LintLass's Comments (216)

“Let's put it this way, Mr. Olmstead.

If some people want to claim this is just about a 'word' and we should 'settle' for civil unions, then the time to make that argument is *after they pony up with the civil unions,* not while they use the notion to justify denying us everything.”

“The simple fact is, my relationship is what it is. Allowing some to try and break us up with legalized hostility doesn't change that marriage. Or the commitments involved. You don't get to sit on the sidelines and 'tell us the odds.'

Like that has anything to do with *us.* We're not 'people looking for some magic capacities­.'

We're looking to be able to share our lives and property..­. As we do, and not have everything taken away by the nearest hostile straight relative, When, as must happen eventually, hopefully a long time from now, one of us passes on.

We're looking for the freedom to *build a life together.* For each other. And not have it all taken away by the next idiot that can say 'I disagree with your 'lifestyle­.'”

“Frankly, the 'ballot box' didn't 'trump' anything. Our Constitutional protections should, and can eventually, mean that you can't vote to do an Unconstitutional thing. People who don't like us spent a *lot* of money to deceive the electorate in both California and Maine about *what they were voting for.* That's not what democracy is for, and a day will come, I think, when the courts strike such things down as the breaches of our American democratic process they are.

I don't care if you think 'Marriage is a bad bet cause straights have a high divorce rate. ' The divorce rate is *higher,* the *more* they try to restrict marriage rights, not when there are more options.

It's not to say that other models can't be pursued, but trying to claim there's some choice between 'being right' and 'having rights' is a false one.

How can we have rights by not claiming to deserve them?”

“It seems your problem there is with the fact that *health care* isn't something everyone can have unconditionally. Not with the practicalities of actual committed relationships.”

“Do you understand, Mr. Olmstead, that the attacking our right to marry is their way of trying to make official what was once social? The idea that they have a religious right to declare people second-class citizens under the law?

Yes, all manner of other things are needed, particularly for the youth. We all remember what that age was like. But allowing the Right to take away those kids' *dreams for a future* is not going to help the suicide or homeless rate.”

“Well, no, LBGT people are not the aggressors, here. When the Religious Right started attacking the possibility of us *ever* being legally married, it certainly galvanized the community to stop saying 'someday' about it.

They've been trying to take away our 'Someday.'

It did have the benefit of completely undercutting the claims of our inherent promiscuity.”

“Also, the question of whether or not 'we' abandon the 'm-word' is as misleading from you as from the anti-gay crowd. The *courts* have to rule that separate but equal is Unconstitutional, and that denying us equal marriage rights at *all* is unconstitutional.

Now, popular support for civil unions is there, and that's a good goal from the *political* end.

But when the Right claims that it's just about the 'definition of marriage' and if only 'we' would 'stop trying to take their definition' we could 'settle for civil unions' ...and that they wouldn't and don't fight *those* tooth and nail as well...

Guess what. They aren't telling the truth.

The funny thing is, of course, what actually gets *called* a marriage out there in society is one thing the law can't contrl to begin with. On the political end, pushing for civil unions laws certainly makes sense, but there's a whole other venue about this in the courts. There, the law demands full equality.”

“Now, there's nothing wrong with exploring other models of family and living, (And many do) but that's not an argument against marriage. Philosophically, I might like to be in a committed poly thing, that doesn't change the realities of being in a couple. In fact, while SSM won't suddenly cause poly things to spring up, as the anti-gay crowd insists: if you can't have a legal union between or involving people of the same sex at all, , that certainly is a barrier to such things.

In fact, the anti-gay crowd are attacking the rights of *anyone* to enter into 'marriage-like' contracts, just to get at us.

A couple, or a group, isn't just a bunch of individuals. There's an interdependence there which is both good for individuals and for society at large. There's enough forces out there trying to keep us all isolated and on our own as it is.”

“It's pretty simple: marriage, for these purposes, is a civil contract. Equal protection under the law relates to what kind of people can enter into that contract, not to any claims people within that contract cannot enjoy any benefit from it, compared to not having entered that contract.

There are other advantages to being a single person, certainly. Being a couple means you're obligated to each other, whether the government punishes you for who is in it or not.

But the fact is, LBGT people are married, whether treated equally under the law for it or not. . The sour grapes angle is something I haven't heard in a long time. So you don't want to be in a couple. People used to say it was the nature of LBGT people to never *want to* be monogamous: that we aren't capable of it. I guess some people thought that was fun, and that's fine.

But a lot of people also just think that some of us were living down to stereotypes, thinking a committed relationship was just something they couldn't *have.*

We're expecting more out of life, now, those of us who find we're the 'marrying kind.'”

“Frankly, I think it's just trying to create as much blind and irrational division to divert from the disasters of the past administration that we're still recovering from. Gay people are being scapegoated. To make the Religious Right seem powerful about something, no doubt.”

“Actually, by the way, Obama did not halt cost of living increases, the formula by which the COLA increases rise automatically came up with zero due to certain falling consumer prices which are involved in how those increases are calculated. So Obama in fact *gave* the seniors something to compensate.”

“Ok, if you're not even going to take this seriously, go back to right wing radio. :)”

“Time to get over the idea that people who try to divide us over the *word* marriage really intend to stop there. They're anti-gay and intellectu­ally-disho­nest. When they ask 'Why don't you settle for civil unions' ...as if we *had* them, they're... basically lying. The same people who try to make the 'definition' an issue ask people to vote for laws that don't stop at the definition of a word, but in fact outlaw the same civil unions, separate but equal, not equal, or whatever.

People don't read the laws and referenda when the anti-gay crowd gets their votes with deceptions and says 'the people have spoken'.

It's very simple: the courts have to rule equal protection for all, including the word.

Civil unions by legislative measures ...equal in all but name, I think would be a reasonable step. There is in fact support for this, but watch the same propaganda organs start going after that whenever it's propose. Look at the content of the Constitutional amendments they claim are merely about protecting a 'definiton' from uppity LBGT families.

Look who's telling the *truth* and who's fearmongering.”

“Err, no, it's not 'like'that.

LBGT Americans *are* citizens, for the most part.”

“While it's certainly true that it's wrong to be voting to deny civil rights and equality to Americans, ir really just does -not- follow that it's somehow 'worse' to vote to defeat such an initiative.

No, it shouldn't be necessary, but there we are.”

“I don't think it pays at all to be so cynical about the high-minded aspects of our revolution and the Founders. The idealism and the thought that went into it was real. As real as the messy practicalities, self-interests, and biases of the time. It's all pretty well-documented in their own words. Living up to these ideals, particularly in the face of bigotry and injustices and economics.­.. that's been a constant battle, one that was scuffled over even as our government was designed.”

“Not everyone who's anti-war is anti-havin­g-a-milita­ry. While some may be puzzled how gays end up in the military in the first place, very few think our gay servicemembers should get a raw deal and abuse as thanks for serving their country.

The military, especially as college gets more and more out of reach for more and more of our nation's youth (even if you aren't getting flak from the people who are supposed to be on your side in life) often looks like a good ticket out of bad situations or dead-end prospects or just plain unemployment. For some LBGT people, it's a last ditch attempt to try and 'be a man' (Or even something they're directed into,in the case of boys, ...that's the big myth, isn't it? Son, you're joining the Marines so they can make a man out of you!)

For gals, it can be a way to escape certain other kinds of expectations and demands.

I don't imagine the idea of 'military as surrogate family' is any too unappealing to those who've experienced rejection and alienation in their own families and communities, either.

It's not an issue that will 'just go away' if someone comes along and says 'Nobody at all should join the military.'”

“You know, maybe this is part of a gap here:

"So it is in this environment that black LGBTs have a difficult choice about whether to come out, though more and more are. Fearful of losing social connections, friendships and emotional shelter provided by their faith community if they come out, black gays and lesbians in the church are intimidate­d."

Most white LBGT people grew up with this, too. Most of us were raised to figure that if you come out, never mind be out and active for your rights, you basically forfeit any social connections, friendships, churches, or whatever 'emotional shelter' a homophobic environment may dubiously provide to begin with. It's expected. Maybe someone'll be good to you, maybe not.

There's a double-whammy for LBGT people of color, true, but I don't see how it's white LBGT people's fault if many in the black community doesn't want to come out, then say it's about there not already being a lot of black folks in the movement like it's some systemic exclusion.

Which isn't to say these big ticket fundraisers represent *me,* either.

Money talks. Has a limited vocabulary, but it may as well say what it can.

Yes, there's a lot more to us. But these dinners are just what they are. What would I do, buy some outfit that costs more than anything I already own, and that would represent my social class? Maybe it's not the dinners. Maybe it's where the cameras point.”

“But hey, with spirit like this, how can we possibly lose, right?”

“I was actually stunned that this rally, unlike a couple bigger ones before.. Got coverage. Of course, the talk has turned to "Are LBGT people screwing up Obama's health care initiative­s.. As opposed to anyone else in the world, this reporter included?'”

“Well, it *was* a big football weekend. And baseball weekend, and probably for conservatives 'Distract everyone from our teabagging' weekend.

Always a great time to stand up for LBGT rights, 'Let's see if sports fans are watching the news.' :)”

“Not exactly something I found to be linked prominently here on Huffpo. There's been a lot of noise this week.

As a bunch of us chanted at the first demonstration I attended (bus trouble)

We're here, we're queer, we're late, we're sorry!"

:)”

“Should read: "Especially if you think this *is* about sex or something, and not people's lives."

This stuff in particular­.... flusters me.”

“Read that link, people. Especially if you think this isn't about sex or something, and not people's lives.”

“A lot of change has happened. A lot of rights simply have not been secured. Certain parties and churches find it useful to kick us all around the parking lot for as long as they can.

Yes, there's been change. Socially.

Time to pony up with the John Hancock.”