Include discrimination in the Florida Constitution? Never!
Here's a fun story.
Janice Langbehn, a resident of Washington, has a partner, Lisa Pond, who died in Florida a year ago:
"... Pond, Langbehn's partner for nearly 18 years, was stricken in Miami with a brain aneurysm and died. Langbehn, a social worker, said officials at Jackson Memorial Hospital did not recognize her or their jointly adopted children as part of Pond's family... Langbehn said she was informed by a social worker that they were in an 'anti-gay state' and that they needed legal paperwork before Langbehn could see Pond."
-The Olympian, of Olympia, Washington, June 17, 2007
Janice didn't get to say goodbye because, in the Sunshine State, her family relationship was refused any recognition even as Lisa lay dying.
In related news, retired Florida residents Ed Lessen and Clarice Pollock have been living in sin - err - together in a long-term domestic partnership "based on mutual love and respect" for 30 years.
"We want to be able to take care of each other and visit each other in the hospital, if it should come to that," says Clarice. "This amendment will take that away."
*This* amendment is Amendment #2. It'll be on the November ballot this year.
Vote No.
This is for Janice and her children, for Ed and Clarice and for all the others who need us to stand up and protect their right to care for their loved ones.
Vote with sanity, acceptance and love.
Then make a donation of $100 or more to Fairness for All Families. You cheap bastard.
posted by kate @ 10:06 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
C'mon,K. Fla's a long way from C.S.
When are you going to forget where you came from and look to where you're going. Think "Darfur", it's much closer to home for you.
And, if you don't believe that, then think about the two blonds sitting on a bench in Okla one evening. One asked the other which was closer, the moon or Fla. Answered the other, are you crazy, can you see Fla. from here.
So, think "Darfur"
Hell, you should be able to visit your dying FRIEND, you shouldn't have to be a relative. There are alot of my relatives who I wouldn't want anyone to let into the hospital if I were sick.
I'll not donate a hundred beans, but I'll vote no. My favorite are my neighbors, the gay-republicans, nothing like voting against your own interests. Yeah, they can't get married, but they are getting a "stimulus" check. Course I guess the stimulus goes aways for a lot of people once they get married, maybe the boys have a point.
Who are you to say what's in someone elses best interests? MYOB and do what's best for you and they'll do what's best for them. You can't do a damn thing about it anyway except complain, which no doubt gives you purpose.
Anonymous, good advice, could you pass that along to Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill O'Really, and the rest of that gang? That'd be great.
You're a funny guy, Chase.
Gee, I'd say someone discriminating against you probably does have your best interest in mind. Now, that's just a guess, and I am often wrong, not as often as Anon Said, but often.
You're a funny guy, Andy.
someone discriminating against you probably does have your best interest in mind.
Where is this institutionalized discrimination on the part of the Republican party towards gays and lesbians? I'm talking "you can't drink from this water fountain and get your ass to the back of the bus" discrimination that the government has control over?
ENDA? A nice thought, perhaps, but certainly not about to change the hiring and firing practices of corporations with an anti-gay bias. All such laws do is drive the real reason for discrimination underground while allowing politicians of both parties to pat themselves on the back for a "Mission Accomplished" and go on ignoring the deeper issues.
Hate Crime Laws? There are already laws out there to punish said crimes, so why punish certain crimes twice and, in effect, say the suffering of a gay victim of violent crime is more acute than the suffering of a heterosexual victim of violent crime? They do nothing to deter the bias crimes and, in fact, may actually cause them by again driving issues underground where they can fester.
DADT? Well, lets be honest here, that was put in place by a Democrat. Not only that, but it was put in place as a stop-gap measure, but as soon as it was instituted, it's temporary nature was forgotten about and nothing has been done to revoke it since.
DOMA? Again, signed by a Democrat President and while individual states may have, largely through the effort of Democrat lawmakers, enacted state statutes allowing marriage, many others have expressly forbidden it. Where is the Democrat political outcry at this discrimination? More importantly, where is the concrete Democrat action to overturn these state laws and amendments?
The fact may very well be that Republicans are more uncomfortable with gay and lesbian issues, but not liking someone and actually discriminating against them are entirely different things, although they've been successfully wedded in the general media. I just don't see this prevalent, widespread discrimination by the Republican party that everyone tells me I need to beware of and base my entire voting choice on. I do, though, see many gays and lesbians who don't necessarily feel the Democrat party supports their specific interests viciously cast out, vilified and accused of self-loathing by the Gay Community for daring to even ask questions.
The fact is that neither party is doing very much for the gay and lesbian community. The difference is that at least the Republicans are not promising action and then not delivering.
The choice comes down to where you want your knife? Republican policy may stab us, but at least it stabs us in our face so we know where we stand and might have a chance of doing something about it. Democrat policy throws its arm around us in a friendly hug until it gets what it wants, our money and our votes, and then shivs us as we stare at it with adoring puppy eyes.
Finally, gay men and women are realizing that coming out doesn't mean automatic lifetime enrollment in the Democrat party; that the party line of, "Well, who are you going to vote for? Republicans?" is less than threatening when compared with the Democrat record on gay and lesbian issues. In the long run, this may be a good thing for both gays and lesbians and the Democrat party. No longer can they strictly count on gay and lesbian donor dollars (a sizeable chunk of change) nor can they rely on us as a voting bloc.
Well said, and not inaccurate. Clinton got elected while promising to end anti-gay discrimination in the military. When he found out that is was unpopular he went with don't-ask-don't-tell. Cop out.
I guess people should just fight their nature and get on married to them of the opposite sex. One man one woman one more man one more woman (oh wait, Romney dropped out)
I guess people should just fight their nature and get on married to them of the opposite sex.
Really? After everything I said, that's what you took away?
I've never heard Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly claim that people aren't voting in their own best interest (I don't listen to Savage). Find a link if you got one and post it. Nope, squirrel brain, using that phrase in the political world is purely a liberal elitist meme in the "We're the intelligensia and we know what's in your best interest even better than you do, comrade" fashion. That's all it means and that's all it'll ever mean.
And for the marxist running teacher assbag, with shit like you on the payroll no wonder Johnny can't read. It isn't up to you to decide for another whether something is discriminationg against them or not. Despite your false belief that you know how others should view events, that's just not how things truly work. You see, they get to decide whether something is or isn't in their own best interest, not you. Never you.
Such an angry, sad little man. Or girl. Whichever.
How come I don't hear what scientists have to say and rant about how they think they're smarter than me? Oh right. Because I don't have an inferiority complex. Or a small dick.
These groups are filled with people who are being discriminated against and are raising hell about it. Helping themselves and all. And so I'm chipping in and helping too. Becauuse they asked me to and because it's the least I can do.
Now run along. Go beat off or something. You'll feel better.
Doesn't work that way, bitch. We're not talking about science.
I know how you libtards like to place people who fit certain characteristics into the box you think they belong in, but until you figure out people are individuals and not blocks of fools that should only vote a certain way based upon your viewpoint of what is and isn't "in their best interest," then you'll continue to never understand why these issues you so deperately want to advance continually seem to be stuck in neutral.
But I'll tell you what; next time I run into some twinkie who owns his own expanding company, I'll remind him that you think voting for faggot-assed-faggot rights should be more important to him than voting to keep his corporate taxes lower and from preventing an ever-expanding government from dictating to him who he can and can't hire. I'm sure he'll appreciate your superior insight regarding what his priorities should be when voting.
Damn, you're stupid as hell.
Post a Comment
<< Home