Arkansas Blog

Oh man, this is horrible! First gays get special rights on this and then they will want to date our women.

No wait, that is the excuse we used to infringe on black's rights.

It is against the Bible!

No wait, that is the excuse we used to ban interracial dating.

Aw hell! I guess what people do that doesn't concern me shouldn't concern me.

Note to Docholliday-
Citizen1 and Citizens Journal are completely different posters.

I am Citizen1, a true liberal.

.This afternoon, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the State Legislature must provide the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples that married couples currently receive. The court left it to the Legislature to determine how to ensure equality. This is great and long awaited news for the same-sex couples in NJ.

With the elections less than two weeks away, we are sure that our adversaries will try and use this decision to divide working people, as they have tried to do with LGBT issues, immigration, and race-baiting in the past. We know that labor volunteers, staff, and activists will be phone-banking, volunteering, and walking the country, engaging rank and file workers about this critical election. Pride At Work would like to arm you with the following talking points that can be used when talking to members who may be concerned about the decision. We hope they will help you inoculate members and help us all keep our eyes on November 7th.

We'd like to thank the seven couples that brought this case, Lambda Legal, Garden State Equality, and the Garden State Equality Labor Caucus for all their dedication and work. We encourage the New Jersey legislature to vote in favor of full marriage equality for all couples. This afternoon, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the State Legislature must provide the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples that married couples currently receive. The court left it to the Legislature to determine how to ensure equality. This is great and long awaited news for the same-sex couples in NJ.

With the elections less than two weeks away, we are sure that our adversaries will try and use this decision to divide working people, as they have tried to do with LGBT issues, immigration, and race-baiting in the past. We know that labor volunteers, staff, and activists will be phone-banking, volunteering, and walking the country, engaging rank and file workers about this critical election. Pride At Work would like to arm you with the following talking points that can be used when talking to members who may be concerned about the decision. We hope they will help you inoculate members and help us all keep our eyes on November 7th.

We'd like to thank the seven couples that brought this case, Lambda Legal, Garden State Equality, and the Garden State Equality Labor Caucus for all their dedication and work. We encourage the New Jersey legislature to vote in favor of full marriage equality for all couples.

Thank you!

paw@aflcio.org

The backlash to this decision is an effort by our opponents to distract us from the real issues. As labor folks, let's not get distracted- it's time for a change.

Opponents of working people's interests use marriage as a wedge issue to divide us and distract us. We hope you'll agree with us that what is important in this election is electing candidates who will help: find an end to the war in Iraq, hold corporations accountable, put an end to government corruption, and increase our pitiful minimum wage.

This decision mandates the New Jersey legislature enact equality, putting the decision in the hands of the legislature - the representatives elected by the people.

There are more than 1,500 rights and protections under federal law alone to which married couples are entitled and same-sex couples denied. Many, such as Social Security benefits and workers' compensations, derive from an individual's employment status.

Refusing to legally recognize same-sex relationships deprives thousands of families of the most important attributes of their labor; the ability to take care of and provide for their family members.

Same-sex couples are devoted to each other, they love each other, they have kids, and they love their families. Since marriage is the way the government provides protection, support, and respect for families, it's only fair that these families get those rights too.

Without marriage, same-sex couples are left vulnerable or left scrambling to cobble together a patchwork of legal documents that still don't provide them with the security and protections their families need.

Labor has been a leading force in securing Domestic Partner Benefits and adding Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity to non-discrimination clauses by including these demands in their collective bargaining agreements.

Strangely the article failed to mention which person(s) got the case to court just in time for more non-issue gay bashing to push a few more Rethugs into office.

The '04 case and ruling in Mass. was filed by two Republicans and gained traction thanks to FOX news. Now CNN wants to be the leader.

Does anyone smell another Rove Rat in this News Cycle? While warships are gathering across the bay from Iran, including guided missle cruisers, part of an entire battle group.
http://www.dontattackiran.org

Listening to the radio today, I thought it was notable that a New Jersey lesbian that was interviewed stridently opined that civil unions that grant all of the rights conveyed by marriage - would not be enough! You have to call it a "marriage".

I guess this emphasizes that, for many, this is a political issue, not a "rights" issue. I can support civil unions (granting all of the so-called "marital rights") without supporting gay "marriage". That seems like a reasonable way of settling the issue - but finding a common middle ground isn't enough to satisfy some folks.

Oh, those strident lesbians.

They do seem to worry the life out of Donkey.

Actually, Donkey, you seem to be suffering from a memory lapse. Your postings says that " I can support civil unions (granting all of the so-called 'marital rights') without supporting gay 'marriage'."

But you and I engaged in a discussion of that very issue on this blog in the past, and you stated that a relationship that needs state sanction and protection can't be very strong, or it would be able to stand on its own.

In the previous discussion, you clearly rejected support for civil unions for gays.

Am I conclude that you "can" support such unions, but you don't?

Or is your primary interest in this issue to use it (and human lives) in a political game to make points for your party?

One lesbian does not a movement make. She is entitled to her opinion. The majority of the gay community will be happy with equal rights. The semantics [marriage, civil union, etc.] are quite secondary; like "stay the course" and "cut and run". They too will change over time.

Actually, Donkey, you seem to be suffering from a memory lapse. Your postings says that " I can support civil unions (granting all of the so-called 'marital rights') without supporting gay 'marriage'."
But you and I engaged in a discussion of that very issue on this blog in the past, and you stated that a relationship that needs state sanction and protection can't be very strong, - Posted by: MuddlingThrough
********
Your memory is either faulty or else far better than mine as I don't recall making this statement. Please refer me to the specific thread you are citing.