 pm UTC (link)
*randomly pets the Hetfield*

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]shoiryu
2003-12-21 11:49 pm UTC (link)
God. GOD. No words.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]iczer6
2003-12-22 12:01 am UTC (link)
The stupidity, hypocrisy and bigotry BURN like fire.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]smo
2003-12-22 02:22 am UTC (link)
Who are these people, and what the frell are they doing in my country?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

What I don't get is...
(Anonymous)
2003-12-22 04:41 am UTC (link)

wouldn't this "amendment" be unconstitutional in itself? Putting aside the fact that you would be denying a part of the population -consisting of consenting adults who aren't doing harm to anyone at all- their right to happiness, you would also be breaking the first amendment in a big way. The part that says "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

After all, the only argument I see against gay marriage that resembles concrete is the biblical one. After that, it develops into vague references of "threats to family" and the like. Which is more of a "squick-factor" thing than anything else. And I have yet to see anyone quote from the Koran or Torah when defending their bigoted stance. The whole thing reeks of a Jim Crow/segrationalist mentality. i.e. turning a group of people into second-class citizens for no reason other than personal prejudice.

Actually, now that I think about it, that's probably why they what the amendment. Because they know that if they were to make a state, or federal law denying gays the right to marry, someone would challenge it, and when that happened they wouldn't have a constitutional leg to stand on.
~JM (who apologizes for her rant, but it's been building for a long time)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: What I don't get is...
(Anonymous)
2003-12-22 04:49 am UTC (link)
why they want the amendment. >_<

On a slightly lighter note, does anyone else find the whole "threat to the family" bile as funny as I do? Every time I hear that I can't help but imagining Nathan Lane waving a machine gun at this Norman Rockwell-esq family having their dinner...

*snorts* "threat to the family" indeed. Because we all know it would be a terrible, terrible thing to raise kids with a little tolerance.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: What I don't get is...
[info]virago
2003-12-22 04:59 am UTC (link)
It would be funny if people weren't so likely to be passed, thanks to the self-styled Defender of the Faith we have running the White House right now.

I can't laugh at it because of that, because the bigots are in charge.

Otherwise, yes.

>>"I think any kind of amendment that says `You shall not' will help," Mr. Waters said. "I just don't think it's right for two men to go parading around in public or for two women to be doing the things they do. It's against God's law. That's right in the Bible that it's wrong.">>

It's also "right in the Bible" that you're not supposed to wear mixed fibers or eat lobster, dumbass. Selective memory?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: What I don't get is... - [info]rann, 2003-12-22 08:41 am UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]virago, 2003-12-22 05:06 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]rann, 2003-12-22 08:30 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]virago, 2003-12-22 08:45 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]rann, 2003-12-22 08:59 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]virago, 2003-12-22 10:58 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]rann, 2003-12-22 11:03 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]virago, 2003-12-23 04:35 am UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]rann, 2003-12-23 04:38 am UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]virago, 2003-12-23 04:41 am UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]rann, 2003-12-23 04:47 am UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]virago, 2003-12-23 04:00 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]rann, 2003-12-23 06:40 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]virago, 2003-12-23 08:17 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]iczer6, 2003-12-23 08:26 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]rann, 2003-12-24 12:17 am UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]iczer6, 2003-12-24 03:05 am UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - (Anonymous), 2003-12-24 03:17 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]rann, 2003-12-23 10:40 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - (Anonymous), 2003-12-24 05:04 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - (Anonymous), 2003-12-24 03:11 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]necronomist, 2003-12-24 04:15 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - (Anonymous), 2003-12-24 05:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sewingmyfish, 2003-12-24 11:32 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]rann, 2003-12-23 06:50 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]harukami, 2003-12-27 07:59 am UTC
Re: What I don't get is...
[info]sorchar
2003-12-22 10:54 am UTC (link)
Hey, I have to fight off ravening hordes of gay men and lesbians on a nightly basis, as they try to break down my front door and shatter my happy heterosexual marriage.

Oh, no, wait, that was the zombie insurance salesmen trying to eat my brains and sell me term life insurance. Never mind.

*looks outside* Nope, no threat to my marriage there. Not quite sure how the marriage of two strangers who may or may not use the same public restroom is supposed to be a threat to mine, but then, I use Earth logic.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: What I don't get is... - [info]iczer6, 2003-12-22 08:55 pm UTC
Re: What I don't get is... - [info]sorchar, 2003-12-22 09:00 pm UTC

[info]seventy_three
2003-12-22 01:52 pm UTC (link)
Does it look to anybody else like they interviewed the most idiotic, inbred Bumpuses imaginable for this article? I wonder if that was deliberate.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]yadda
2003-12-22 08:51 pm UTC (link)
I got the distinct feeling that half of those interviewed were actually members of a confused comedy troop (who may or may not have been in drag) doing a "man-on-the-street" bit.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2003-12-23 02:53 am UTC

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map