TOPICS:
NOV 16, 2008 06:12 AM
NOV 16, 2008 10:09 AM
Otoki said:
Argene said:
Katieesq said:
^^^ Though I am inclined to agree with you, I think detractors are wary of embracing an inferior legal solution for fear of it becoming an acceptable status quo. Though civil unions may be a step in the right direction and a workable compromise in today's political climate, it's still smacks of supporting inequality (the 3/5 compromise comes to mind, even though that wasn't established to afford slaves any kind of equality, but you get the idea).
I'm not sure I want to embrace our generation's Plessy v. Ferguson, even if it iis only a temporary solution. It strikes me as a position that lacks principle.
wait,did you read anything I said?
Yes. She read both of our posts. She feels like "civil unions" might lead to complacency in terms of activism. Or something. I could summarize this better if I wasn't on four hours of sleep
I know, the thing is that the poster ignored the things I said about healthcare and job security (non discrimination), here a woman suffered permanent brain damage from some bashers, who weren't charged because it wasn't on the books that an attack based on sexual orientation was "worthy" of consideration or prosecution. There was another case in Greenville-Sean Kennedy-who was killed, an nothing-no prosecutions-was done about it.
For me-the passage of hate crimes laws et al will protect all LGBTQ individuals and should be as much of a priority as LGBTQ marriage. I feel it isn't, as by the poster ignoring the majority of my post ,and in the community in general.
I feel the gay community faces discrimination on many fronts, and cannot afford to throwall its resources behind one issues. Marriage should be one component of the fight for equal rights, not the be all end all issue of equal rights.
When (hopefully soon) gay marriage and civil unions (cu being more generalized, for those who do not want a traditional marriage) are reconized by federal law, that will give partnered couples a great deal of rights, but will not do anything for LGBTQ individuals outside the marriage sphere.
NOV 16, 2008 11:01 AM
NOV 16, 2008 11:05 AM
NOV 16, 2008 11:06 AM
Elichrusos said:
Argene said:
I know, the thing is that the poster ignored the things I said about healthcare and job security (non discrimination), here a woman suffered permanent brain damage from some bashers, who weren't charged because it wasn't on the books that an attack based on sexual orientation was "worthy" of consideration or prosecution.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Surely "Someone beat this woman up, and she wasn't pointing gun at them at the time" constitutes grounds for consideration or prosecution.
I don't understand why hate crime legislation needs to exist. Murder is murder, and we're not ny more ded if they kill us for being gay.
Oh yeah, great, just post the exact same thing two minutes before me. Awesome. Thanks!
NOV 16, 2008 01:04 PM
Argene said:
Otoki said:
Argene said:
Katieesq said:
^^^ Though I am inclined to agree with you, I think detractors are wary of embracing an inferior legal solution for fear of it becoming an acceptable status quo. Though civil unions may be a step in the right direction and a workable compromise in today's political climate, it's still smacks of supporting inequality (the 3/5 compromise comes to mind, even though that wasn't established to afford slaves any kind of equality, but you get the idea).
I'm not sure I want to embrace our generation's Plessy v. Ferguson, even if it iis only a temporary solution. It strikes me as a position that lacks principle.
wait,did you read anything I said?
Yes. She read both of our posts. She feels like "civil unions" might lead to complacency in terms of activism. Or something. I could summarize this better if I wasn't on four hours of sleep
I know, the thing is that the poster ignored the things I said about healthcare and job security (non discrimination), here a woman suffered permanent brain damage from some bashers, who weren't charged because it wasn't on the books that an attack based on sexual orientation was "worthy" of consideration or prosecution. There was another case in Greenville-Sean Kennedy-who was killed, an nothing-no prosecutions-was done about it.
For me-the passage of hate crimes laws et al will protect all LGBTQ individuals and should be as much of a priority as LGBTQ marriage. I feel it isn't, as by the poster ignoring the majority of my post ,and in the community in general.
I feel the gay community faces discrimination on many fronts, and cannot afford to throwall its resources behind one issues. Marriage should be one component of the fight for equal rights, not the be all end all issue of equal rights.
When (hopefully soon) gay marriage and civil unions (cu being more generalized, for those who do not want a traditional marriage) are reconized by federal law, that will give partnered couples a great deal of rights, but will not do anything for LGBTQ individuals outside the marriage sphere.
I didn't ignore the rest of your post. In fact I agreed with it. I only addressed the point to which I disagreed with it as well as the previous two posters.
That being said, I can understand why you responded the way you did because you think this case in general is being largely ignored, and thought my post was yet another example of that neglect. In fact, I think that your comments regarding hate crimes initiatives are more in line with the OP. So what has Obama said about hate crimes?
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: Obama and Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.
Is this acceptable? Is it sufficient. Discuss.
NOV 16, 2008 04:30 PM
Accuser said:
Elichrusos said:
Argene said:
I know, the thing is that the poster ignored the things I said about healthcare and job security (non discrimination), here a woman suffered permanent brain damage from some bashers, who weren't charged because it wasn't on the books that an attack based on sexual orientation was "worthy" of consideration or prosecution.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Surely "Someone beat this woman up, and she wasn't pointing gun at them at the time" constitutes grounds for consideration or prosecution.
I don't understand why hate crime legislation needs to exist. Murder is murder, and we're not ny more ded if they kill us for being gay.
Oh yeah, great, just post the exact same thing two minutes before me. Awesome. Thanks!
Perhaps using prosecute was the wrong word? The woman who was assaulted was poor and took whatever attorney she could get-who was squeamish about the case-and didn't do a great job of representing her. Unfortunately the woman ended up going free ( I have no idea why she was out on the streets anyway-she already had assault charges against her.) The sad thing is the attack happened on the victim's street-no one called the police until after the people left and she had been unconcious for at least ten minutes.
Hate crimes laws are needed because at least in the socially conservative state where I live-this behavior is acceptable because the victims are considered "faggots" or "queer" and because of their "deviant lifestyle" 
deserved what was coming to them (beating/death). A few years ago a gay man was severely beaten in Charleston, but the people responsible were aquitted-mainly for the reasons I cited above. I think there was another case in Detroit-where an elderly gay man was killed, as well. I can provide some links if you want.
The thing is, even if a person is attacked because of their sexual orientation-it's not considered at hate crime and may even be ignored by police. If feel that the implementation of hc laws may give lawyers/courts initiave or more of a foothold to punish those responsible for such crimes, especially since there's been more than a 8% jump nationwide in LGBTQ hate crimes in the past year.
Does that make sense? I hope I'm being coherent.
NOV 16, 2008 04:31 PM
Katieesq said:
Argene said:
Otoki said:
Argene said:
Katieesq said:
^^^ Though I am inclined to agree with you, I think detractors are wary of embracing an inferior legal solution for fear of it becoming an acceptable status quo. Though civil unions may be a step in the right direction and a workable compromise in today's political climate, it's still smacks of supporting inequality (the 3/5 compromise comes to mind, even though that wasn't established to afford slaves any kind of equality, but you get the idea).
I'm not sure I want to embrace our generation's Plessy v. Ferguson, even if it iis only a temporary solution. It strikes me as a position that lacks principle.
wait,did you read anything I said?
Yes. She read both of our posts. She feels like "civil unions" might lead to complacency in terms of activism. Or something. I could summarize this better if I wasn't on four hours of sleep
I know, the thing is that the poster ignored the things I said about healthcare and job security (non discrimination), here a woman suffered permanent brain damage from some bashers, who weren't charged because it wasn't on the books that an attack based on sexual orientation was "worthy" of consideration or prosecution. There was another case in Greenville-Sean Kennedy-who was killed, an nothing-no prosecutions-was done about it.
For me-the passage of hate crimes laws et al will protect all LGBTQ individuals and should be as much of a priority as LGBTQ marriage. I feel it isn't, as by the poster ignoring the majority of my post ,and in the community in general.
I feel the gay community faces discrimination on many fronts, and cannot afford to throwall its resources behind one issues. Marriage should be one component of the fight for equal rights, not the be all end all issue of equal rights.
When (hopefully soon) gay marriage and civil unions (cu being more generalized, for those who do not want a traditional marriage) are reconized by federal law, that will give partnered couples a great deal of rights, but will not do anything for LGBTQ individuals outside the marriage sphere.
I didn't ignore the rest of your post. In fact I agreed with it. I only addressed the point to which I disagreed with it as well as the previous two posters.
That being said, I can understand why you responded the way you did because you think this case in general is being largely ignored, and thought my post was yet another example of that neglect. In fact, I think that your comments regarding hate crimes initiatives are more in line with the OP. So what has Obama said about hate crimes?
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: Obama and Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.
Is this acceptable? Is it sufficient. Discuss.
Hopefully sexual orientation will be added to fed hate crimes legislation. Sorry if I seemed snappish before.
Otoki
SUICIDEGIRL
Minnesota, USA
NOV 16, 2008 06:10 AM