Texas Legislators vote to ban gay foster parents

[Special K 0]

Well, this law in not possibly justifiable. It'll be struck down. I would say this is just a bunch of Texas politicians waving their dicks so that they look good in order to win reelction by all those good texas fag-haters.

 

WE DON'T WANT QUEER EYE FOR THE STRAIGHT GIRL! YOU RATS! [/savage]

[SuperJerk 0]

Well, this law in not possibly justifiable. It'll be struck down.

And when it is, you'll have a bunch of conservatives whining about how liberal courts subvert the WILL OF THE PEOPLE~!

 

 

Speaking of Will of the People:

 

Connecticut OKs Same-Sex Civil Unions

 

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

 

 

 

HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut on Wednesday became the second state to offer civil unions (search) to gay couples — and the first to do so without being forced by the courts.

 

About an hour after the state Senate sent her the legislation, Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell (search) signed into law a bill that will afford same-sex couples in Connecticut many of the rights and privileges of married couples.

 

"The vote we cast today will reverberate around the country and it will send a wave of hope to many people, to thousands of people across the country," said Sen. Andrew McDonald (search), who is gay.

 

The state House passed the measure last week but amended it to define marriage under Connecticut law as between one man and one woman. The Senate approved the amended bill Wednesday 26-8. The law takes effect Oct. 1.

 

"I have said all along that I believe in no discrimination of any kind and I think that this bill accomplishes that, while at the same time preserving the traditional language that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Rell said.

 

Vermont is the only other state to allow civil unions. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry. But those changes came about after same-sex couples won court battles.

 

Last summer, seven same-sex couples sued in Connecticut after being denied marriage licenses; the case has not been resolved.

 

Roman Catholics and pro-marriage activists plan a big rally Sunday in opposition to the bill.

 

Marie Hilliard, executive director of the Connecticut Catholic Conference, said the civil union proposal "got more legs than we ever hoped it would get." About 44 percent of the state's 3 million residents are Roman Catholic.

 

Brian Brown, head of the Family Institute of Connecticut, said his group intends to keep the issue squarely before the public.

 

"Our mission will be to let every person know in the state of Connecticut which lawmakers voted to redefine marriage, and which lawmakers voted to protect marriage," he said.

 

Anne Stanback, executive director of Loves Makes a Family, said her group would probably begin talking to lawmakers about gay marriage — though she acknowledged it's not likely the issue will be taken up next session.

 

"As important as the rights are, this is not yet equality," she said.

 

 

credit: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154075,00.html

 

An actual state legislature (not a judge) has okayed civil unions (not marriage).

 

I wonder what justification the Conservatives will use to whine about it...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

There are no conservatives in CT...

[The Czech Republic 0]

But it's so chic to refer to the Nazis! It automatically wins any argument.

I thought we agreed that itloses any argument. Can we get that posted on the forum by chance?

 

 

I think that adoption agencies should put heterosexual couples ahead of gay couples on waiting lists, but it shouldn't be law. And this is dealing with foster parents and not adoption agencies, so that doesn't matter.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

KKK, Cerebus is in Connecticut.

 

And this bill is pretty much unenforceable. How will you prove someone is gay? spying on them? testimony from whoever agrees with that? What?

[CanadianChris 0]

And this bill is pretty much unenforceable. How will you prove someone is gay? spying on them? testimony from whoever agrees with that? What?

I think they're counting on all the gay people being dumb enough to admit they're gay.

[A Happy Medium 0]

I live in Dallas, where a good chuck of the population is gay or lesbians. I can't wait to hear about some protests.

 

A stupid, stupid move by my state legistlature.

[Slayer 0]

Replace the word "Jews" with "gays"...

 

Okay!

 

Nazi racial policy changed extensively in the years between 1933 and 1939. The Nazi Party became increasingly extreme in its treatment of the minorities of Germany, particularly gays.

 

During the years 1933-1934, Nazi policy was fairly moderate, not wishing to scare off voters or moderately-minded politicians. Gays had been disliked for years before, and the Nazi Party used this anger to gain votes. The blame for poverty, unemployment, and the loss of World War I were all placed on the gays. In 1933, persecution of the gays became active Nazi policy, but laws were not as rigorously obeyed and were not as devastating as in later years.

 

On 1 April 1933, gayish doctors, shops, lawyers and stores were boycotted. Only 6 days later, the "Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service" was passed, banning gays from government jobs. These laws meant that gays were now indirectly and directly dissuaded or banned from privileged and superior positions reserved for "Aryan" Germans. From then on, gays were forced to work at more menial positions, beneath other non-gays.

 

...

 

I don't get it

[SuperJerk 0]

During the years 1968-2004, Republican policy was fairly moderate, not wishing to scare off voters or moderately-minded politicians. Gays had been disliked for years before, and the Republican Party used this anger to gain votes.

 

How 'bout now?

[Slayer 0]

"Since it seems we are unfamiliar with sarcasm, I shall close the register at this point..."

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

There are no conservatives in CT...

 

kkk, YOU'RE FIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRREEEEEED!!!!

[Dr. Tom 0]

Jews not being able to hold certain jobs in Nazi Germany != gays being disallowed as foster parents in Texas.

 

I think this law is asinine, but so is that comparison.

[SuperJerk 0]

Jews not being able to hold certain jobs in Nazi Germany != gays being disallowed as foster parents in Texas.

 

I think this law is asinine, but so is that comparison.

Couldn't being a foster parent be considered a job (since they get money for it)?

 

Is there not other legal job discrimination against homosexuals?

 

 

If my comparison is asinine, then perhaps you should consider whether you are using the word correctly.

[SuperJerk 0]

You know, if I hadn't included that Nazi comparison, this thread might have only made it half a page. That seems to be the only thing anyone wants to talk about.

 

But yes, I'm really afraid that the bigotry against gays is close to reaching Nuremberg Law proportions.

[Guest MikeSC]

You know, if I hadn't included that Nazi comparison, this thread might have only made it half a page. That seems to be the only thing anyone wants to talk about.

 

But yes, I'm really afraid that the bigotry against gays is close to reaching Nuremberg Law proportions.

And your argument is still facetious.

-=Mike

[Ted the Poster 0]

So what was Hitler's (v. Germany) version of the Patriot Act?

[Vyce 0]

Not allowing gays to be foster parents = The slaughter of millions of Jews.

That said, RJ really blew things a bit out of proportion with the Nazi reference.

 

I agree this is dumb, but Hitlerish, no. Just no.

 

Way to misunderstand my point, people.

 

Did I say Not allowing gay to be foster parents was the same as the Holocaust? No.

 

Did I mention Hitler? No.

 

Are the restrictions on gays beginning to resemble the Nuremberg Laws? Yes.

The comparison to Nazi Germany is definitely valid.

No, they really, really don't.

 

Well, unless homosexuals have to sacrifice all of their rights.

This is how it starts.

.........Loss?

 

Is that you?

 

And why are you posting under RJ's nick?

 

......are you gimmick posting, Loss?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

There are no conservatives in CT...

 

kkk, YOU'RE FIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRREEEEEED!!!!

I'm saying it now. Vince is a RINO. I'm calling you out you rich, powerful, roided-up guy.

 

And Cerebus is, uh, a terrorst anyway, so he doesn't count...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You know, if I hadn't included that Nazi comparison, this thread might have only made it half a page.  That seems to be the only thing anyone wants to talk about. 

 

But yes, I'm really afraid that the bigotry against gays is close to reaching Nuremberg Law proportions.

LOL -- you present a topic that I'm sure everyone here agrees on. Let homos become foster parents. But you then go and make a dumb-ass comparison that pseudo-hippies at some WTC protest rally use (America 2005 = Germany 1944), and because of this, I'm predicting that MikeSC and you will be bitching back and forth regarding ... the out-of-control spending by Congress once this thread hits Page 3...

[Special K 0]

HOW COME DID BUSH KNOCK DOWN THE TOWERS>?

[2GOLD 0]

HOW COME DID BUSH KNOCK DOWN THE TOWERS>?

 

He wanted a better view of New York from Jersey.

[EricMM 0]

I think it's nice that there's no one stupid enough to argue in favor of this law on this board.

 

Justice? Mike? Anyone?

[Gary Floyd 0]

I'm honeatly not suprised by this. After all, this is Texas (no offense to anyone who posts here who's from Texas), a state that allows retarded criminals to be executed. Still, it's incredibly stupid, and really doesn't seem to make any sense to me. Is there any logic behind this besides idiots who believe "OH MY GOD! Beware the evil Homos!"?

[sfaJack 0]

a state that allows retarded criminals to be executed.

Uh, no we don't.

 

But we do have a proposal for an "express lane" to the gurney that greatly reduces the red tape involved in carrying out a sentence.

[Gary Floyd 0]

a state that allows retarded criminals to be executed.

Uh, no we don't.

 

But we do have a proposal for an "express lane" to the gurney that greatly reduces the red tape involved in carrying out a sentence.

Thanks for correcting me

[SuperJerk 0]

And your argument is still facetious.

  -=Mike

And now its time for my weekly request for someone to get Mike a dictionary.

 

LOL -- you present a topic that I'm sure everyone here agrees on. But you then go and make a dumb-ass comparison that pseudo-hippies at some WTC protest rally use (America 2005 = Germany 1944), and because of this, I'm predicting that MikeSC and you will be bitching back and forth regarding ... the out-of-control spending by Congress once this thread hits Page 3...

 

I'm actually surprised. I figured I could at least bait a few homophobes into a heated argument....before the inevitable pointless argument with the Mikester.

 

 

I see that I'm going to get heat for my Nazi comparison until the end of time.

 

Yeah, how dare I compare a government which passes one set of laws designed to control an imaginary threat as part of a wave of other legal actions against said group at a time when politicians are using socially acceptable open hatred of said group as a means to power to another government which passes laws designed to control an imaginary threat as part of a wave of other legal actions against said group at a time when politicians are using socially acceptable open hatred of as a means to power.

 

Of course there's no comparison whatsoever.

 

[Guest MikeSC]

And your argument is still facetious.

  -=Mike

And now its time for my weekly request for someone to get Mike a dictionary.

fa·ce·tious Audio pronunciation of "facetious" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-sshs)

adj.

 

Playfully jocular; humorous: facetious remarks.

 

Seems insanely appropriate.

-=Mike

[AndrewTS 0]

Is there not other legal job discrimination against homosexuals?

There's no national policy against such discrimination, although discrimination against gays for government jobs is not permissable. It's been left as a state issue.

 

In PA, for example, I know that in Harrisburg there's laws against it because of the area's large gay population, in addition to state jobs.

 

I don't see how "no protection against descrimination" = "gays absolutely cannot hold certain jobs."

 

Believe me, I think there should be national protection against that discrimination, and I've for civil unions. However, the comparison you're making doesn't click with me.

[Guest MikeSC]

a state that allows retarded criminals to be executed.

Uh, no we don't.

 

But we do have a proposal for an "express lane" to the gurney that greatly reduces the red tape involved in carrying out a sentence.

Thanks for correcting me

The "express lane" requires multiple eyewitnesses to the crime, if memory serves.

-=Mike

[Slickster 0]

This can't go anywhere, since

 

a) there's no way to legally verify one's sexuality, so how can you eliminate potential foster parents

 

b) the government would be BREAKING UP FAMILIES, for God's sake.

 

In the unlikely event this passes, it will be shot down in SECONDS by the courts.