Same-sex Marriage Opposition Appears ...

Same-sex Marriage Opposition Appears In Vermont | Lez Get Real

There are 601 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Mar 15, 2009, titled Same-sex Marriage Opposition Appears In Vermont | Lez Get Real. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

There is a grassroots effort underway to put the issue of same-sex marriage to the voters of Vermont in the same manner that this issue was placed before the voters of California. The reason for this is quite simple, in all likelihood. Whether or not they will ever want to admit it, groups like Take It To The People want to have the time to bring in the big guns. They want their minority of thirty-five to have the resources of the evangelicals behind them while they fight this battle. That is right, according to the latest data provided by Freedom To Marry and gathered by Marco Polling, only thirty-five percent of Vermonters oppose same-sex marriage strongly enough to express that opinion. Another four percent are lukewarm in their opposition. To put this into perspective, support for same-sex marriage in Vermont is listed as forty-five percent for strong support, and thirteen for leaning towards supporting it. Together, those numbers are thirty-nine against and fifty-eight for. These poll numbers date back to January of 2009. In order to find poll numbers which support the opposition to same-sex marriage, one has to go back to 2000, where those numbers were largely reversed.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

“Fight bigotry.”

Since: Feb 07

Toms River, NJ

#573 Mar 28, 2009
REally? My husband and I were married in our church before God, our family and friends. Apparently you didn't get the message that God doesn't follow your little book of "laws"
EnochSpeaks wrote:
<quoted text>
It goes against G-d's laws!
That is more-than enough for me.
EnochSpeaks

EnochSpeaks

“MARRIAGE IS 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN”

Since: Nov 08

Chicago

#574 Mar 28, 2009
ACLU-Tom wrote:
REally? My husband and I were married in our church before God, our family and friends. Apparently you didn't get the message that God doesn't follow your little book of "laws"
<quoted text>
You are more-than delusional if you believe that!

EnochSpeaks
Enough

Houston, TX

#575 Mar 28, 2009
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh?
<quoted text>
The same place it was written that Mildred Jeter had the right to marry Richard Loving. End of story.
Mildred and Richard...

Hmmmm..? Sounds like a Man and Woman to me.....?

And your point is....?
Wiper

Houston, TX

#576 Mar 28, 2009
Shadow Dragon wrote:
<quoted text>
MattJ or Whomever you are, You act of out a self-righteous is so phony, I see right through you, You nothing more then a bored lonely guy post stupid sh*t to pass the time.
Wow, that post really contributed to the topic discussion...

(nothing like an emotional outburst)
Wiper

Houston, TX

#577 Mar 28, 2009
snyper42 wrote:
<quoted text>
It IS NOT a "definition".
IT IS a religiously-based and religiously-biased CRITERION
"...respecting an establishment of religion...".
As you know, I am for the complete removal of "marriage" from the legal code because of the religious bias attached to it.
The religious nature of "marriage" in the minds of proponents of California's Prop. 8, is easily evidenced by the abundance of discussion in the runup to the polls, by the listed supporters and contributers to it's campaign, AND by those presenting amica curae briefs to the California State Supreme Court. These clearly demonstrate "motive" and "intent". The "means" and "opportunity" are also evident.
It is thus reasonable to deduce and suggest that Prop. 8 was a successful attempt to introduce a religious bias into California Law to the loss and detriment-by-exclusion of a significant portion of the Citizenry. They did it because they could.
This is a grievance which requires redress.
btw: There is more force in using:
Article. IV.Section. 2.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
Amendment.14. is less clear.
I think you better go and read this Federal Act before you open you mouth anymore..

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z... :

Hope this clears things up for you...
Wiper

Houston, TX

#578 Mar 28, 2009
snyper42 wrote:
EnochSpeaks,
Where does my having the same rights as you have harm you? I'd really like to know.
You do have the same rights as Enoch,

He doesn't have the right to redefine Marriage either...
snyper42

Santa Cruz, CA

#579 Mar 29, 2009
Wiper wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you better go and read this Federal Act before you open you mouth anymore..
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z... :
Hope this clears things up for you...
But Wiper, the link doesn't take me anywhere. I suspect that it is DoMA. I'm very familiar. It's still being tested for it's many flaws.

I suspect that it needs a "www." in front of it

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#580 Mar 29, 2009
Enough wrote:
<quoted text>
Mildred and Richard...
Hmmmm..? Sounds like a Man and Woman to me.....?
And your point is....?
My point is that the US Constitution says not a word about marriage. But it has plenty to say about equal protection and the rights of minorities.

“Brutally honest. ”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#581 Mar 29, 2009
Did it occur to any of the straight people that you do not have the right to marry someone of the same sex either?

The only reason why you fight it is because you don't have the DESIRE to.

Really, your rights are being infringed as well. But from your perspective it looks like we are asking for special rights...in reality, you would be getting the exact same rights, should you choose to take advantage of them.

“Raising money for Prop H8!”

Since: Feb 09

South San Francisco, CA

#582 Mar 29, 2009
EnochSpeaks wrote:
<quoted text>
It goes against G-d's laws!
That is more-than enough for me.
EnochSpeaks
I do not be believe that Buddha has taken a stand on gay issuse.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#583 Mar 29, 2009
Wiper wrote:
<quoted text>
You do have the same rights as Enoch,
He doesn't have the right to redefine Marriage either...
Then why did the Radical Christianist Agenda get to create a religion-based CRITERION for participation pretending to "define" it ?
Wiper

Houston, TX

#584 Mar 30, 2009
snyper42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did the Radical Christianist Agenda get to create a religion-based CRITERION for participation pretending to "define" it ?
An agenda defines and creates nothing.

People do...

and as far as I know, Christians are not the only ones who get married... In Fact, if we think Globally, Christians are a small minority who participate in Marriage.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#585 Mar 30, 2009
Wiper wrote:
<quoted text>
An agenda defines and creates nothing.
People do...
and as far as I know, Christians are not the only ones who get married... In Fact, if we think Globally, Christians are a small minority who participate in Marriage.
"Christians" is a broader brush than I wished to use. heck! They can't even agree on which of each other qualify to wear the term. That's why there's so many flavours of them ... AND why there MUST be governmental blindness inregards to religious matters .. to keep them from each others' throats. lol

DO you meant to imply that there are no radical christians ... and that they have no agenda?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#586 Mar 30, 2009
Oh ...and to keep them from ours throats, too. lol
bustedd

Miami, FL

#587 May 14, 2009
STD's and HIV/AIDS...you don't know how many black men and women I have met (black men in particular) who have stated to me that they don't like going to doctors, and found a homsexual sergio cordova orbezo with anal herpes infected also in genital area , that they can "smell" the private parts of lovers, spouses and etc, to detect if they are infected with something--I had a black man put me at risk for an STD and cited so, yet he refused to get tested, thank God I went to the Doctor and everything was fine, but come to find out, he had caught not one, but three sexually transmitted diseases from the mother of his child and he knew this information, but still secretly "busted" the condom the first time we had sex because, he wanted to "feel me raw" instead of consulting with me first. It's like what the hell is wrong with the AA community? This stuff is real, esp. HIV/AIDS.Why my ex would do such a thing to me is beyond me..he seemed to be more concerned that I didn't stop talking to him, than he was about going to get tested, and when I mentioned to him how foul his actions were, he went on to say that most ppl catch at least one STD in their life-time and that as long as it is curable, I should forgive him and stay with him. I just don't get certain ppl. I have been turned off from sex every since then.

EnochSpeaks

“MARRIAGE IS 1 MAN and 1 WOMAN”

Since: Nov 08

Chicago

#589 May 15, 2009
My Rabbi gave me a book today and he informed me that this book was used by the gay rights and marriage movement to advance their cause and push the gay agenda.

The book is called;

Rules for Radicals
BY
Saul Alinsky

Here's some notes from it.

Alinsky wrote in the book's prologue:

"What I have to say in this book is not the arrogance of unsolicited advice. It is the experience and counsel that so many young people have questioned me about through all-night sessions on hundreds of campuses in America. It is for those young radicals who are committed to the fight, committed to life." In the first chapter, opening paragraph Alinsky writes, "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away

Outlining his strategy in organizing Alinksy writes:

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.

This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971].

They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."

END OF PART I

Rules for Radicals
BY
Saul Alinsky

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#591 May 15, 2009
EnochSpeaks wrote:
My Rabbi gave me a book today and he informed me that this book was used by the gay rights and marriage movement to advance their cause and push the gay agenda.........(remainder edited, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz)......
My Grand Wizard gave me a book today on how to bring back slavery.........

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#592 May 15, 2009
EnochSpeaks wrote:
Was there a point in that?
I've been wondering where you've been hiding. Your hundred years are off to a VERY bad start.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#593 May 15, 2009
EnochSpeaks wrote:
My Rabbi gave me a book today and he informed me that this book was used by the gay rights and marriage movement to advance their cause and push the gay agenda.
The book is called;
Rules for Radicals
BY
Saul Alinsky
Here's some notes from it.
Alinsky wrote in the book's prologue:
"What I have to say in this book is not the arrogance of unsolicited advice. It is the experience and counsel that so many young people have questioned me about through all-night sessions on hundreds of campuses in America. It is for those young radicals who are committed to the fight, committed to life." In the first chapter, opening paragraph Alinsky writes, "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away
Outlining his strategy in organizing Alinksy writes:
"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.
This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971].
They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."
END OF PART I
Rules for Radicals
BY
Saul Alinsky
So you're talking about agit-prop, and systemic destabilization. There are other methods, too.

see: CoIntelPro
john

Novato, CA

#594 May 16, 2009
Lez get real or let's get in in the rear?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

California Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News California suspends 3 medical providers for fraud 17 hr marg 1
News California becomes 'sanctuary state' as governo... Oct 16 Real American 3
News The Latest: California governor to visit fire z... Oct 16 RustyS 4
News California declares emergency to fight hepatiti... Oct 13 Conservative boot 2
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) Oct 12 Armson 64,003
News The Latest: Thousands flee Southern California ... Oct 11 lock her up ump 2
News All-renewable power is a reachable goal for Cal... Oct 10 Solarman 1
More from around the web