Dear Red States

"Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote in message
...

"flitterbit" wrote in message
...
lucretia borgia wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson"
opined:

I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California
if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant
tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay
and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy,
educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage.

Dawne

Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed
to be ahead of everyone.


I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the "no"
campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of dispelling
misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole point of
permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to everyone, not just
heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that gays are no different
than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote, they buy homes, they raise
families, etc.

BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in rural
areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of California's
population.


They tightened the rules in Florida so that the constitution actually will
state that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

So sad.

Lucille

Good for them!

Pat

Pat P wrote:
"Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote in message
...
"flitterbit" wrote in message
...
lucretia borgia wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson"
opined:

I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California
if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant
tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay
and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy,
educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage.

Dawne

Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed
to be ahead of everyone.


I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the "no"
campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of dispelling
misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole point of
permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to everyone, not just
heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that gays are no different
than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote, they buy homes, they raise
families, etc.

BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in rural
areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of California's
population.

They tightened the rules in Florida so that the constitution actually will
state that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

So sad.

Lucille

Good for them!

Pat


I was really ambivalent on this one. Marriage I think is between a man
and woman. However, there needs to be a legal situation for unmarried
people, who really have a long term relationship. Some states have it,
some don't.

Pat, in Florida there are a lot of us "mature" folk. There may be no
sex involved, but definitely over the hill regarding having babies.

Many of us oldies really lose a pension or a take a big, really big,
financial loss, by being married. Jim and I lived together for 13 years
before we married, 13 years ago. The reason?? I would lose the widows
Pension I had earned (yup earned, you were a navy wife) by marrying
prior to age 55. Now, we get both pensions, but Congress , taxes us on
almost all our Social Security.

Guess you can't win for losing these days LOL

Gill

"Gillian Murray" wrote in message
...
Pat P wrote:
"Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote in message
...
"flitterbit" wrote in message
...
lucretia borgia wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson"
opined:

I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California
if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant
tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay
and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy,
educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage.

Dawne

Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed
to be ahead of everyone.


I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the "no"
campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of dispelling
misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole point of
permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to everyone, not
just heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that gays are no
different than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote, they buy homes,
they raise families, etc.

BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in
rural areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of
California's population.

They tightened the rules in Florida so that the constitution actually
will state that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

So sad.

Lucille

Good for them!

Pat
I was really ambivalent on this one. Marriage I think is between a man and
woman. However, there needs to be a legal situation for unmarried people,
who really have a long term relationship. Some states have it, some don't.

Pat, in Florida there are a lot of us "mature" folk. There may be no sex
involved, but definitely over the hill regarding having babies.

Many of us oldies really lose a pension or a take a big, really big,
financial loss, by being married. Jim and I lived together for 13 years
before we married, 13 years ago. The reason?? I would lose the widows
Pension I had earned (yup earned, you were a navy wife) by marrying prior
to age 55. Now, we get both pensions, but Congress , taxes us on almost
all our Social Security.

Guess you can't win for losing these days LOL

Gill


Florida is really backward when it comes to this. They don't even have a
proper domestic partnership law and they don't allow gay couples to adopt.

Lucille wrote:
"Gillian Murray" wrote in message
...
Pat P wrote:
"Lucille" lzoltynospam@now at comcast..net wrote in message
...
"flitterbit" wrote in message
...
lucretia borgia wrote:
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:18:42 -0600, "Dawne Peterson"
opined:

I would be more impressed with the great "blue" state of California
if its rich, healthy, educated, well-employed, tax-paying tolerant
tanned and happy people had not brought an end to the right of gay
and lesbian couples (presumably also mainly rich, healthy,
educated, well-employed tax payers) to civil marriage.

Dawne

Yes, I was shocked to hear that. I thought California was supposed
to be ahead of everyone.


I was shocked as well as sorely disappointed. It would appear the "no"
campaign didn't do as good a job as they could have of dispelling
misconceptions, or of instilling the idea that the whole point of
permitting gays to marry was to extend equal rights to everyone, not
just heterosexuals, or of just plain emphasizing that gays are no
different than anyone else, they hold jobs, they vote, they buy homes,
they raise families, etc.

BTW, my understanding is that the "yes" voting was concentrated in
rural areas as well as in the religious and ethnic segments of
California's population.
They tightened the rules in Florida so that the constitution actually
will state that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

So sad.

Lucille
Good for them!

Pat
I was really ambivalent on this one. Marriage I think is between a man and
woman. However, there needs to be a legal situation for unmarried people,
who really have a long term relationship. Some states have it, some don't.

Pat, in Florida there are a lot of us "mature" folk. There may be no sex
involved, but definitely over the hill regarding having babies.

Many of us oldies really lose a pension or a take a big, really big,
financial loss, by being married. Jim and I lived together for 13 years
before we married, 13 years ago. The reason?? I would lose the widows
Pension I had earned (yup earned, you were a navy wife) by marrying prior
to age 55. Now, we get both pensions, but Congress , taxes us on almost
all our Social Security.

Guess you can't win for losing these days LOL

Gill


Florida is really backward when it comes to this. They don't even have a
proper domestic partnership law and they don't allow gay couples to adopt.




I agree, there needs to be some legality involved. I know several
couples, as do you I suspect, who are in that unfortunate dilemma.

Other than financial, religion also comes into play. I know/knew a
couple who had been a couple for 30-40 years. His legal wife was
catholic, he and Polly , who knows. Anyway, they kept separate names,
but they were together a very long time. He died a couple of years back,
and Polly was not even mentioned in the obituary. I think she had no
say. His "wife" in Maine was listed as the loving widow, and they hadn't
seen each other for a zillion years.

it is something when we oldies live in sin. isn't it??

I have to laugh when I remember introducing my Mom to Jim( years before
we married) and she approved, because I was beyond child-bearing years
LOL. Mum wasn't as stuffy as I thought!

Gil

On Nov 7, 2:43*pm, Karen C in California wrote:
*I am 150% hetero; when I got
married, it was Hallelujah, I never have to live with women again.

That explains a lot about you, actually.

I treasure the women in my life.

Elizabeth

On Nov 7, 2:47*pm, Karen C in California wrote:
dark.angel wrote:
It's people like YOU that make other
people too afraid to pray in front of me once they find out I'm a Dem.

Not me. *I manage to be both a Dem and a Christian.

However, I can't begin to count how many Reps have made statements in my
presence to the effect of "all Jews/Buddhists/Muslims are going straight
to hell because they're not Christians". *Dems are more tolerant of
other religions.


Bull****.

Pure unadulterated bull****, Karen.

Elizabeth

On Nov 7, 3:19*pm, Karen C in California wrote:
Good question. *I suspect some of them voted only on Prop 8 and nothing
else on the ballot. *Let me get the final/official statistics (available
end of the month) and see which issues/people have substantially more or
less votes than the others.

I'd be interested to see those stats, because it's highly unlikely
that anyone voted on a proposition without voting for president. It's
much more likely that people voted for president without voting on the
propositions.

Elizabeth

"Jangchub" wrote .

The part I don't understand is, what the hell is it anyone's business
if gay men and women want to marry? What is this crap about
semantics, civil unions, marriage, legal contract, whatever anyone
wants to call it. Do they love one another any less than any other
couple?

The state has an interest in who can marry, partly one of protection (you
can't marry below a certain age) and partly its interest in property. The
semantics are necessary because while some marriages are purely civil
arrangements, others are marked by religious ceremonies. No religious
institution can be compelled to provide a religious rite for those people
who in the view of their faith are not able to receive it. Here in Canada,
a gay couple of legal age can have a civil marriage ceremony. Whether or
not they can have a religious ceremony depends on the faith group; one
mainstream Protestant church marries gay couples, other faith groups are
debating it, and some won't.

Dawne

"Karen C in California" wrote..

Personally, I've been propositioned by a couple of lesbians who think that
because I'm divorced I should hate men. Did I cry on S's shoulder when my
relationship broke up? Yeah. Did I find her sexually attractive while I
was doing it? No. She just happened to be the nearest person when I got
the news. I am 150% hetero; when I got married, it was Hallelujah, I
never have to live with women again.

Um, not all lesbians hate men. None of my lesbian friends made any such
assumption about me when I broke up with a man, any more than I would assume
that if one of them breaks off a relationship she now hates women and I
should hook her up with a man. And there are many many fates worse than
living with women. My Best GFs and I often talk about living together in
our old age, and we are not entirely kidding.

Dawne

It worked for the Golden Girls!

Pat in Illinois

Dawne Peterson wrote:
"Karen C in California" wrote..
Personally, I've been propositioned by a couple of lesbians who think that
because I'm divorced I should hate men. Did I cry on S's shoulder when my
relationship broke up? Yeah. Did I find her sexually attractive while I
was doing it? No. She just happened to be the nearest person when I got
the news. I am 150% hetero; when I got married, it was Hallelujah, I
never have to live with women again.

Um, not all lesbians hate men. None of my lesbian friends made any such
assumption about me when I broke up with a man, any more than I would assume
that if one of them breaks off a relationship she now hates women and I
should hook her up with a man. And there are many many fates worse than
living with women. My Best GFs and I often talk about living together in
our old age, and we are not entirely kidding.

Dawne