Qnews - All comments

re: VA delegation rejects 'Minnesota nice' and cancels guidebook order over LGBT section

Robin Evans — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 04:15:36 GMT

I don't know what else was included in that guidebook, but it's common for these chamber-type things to include special sections for a number of possible interests.

This was, from the descriptions, an advertising pamphlet printed by a small business in Minnesota that allowed other small businesses to promote their establishments to visitors.

It sounds to me like the only "agenda" here was a small-business agenda to make money.

I'm sorry to hear you object to small business owners making money, but it's good to see that at least the VA Lt. Gov. understood the real small business agenda involved, and apologized for his staffer's silly insult to small businesses in Minnesota.

re: VA delegation rejects 'Minnesota nice' and cancels guidebook order over LGBT section

john s. — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 02:47:54 GMT

You know, who cares if they pulled this order...they are Republicans and no one should have been surprised! Yet, out of pushing the gay agenda down our throats, the staffer's email was sent onto the media, in hopes to stir the pot when really, this shouldn't have been a story. In looking at the content, there are sexual innuendos and references to naked bodies in clubs, dildos, jaunts, etc. It is not necessary, and raunchy.

And one other thing: why do gays insist on "equal rights'" yet INSIST on having their own section? The african americans earned equal rights, but do you see specific sections in travel guides indicating "black section"? No, because they are equal!

The gay movement is offensively being shoved down regular American's throats. And please, don't say "get with the times" because that's not what it's about. It is about morals and not wanting immorals shoved down our throats. I am SICK of it. If gays didn't push their agenda so much, we wouldn't be bugged and we really don't care what goes on behind closed doors for this minority in our society.

re: Auckland schools require same-sex couples to sign 'I'm gay' contract

Robbie C., USA — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:00:04 GMT

Are they requiring those professing to be "straight" to file an oath as well? And if someone professes to be straight, how do they know? Do they propose giving tests, maybe a multiple exam after they watch some porn or other movies. Why don't they just let teenagers figure this out on their own and experiment if needed.

If they are imposing standards like this on gay kids, then they need to set standards for straight kids, like limiting how many partners, sexual or otherwise, the straight kids can have in any school year or term. They should have religious police checking to see that girls are dressed appropriately, with nothing too sexy to attract other boys (or even lesbian girls).

Sex needs to be regulated in high school, by God, or else we may end up with a bunch of repressed people who are screwed up for life, thinking that sex is dirty and perverse. What about the extinction of the species, when everyone is afraid to have sex?

But that is not a worry. They should impose requirements on straight kids that mandate that straight teenagers cannot have sex unless they avoid protection and condoms. God didn't make sex to have people screw it up and avoid having as many children as possible. There is nothing wrong with 14-year-old girls having several kids. It gives them a head start on the life of misery they are bound to have when they are living in trailer parks anyway.

Let's all get this straight: Sex is for making babies and what we need on this planet is teenage girl having four or five babies, while still attending high school. That way, we will never be without enough kids in future years to fill every school we can build. God wants it that way, and we should continue to fill up this planet with as many unwanted pregnancies as God allows.

re: California Latinos appear to be opposed to marriage equality

Chino Blanco — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:20:46 GMT

Just a heads up: Mike Huckabee recently gave an interview in which he holds Mitt Romney responsible for implementing gay marriage in Massachusetts.

Video here:

chinoblanco.blogspot.com/.../huckabee-romney-responsible-for.html

Welcome to the ProtectMarriage.com coalition.

I wish that more rank and file members of the LDS (Mormon) church would realize: the anti-gay coalition they've joined in California is one that includes folks who - given the chance - would vote their church out of existence.

Folks like Mike Huckabee and his Evangelical buddies.

re: Florida townsfolk show up to support homophobic ex-principal

Peter Mazey — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:45:31 GMT

This is a shocking and appalling case of 'pact mentality' from an 'extrememist' religious group, masking themselves as 'God obeying christians'.

re: San Diego churches key in expensive campaign to overturn Cal. marriage equality

christian — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:08:40 GMT

I would like to say that i love your blog seaqwa.com a lot

now.. back on topic haha

I cant say that i agree with what you wrote... care to elaberate?

re: Ventura LGBT festival dedicated to slain teen calls for tolerance and defeat of Prop. 8

Robin Evans — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:58:00 GMT

That's going to make things even more difficult since the Yes-on-8 folks have raised slightly more money even without the non-reported contributions of that sort.

Also notable that according to a prior Star article, LDS volunteers have been very active in Ventura.

Summarized here:

Prop 8 campaigners begin turn from fundraising to convincing voters:

seaqwa.com/.../prop-8-campaigners-begin-to-turn-from-fundraising-to-convincing-voters.aspx

re: Ventura LGBT festival dedicated to slain teen calls for tolerance and defeat of Prop. 8

Chino Blanco — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:42:14 GMT

According to Frank Schubert, 'Yes on 8' campaign manager, the mobilization of LDS (Mormon) volunteers could save his campaign up to $26 million in costs related to micro-targeting persuadable voters.

Micro-Targeting Mormons:

www.dailykos.com/.../573944

So much for campaign finance rules.

re: 2 of the 'Huntsville 24' plead guilty to public sex, get harsh sentences

Revtj — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:29:45 GMT

This has been happening for years in Montgomery, AL & Pensacola, FL and other cities. In at least one case I knw of, the defense attorney (the only attorney in town who will take such a client) has made hundreds of thousands of dollars off these "sting" operations. More disturbing than that is the historical parallel to the rise of fascism it reeks of...no, it's not about sexual morality, it's a bout something quite different.

re: Opponents of equality have so far raised more money in their bid to ban Cal. gay marriage

Robin Evans — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:27:07 GMT

It's worth keeping in mind that, even before the court decision, the California legislature twice passed a law that would have overturned Prop. 22. The legislation was vetoed by the governor because he said he wanted wait until the Supreme Court had a chance to decide the In re: Marriage case.

There are two ways to pass laws in California and most other western states. It's usually done by the legislature, but can also be done by initiative. Laws passed by initiative, like Prop. 22, can be overturned by the legislature, or the reverse can happen.

The duly elected legislature twice voted to overturn Prop. 22, which does, in fact, indicate that the Court wasn't acting though unsupported fiat.

But, as the Court said eloquently in its decision, it's often difficult to depend on majority rule alone to protect the rights of minorities. That's why we have constitutions on both federal and state levels. A constitution defines a limited set of fundamental rights that cannot be violated by legislation, whether that legislation is passed by initiative or by the people.

California's justices looked carefully at case law in that state -- including, prominently, California's early reversal of racist marriage restrictions -- and determined that the Constitution of the state does not allow for a law that restricts a fundamental right like marriage to only a subset of the couples in the state who might want to exercize it.

That's not making law. The court was doing what it's there to do: Making sure that a law did not violate basic fairness.

re: Opponents of equality have so far raised more money in their bid to ban Cal. gay marriage

el_guapo — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 04:52:35 GMT

I can't enter into a domestic partnership with a woman - California law prohibits it. Does that mean I have less rights? No. Does that mean I'm less equal than a same sex couple? No. Same sex partnerships and marriage are different, and to call them different things doesn't make either less equal.

From the legal perspective, I'm concerned that the Supreme Court not only shot down Prop 22, which should have returned us to the days before March 2000, they actually legalized same-sex marriage. I don't believe they should be creating laws, they should interpret the laws.

Let the advocates of same sex marriage put a proposition on the ballot to legalize it. The 2 states in the union that allow same sex marriage both do so by judicial decree, and in each case by a vote of 4 - 3...

Anyway - I know I'm not going to convince you of anything, but I appreciate hearing your side of the argument.

re: Out gay candidates advance in Washington's new top-two primary

Jessica Alton — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:11:20 GMT

Congratulations to all of these guys. I have been especially impressed with Rep. Jamie Pedersen and how much things have started moving toward marriage with his leadership. From the standpoint of a legislative observer, Rep. Pedersen has really emerged as the legislative leader on marriage and other glbt issues, especially given his long history working on these issues. Sen. Ed Murray may be the "dean" (the older and senior member) but Pedersen has emerged as the real powerhouse that people turn to. Washington State has a great glbt delegation!

re: Opponents of equality have so far raised more money in their bid to ban Cal. gay marriage

Robin Evans — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:34:09 GMT

Indeed, so.

But the right of couples who have satisfied state rules for civil marriage to "call themselves 'married'" is something that the California Supreme Court decided, based on legal precedent, is a fundamental right of all couples in the state.

Proposition 8 seeks to remove that fundamental right from a subset of those who can now exercize it. It would therefore make those couples less equal under the law than hetero couples. And so... as I said, those who favor Prop. 8 oppose equality.

re: Opponents of equality have so far raised more money in their bid to ban Cal. gay marriage

el_guapo — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:22:38 GMT

So in effect, same-sex married couples, same-sex domestic partnership couples, and husband/wife couples all currently have the same rights in terms of finances, insurance, benefits, death benefits, all the legal stuff. Is that accurate?

Is the only inequality Yes on 8 brings to the table that same-sex couple can't call themselves "married?"

Thanks again...

re: Opponents of equality have so far raised more money in their bid to ban Cal. gay marriage

Robin Evans — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:21:48 GMT

Thanks for the clarification. In the original version of the story, I did flip the amounts for "No" and "Yes" campaigns coming from in-state donations.

The "Yes" campaign has, indeed, raised more both in total and from in-state donations.

I've removed the mistaken paragraph from the post.

But "Yes on 8", which supports a constitutional ban on marriage for some California couples, does indeed oppose equality. Same-sex couples wouldn't gain any rights if Prop. 8 passes, but would -- if it survives all the inevitable court challenges -- lose the equal right to marry that was recognized by the high court decision.