Vote Watch

[TJones]

As I've already replied to your earlier post:

From this morning's Chronicle:

"In Harris County, turnout was about 14 percent with 70 percent of precincts reporting, though two Montrose-area precincts with substantial gay and lesbian populations reported turnouts of around 35 percent."

Still not enough but a whole lot better than the rest of the state.

A denouncement means nothing coming from you. You don't have the media's ear. Perry does. He would have scored some big points if he had just been a stand up man to the KKK.

So when is the last time Ann Richards or Bill Clinton been a stand up guy and denounced the KKK, he certainly didn't denounce Robert Byrd(D) or got out in front of any Neo-Nazis when he was Gov. of Ark.

I apologize nmain, I don't mean to argue with you, there are just much bigger things to worry about than a few idiots regurgitating hate, and spewing filth.Those morons will surely come to a gruesome end to their lives. The only thing people like that understand is violence, and you don't want that on the front steps of the capitol building, do you ?

I'm sure that Gov. Perry, being the staunch Republican that he is, does not approve of gay marriage, that doesn't mean he supports the KKK, he doesn't want to risk a run in with that kind of filth either.

[gardenoaksguy]

MidtownCoog, I am not and have never been a big marriage proponent...gay or straight. I agree that the timing wasn't right and probably it will be a couple of generations before it is. Read my previous post again, this is not just about marriage. It's about taxes, inheritance, the right to make end of life decisions, joint ownership of property, insurances.....the list goes on and on. This ammendment didn't just ban same sex marriage, it prohibits ANYTHING like it, including domestic partnerships. As you age, try thinking about how difficult it will be to even get into an assisted living faciltiy with your 30 year partner because you don't have a state-sanctioned relationship. Maybe the timing is right to bring the issue to the forefront so your generation won't have to face these things. You can hardly not understand the urgency that others older than you may be feeling about this as they face these difficulties.

Jeebus

"In a nation of law, many often confuse rights with privilages."

A "right" is often seen as a "privilage" to those who already have them. Sometimes they are even called "special rights" because somebody else is asking for it.

[MidtownCoog]

I do understand your point.

[Jeebus]

A "right" is often seen as a "privilage" to those who already have them. Sometimes they are even called "special rights" because somebody else is asking for it.

I agree. As for the rights versus privilage stance, I do feel that most of my rights are actually government allowed & regulated privilages. I can very well understand why gay people feel they are being denied what they might feel would be considered rights. I feel like its my right to be able to use drugs freely. I also feel its my right to spend my money however I please, be it hookers or gambling. Unfortunately, my beloved government seems to think I don't deserve those rights - or as they would call them, privilages.

For the record, I didn't vote yesterday either. There was nothing for me to vote for. To quote Hank Hill: "I'm more American for not voting."

[nmainguy]

In a nation of law, many often confuse rights with privilages.

I never confused rights with special privlages for straight people.

[TJones]

I agree. As for the rights versus privilage stance, I do feel that most of my rights are actually government allowed & regulated privilages. I can very well understand why gay people feel they are being denied what they might feel would be considered rights. I feel like its my right to be able to use drugs freely. I also feel its my right to spend my money however I please, be it hookers or gambling. Unfortunately, my beloved government seems to think I don't deserve those rights - or as they would call them, privilages.

For the record, I didn't vote yesterday either. There was nothing for me to vote for. To quote Hank Hill: "I'm more American for not voting."

Jeebus, there is always NEVADA, where it actually is your right, you naughty naughty boy !

[sevfiv]

What is a minority? The chosen heroes of this earth have been in a minority. There is not a social, political, or religious privilege that you enjoy today that was not bought for you by the blood and tears and patient suffering of the minority. It is the minority that have stood in the vain of every moral conflict, and achieved all that is noble in the history of the world.

-John B. Gough

[TJones]

You then have to ask yourself, what you feel is morally right or wrong, and then fight or vote accordingly. Bringing morality into any situation, calls upon you to look inside yourself, and what you hold your beliefs to be founded in, whether it be the law of your GOD, or the law of man. Just because someone is in the minority doesn't mean they are morally right, does it ? Just asking.

[eelimon]

I know a gay couple that is also leaving the state. The immediate cause was a job offer, but a major reason that contributed to their decision to pack up and leave was what they felt was a climate of intolerance in Texas and their inability to get equivalent benefits here. Too bad. It's Houston's loss.

You know yesterday has to be some kind of historical landmark. it marks the first time the KKK and Black Baptist Reverend agreed on something and campaigned for the same agenda, to discriminate against another group of people most don't quite understand.

I wont consider moving from this state until people start burning

pink triangles

or rainbow flags

in my front yard

[Jeebus]

lol.. what a sad, pathetic day that would be.

[Montrose1100]

Man, I'm gay, but I hate that stupid rainbow flag like nother... Its just, so... gay!

[eelimon]

Man, I'm gay, but I hate that stupid rainbow flag like nother... Its just, so... gay!

But how would you feel if some one burns that stupid flag in your front yard simply because you are gay. How would you feel about it then?

[sevfiv]

You then have to ask yourself, what you feel is morally right or wrong, and then fight or vote accordingly. Bringing morality into any situation, calls upon you to look inside yourself, and what you hold your beliefs to be founded in, whether it be the law of your GOD, or the law of man. Just because someone is in the minority doesn't mean they are morally right, does it ? Just asking.

well, we all know who thinks they are morally right...they make up a demographic, such as the one that voted in favor of proposition 2. again, it is pushing opinions into moral truths, which in my opinion, is morally wrong

[MidtownCoog]

Not so fast, Mr. sevfiv.

Gay marriage ban crossed political lines, analysts say

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/3451194

[sevfiv]

ok, ms. coog, then i'll just call it as i see it. (these items are just in general - not pointed at you)

1.) why does marriage (or just legal binding between two consenting adults in a more general case) present such a threat to these socially conservative "family-value" centered people? why does this deconstruct the sanctity of marriage. if they have a sacred marriage, then nothing else should be able to invalidate that (especially something that two strangers do with their own lives).

2.) these people should come to realize that gay people have been, and will be around forever. there is no point in pushing legislation against them (especially when written so horifically) because it will just come and kick em in the ass later.

like you said earlier, though, this country is just not ready for it. not yet.

sheesh:

[MidtownCoog]

I guess you did not read the article.

[sevfiv]

sorry - my post wasn't related to the article...but it does come back to the whole straight party line issue (and how they are more ambiguous than people tend to demarcate). and there are plenty of religiously-driven "democrats" out there that allow their religious beliefs to drive their political decisions. that's nothing new.

They don't see it as much as a civil rights issue as they see it as a right of traditional marriage issue

but do both belong in the realm of politics?

[gardenoaksguy]

Every religion defines what is "moral" differently, and even change those definitions over time. When what is defined as moral by the dominant religious viewpoint crosses over into politics, someone will be on the bottom. Many religious folks are so focused on getting to heaven that they will climb on anyones back to get there...kind of like throwing others off of the lifeboats of the Titanic so they can save themselves. How moral is this? We as a society should start asking this question and defining some boundries. I am all for freedom of people to pratice their religion, and nothing I am doing in my personal life prevents them from doing so. Why then the need to legislate their beliefs? Is that freedom of religion at that point, or religious persecution? It is a conundrum indeed.

[sevfiv]

Why then the need to legislate their beliefs? Is that freedom of religion at that point, or religious persecution? It is a conundrum indeed.

amen! i mean right on.

[nmainguy]

pink triangles

Actually the Nazis didn't burn pink triangles. They made homosexuals wear them on their clothes-just like the Jews were made to wear the Star of David.

We all know what that led to...

As far as prop 2 goes-I suppose we will continue to fight as I don't see many of us willing to go back in the closet. They really can't legislate that-yet.

It's kind of like the anti-choice people. They think they can legislate away abortions. Well, sorry. There has been abortion since pre-biblical days. You can keep it as safe and rare as possible or make it illegal so you'll have to hook up with the dude in the alley with his rusty coat hanger.

[i don't know if the right to choose is an apt analogy-maybe I'm just blathering...just trying to show what I think the consequences are when government by moral dictate becomes too heavy handed.]

{Sorry, no smiley this time-not much in the above to smile about}

[west20th]

Sounds like you really do need a new job. Many Houston companies offer benefits for domestic partners.

Mine does, and so did my last two employers.

Yes. But that is still the exception, not the rule.

In a nation of law, many often confuse rights with privilages.

And why should you be afforded more "priveledges" because of whom you sleep with?

[RedScare]

This may be veering a bit off-topic, but in response to the abortion issue...and, maybe this points out the futility of trying to legislate religion...there are numerous drugs on the market that can induce abortion. Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, pharmaceutical advances are making abortion obtainable anyway...and in complete privacy.

There are those who believe the anti-abortionists have already lost the battle. Once abortion can be achieved at home, there will be no central place to protest, and no realistic way to stop it.

But, nmainguy is correct. These are both examples of people trying to control things that are of no concern to them. Imagine, and this from the people who claim to be for less government intrusion.

[sevfiv]

as long as your pharmacist doesn't object:

http://www.woai.com/news/state/story.aspx?...6F-ECA09182E566

these would have to be OTC drugs....

also, midtowncoog referenced an article:

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...indpost&p=57470

which relates to this:

http://www.arizonawatch.com/archives/gover...ves-pharmacists

[TJones]

The Uber-religious are holding on to this last bit of hope, that "gay-marriage", being an abomination in their eyes, will never come to fruition. These people who PROTEST such things, are the same people who hate "inter-racial marriages". I have come to believe that if you are going to dis-approve "gay-marriage" and not make it a right of homosexuals as citizens who pay taxes, then you also have to pass a law that prohibits and makes "inter-racial marriages" null and void. Those who say, "well, people should be able to marry who they want, no matter what color their skin is, you can't help who you fall in love with." HYPOCRITES, every last one of you, HYPOCRITES ! ! ! It is all about EQUAL RIGHTS, if you pay taxes, and obey the laws, then what the hell else matters. This fine line we walk of GOD in Government, and that it should be seperated, well, the problem is that is how our country was founded, using the ten commandments as a guide, Catch 22 my friends, Catch 22.

[RedScare]

I am completely unimpressed by the pharmicist's objection to filling prescriptions that violate his morals. Choosing which part of your job you will perform or not perform is not a right an employee has. It is not a woman's right to work in a topless bar, yet refuse to undress, because it violates her morals. She has a right not to work there. The undressing is critical to the job. The act of dispensing medicine is critical to the job of a pharmacist, as well.

In the same manner, Randall's can decide not to sell alcohol, but a Mormon cannot refuse to ring up the sale. I suggest these pharmacists find a store that is more compatible with their views. Otherwise, don't accept the paycheck.

[westguy]

The Uber-religious are holding on to this last bit of hope, that "gay-marriage", being an abomination in their eyes, will never come to fruition. These people who PROTEST such things, are the same people who hate "inter-racial marriages". I have come to believe that if you are going to dis-approve "gay-marriage" and not make it a right of homosexuals as citizens who pay taxes, then you also have to pass a law that prohibits and makes "inter-racial marriages" null and void. Those who say, "well, people should be able to marry who they want, no matter what color their skin is, you can't help who you fall in love with." HYPOCRITES, every last one of you, HYPOCRITES ! ! ! It is all about EQUAL RIGHTS, if you pay taxes, and obey the laws, then what the hell else matters. This fine line we walk of GOD in Government, and that it should be seperated, well, the problem is that is how our country was founded, using the ten commandments as a guide, Catch 22 my friends, Catch 22.

When I got to the last sentence... huh?

[nmainguy]

This fine line we walk of GOD in Government, and that it should be seperated, well, the problem is that is how our country was founded, using the ten commandments as a guide, Catch 22 my friends, Catch 22.

That is not how our country was founded. No god or set of commandments is ever mentioned in the Constitution. I know many constitutional scholars contend the framers did use the Ten Commandments as a guide. However, since they never mention a god or any set of any god's commandments in the Constitution, I think one of the reasons may lie in the 1st Amendment. It must have been in the fore-front of their minds since they didn't wait untill they got to #4 or #7. It is the very, very, very first thing they addressed. I don't see any catch 22. I wonder what Scalia and Thomas think since they say the Constitution is static and not living? They say there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Do they also think there should be no prayer or mention of a god in a tax-payer funded school?

Do I digress?

[westguy]

I think it would be just the opposite of what TJones said. The Founders were Deists, thus they believed that God's involvement in this world ended with its creation. Would the Ten Commandments even be valid under their beliefs? I don't think so because the Bible clearly shows us that they were a supernatural revelation - something the Founders wouldn've believed in.

[WesternGulf]

OK, I have been trying to find this passage for a while. My parents found it for me one day, but it took me a while to find it again. Someone on another forum finally posted it.

Mathew 19

"Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the Kingodm of Heaven. The one who can accept this, should accept it."

In Isaiah 56

For this is what the Lord says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases men and hold fast to my covenant, to them I will give within my temple and it's walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off."

[Metalart]

You are more fortunate than you realize. Over 30% of the people in Houston don't have insurance at all. Most people here don't work for national companies that may offer domestic partner benefits. I happen to work in the medical field and for a hospital that is part of the UT system. No hospitals in Houston (that I know of) offers domestic partner benefits and State of Texas entities are not allowed to do so.

Baylor offers domestic partner benefits...

I know it isn't a hospital, but they have positions that cover almost every aspect in the medical field.

it always kinda amuses me and makes me wonder if it's parent school in waco realizes that they do.