Yes, we can.

[JWBear]

I would say that the issue is divisive, not the sides.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by JWBear

I would say that the issue is divisive, not the sides.

True.

scaeagles ~ The couples that sued CA are saying, "Hey, our relationships are just as valid and as important as straight ones. We deserve marriage equality." At that point, it's between those couples and the court. The Supreme Court of CA agreed. Now, the anti-gay marriage groups are up in arms saying that the state's constitution should be amended. The misinformed anti-marriage backers are forcing a choice on the issue, taking it to the masses and saying make a choice. Pro-gay marriage organizations (like Love Honor Cherish for example) are surfacing as a defensive move because of the misinformation anti-marriage orgs are spreading. When decisions were being made about interracial couples in the courts, they stood and that was that.
I see the wingnuts using it as a divisive issue because they are disagreeing with the courts and brought the issue forward. It was not the gay community that brought it to the people first and said 'You gotta listen to us and agree with us and choose sides'.

[scaeagles]

Well, GC said the fundies use it as a divisive tool. I'm saying that both sides use it as a divisive tool.

[innerSpaceman]

The entire concept of the rights of a minority being decided by the majority is worthy of Thru the Looking Glass, and anathema to the principals of the U.S. Constitution.

But homosexuals did not put that issue on the ballot in California (and other states) to be decided by a tyranical majority. Don't pretend that gays made this a political issue by pleading for justice in courts of law, or that blacks made a political issue by demanding equal rights under the law, or that women made it an issue by struggling for the right to vote.

In all cases, it was their oppressors who made it a political issue ... and it's a shame that such things had to be fought for, tooth and nail, and that such things still need to be fought for ... when they have been enshrined in the introduction of our American Constitution since our nation was formed.


It's disgusting.




But in no sense are gays using their quest to be equal with everyone else as a divisive tool. Nor did blacks yearning to be equal seek to divide. Nor did woman fighting for equality want to divide. In each case, the oppressed have sought to unite all Americans, all humanity, in the enjoyment of inalienable rights.

[scaeagles]

Why am I being disgusting?

All I said was that making something divisive by challanging the status quo is how change is made. I said being divisive isn't always a bad thing. I didn't say blacks were wrong, but it was damn divisive when Rosa Parks took the seat on the bus. That doesn't mean it was wrong. Wrong is often times moving dutifully to the back of the bus.

That isn't disgusting. It's fact. To say that being divisive itself is wrong is disgusting.

[scaeagles]

Ok - I can see that point, GC.

But I do stand by what I said that being divisive in and of itself is not wrong.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Ok - I can see that point, GC.

But I do stand by what I said that being divisive in and of itself is not wrong.

Maybe, but what's the point on being divisive about issues that there is an impas on? Just so the issue can be played out nationally and on TV? Also, I don't understand what the Mormon church has to gain by stepping into this ruckus. Increased membership? More donations to their organization under the guise of "protecting traditional marriage"?

But getting back to the topic... I applaud Obama for saying what he said. It ain't perfect, but it's closer than McCain will ever get.

[innerSpaceman]

To clarify, i was not saying you are disgusting, scaeagles (though I'll have to think about that ), just that having to fight for the rights we and others were promised over two centuries ago, and which are ours regardless of the constitution in any event, is disgusting.


To which I will add we are not using the same English language. It is NOT divisive to try and JOIN with everyone else. It IS devisive to try and prevent that joining. Look it up.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh yeah, Obama.


Hmmm, maybe he'll accept my thanks in trade. Then I can find out if it's twue.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Oh yeah, Obama.


Hmmm, maybe he'll accept my thanks in trade. Then I can find out if it's twue.

public mojo - OH how that one made me laugh!