"hello friends. sadly, right now in ky they are trying to pass some harmful legislation preventing same sex couples from adopting,etc and we are seeing more and more of this kind of hateful action all over the map.....needless to say it is so very important that we all try to look out for each others basic human and civil rights...i believe that no human being should ever have to suffer discrimination...a loving person/couple should be allowed to marry whomever they choose to love as well as lovingly raise children that need and deserve to be adopted and taken care of. i think if more of us speak out together about these basic civil rights issues perhaps we can move the world towards a greater understanding of universal love, sweet love and treating others as you would wish to be treated. there cannot ever be enough love in this world... lets make more and more of it any way we can. please check out the fairness campaign website for more info on what you can do:
http://www.fairness.org/mc/page.do
thanks, jim james"
That's a big statement for Jim to make. That, my friends is called a humanitarian.
kudos, jim!
i don't get how intolerant and ignorant people can be. what's wrong with wanting to start a family with the one you love? why do people assume that same sex couples are all unfit parents? it makes me really sad. i can't imagine how i would feel if there were a law keeping me from marrying and having children with the one person i loved.
i hope that things can change for the better-- everyone deserves to be treated equally.
I thought things seemed to be changing for the better for awhile and it now seems some have decided to push back the other way. Live and let live I say. Why do some people feel the need to decide what's best for someone else?
SWEET LOVE! Jim James, SWEET LOVE! :) [smiley=thumbup.gif]
Yes, I completely agree. And one of the many reasons I love Jim :)
"Yes I love that man of mine!"
(http://www.hennessy.id.au/quentingeorge/archives/beetlejuice.JPG)
bill 68
the nazis started with gays and gypsies and went on to the jews and dissidents. they did not have lincoln. it's not enough to have obama in the white house. people have to shout.
''General Grant's Infamy
In 1862, in the heat of the Civil War, General Ulysses S. Grant initiated one of the most blatant official episodes of anti-Semitism in 19th-century American history. In December of that year, Grant issued his infamous General Order No. 11, which expelled all Jews from Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi:
The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department [the "Department of the Tennessee," an administrative district of the Union Army of occupation composed of Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.
Post commanders will see to it that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one returning after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters. No passes will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application of trade permits.
The immediate cause of the expulsion was the raging black market in Southern cotton. Although enemies in war, the North and South remained dependent on each other economically. Northern textile mills needed Southern cotton. The Union Army itself used Southern cotton in its tents and uniforms. Although the Union military command preferred an outright ban on trade, President Lincoln decided to allow limited trade in Southern cotton.
Ulysses S. Grant (Library of Congress photo)
To control that trade, Lincoln insisted it be licensed by the Treasury Department and the army. As commander of the Department of the Tennessee, Grant was charged with issuing trade licenses in his area. As cotton prices soared in the North, unlicensed traders bribed Union officers to allow them to buy Southern cotton without a permit. As one exasperated correspondent told the Secretary of War, [ch8220]Every colonel, captain or quartermaster is in a secret partnership with some operator in cotton; every soldier dreams of adding a bale of cotton to his monthly pay.[ch8221]
In the fall of 1862, Grant's headquarters were besieged by merchants seeking trade permits. When Grant's own father appeared one day seeking trade licenses for a group of Cincinnati merchants, some of whom were Jews, Grant's frustration overflowed.
A handful of the illegal traders were Jews, although the great majority were not. In the emotional climate of the war zone, ancient prejudices flourished. The terms [ch8220]Jew,[ch8221] [ch8220]profiteer,[ch8221] [ch8220]speculator[ch8221] and [ch8220]trader[ch8221] were employed interchangeably. Union commanding General Henry W. Halleck linked [ch8220]traitors and Jew peddlers.[ch8221] Grant shared Halleck's mentality, describing [ch8220]the Israelites[ch8221] as [ch8220]an intolerable nuisance.[ch8221]
In November 1862, convinced that the black market in cotton was organized [ch8220]mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders,[ch8221] Grant ordered that [ch8220]no Jews are to be permitted to travel on the railroad southward [into the Department of the Tennessee] from any point,[ch8221] nor were they to be granted trade licenses. When illegal trading continued, Grant issued Order No. 11 on December 17, 1862.
Subordinates enforced the order at once in the area surrounding Grant's headquarters in Holly Springs, Mississippi. Some Jewish traders had to trudge 40 miles on foot to evacuate the area. In Paducah, Kentucky, military officials gave the town's 30 Jewish families[ch8212]all long-term residents, none of them speculators and at least two of them Union Army veterans[ch8212]24 hours to leave.
A group of Paducah's Jewish merchants, led by Cesar Kaskel, dispatched an indignant telegram to President Lincoln, condemning Grant's order as an [ch8220]enormous outrage on all laws and humanity, ... the grossest violation of the Constitution and our rights as good citizens under it.[ch8221] Jewish leaders organized protest rallies in St. Louis, Louisville and Cincinnati, and telegrams reached the White House from the Jewish communities of Chicago, New York and Philadelphia.
Cesar Kaskel arrived in Washington on Jan. 3, 1863, two days after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect. There he conferred with influential Jewish Republican Adolphus Solomons, then went with a Cincinnati congressman, John A. Gurley, directly to the White House. Lincoln received them promptly and studied Kaskel's copies of General Order No. 11 and the specific order expelling Kaskel from Paducah. The President told Halleck to have Grant revoke General Order No. 11, which he did in the following message:
A paper purporting to be General Orders, No. 11, issued by you December 17, has been presented here. By its terms, it expells (sic) all Jews from your department. If such an order has been issued, it will be immediately revoked.
Grant revoked the order three days later.
0n January 6, a delegation led by Rabbi Isaac M. Wise of Cincinnati, called on Lincoln to express its gratitude that the order had been rescinded. Lincoln received them cordially expressed surprise that Grant had issued such a command and stated his conviction that [ch8220]to condemn a class is, to say the least, to wrong the good with the bad.[ch8221] He drew no distinction between Jew and Gentile, the president said, and would allow no American to be wronged because of his religious affiliation.
After the war, Grant transcended his anti-Semitic reputation. He carried the Jewish vote in the presidential election of 1868 and named several Jews to high office. But General Order No. 11 remains a blight on the military career of the general who saved the Union.
Sources: American Jewish Historical Society and Karp, Abraham, From the Ends of the Earth: Judaic Treasures of the Library of Congress. DC: Library of Congress, 199''
Quote"there cannot ever be enough love in this world"
So true Mr Jim James.
Thank you. I think our states needs to realize you can govern people's basic human rights. This has to stop.
QuoteThank you. I think our states needs to realize you [highlight]can[/highlight] govern people's basic human rights. This has to stop.
:-?
You mean can't?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GplfilGESrA
I saw this a few days after the election. It was a weird feeling to be so excited about our new president, yet so devastated about Prop 8.
Also, I just wanted to add that when "Brokeback Mountain" came out in most theatres across the country, the theatres here didn't show it until the film won a bunch of awards. They still refuse to show MILK. Thankfully, we have a tiny movie theatre that shows good foreign/independent/forward-thinking/documentary films which the mainstream big movie theatres refuse to show. They will be showing MILK soon and I will finally get to see it.
It's a shame that some people are so afraid of love.
Kudos, Jim!!
Hopefully the California courts will overturn the decision on 8. What an ugly legislation...
sorry to be so ignorant of american law but what ever happened to the equal rights amendment?
maybe there shud b a campaign to enshrine equality.
if i've thought of it i'm sure others have too so maybe someone here can explain the technicalities that have prevent this?
thx
Quotesorry to be so ignorant of american law but what ever happened to the equal rights amendment?
maybe there shud b a campaign to enshrine equality.
if i've thought of it i'm sure others have too so maybe someone here can explain the technicalities that have prevent this?
thx
the ERA was never passed; there are still people trying to get it ratified by enough states (you need 38, which is 3/4 of the states) most of our rights of privacy come from due process clause (4th amend fed-and 14th applied to states) right to equal protection under the laws (14th amend);
IMO there is not much left of the 4th amendment right to privacy; it's been eroded so much over the years-guess that's for another thread;
I salute and respect Jim for speaking out for this.
QuoteQuotesorry to be so ignorant of american law but what ever happened to the equal rights amendment?
maybe there shud b a campaign to enshrine equality.
if i've thought of it i'm sure others have too so maybe someone here can explain the technicalities that have prevent this?
thx
the ERA was never passed; there are still people trying to get it ratified by enough states (you need 38, which is 3/4 of the states) most of our rights of privacy come from due process clause (4th amend fed-and 14th applied to states) right to equal protection under the laws (14th amend);
IMO there is not much left of the 4th amendment right to privacy; it's been eroded so much over the years-guess that's for another thread;
I salute and respect Jim for speaking out for this.
Also, when they first tried to pass the equal rights amendment in the 1970s, it didn't pass because a lot of people (men and women) were worried about things like women being drafted...
I'm glad you asked about this. I was just thinking about the whole ERA mess earlier today, and it's a damn shame that people in this country can be such bigots.
QuoteQuoteThank you. I think our states needs to realize you [highlight]can[/highlight] govern people's basic human rights. This has to stop.
:-?
You mean can't?
Excatly.
QuoteQuoteQuoteThank you. I think our states needs to realize you [highlight]can[/highlight] govern people's basic human rights. This has to stop.
:-?
You mean can't?
[highlight]Excatly[/highlight].
You mean Exactly? ;)
Just kidding
Regardless of the ERA being passed, we're still bound to classifications of people based on their characteristics. So "sexual orientation" would have to be established as a protected class (I believe it's still not at the federal level), but I could need more coffee as well.
Personally, I hate the idea of "protected classes" because it still draws an arbitrary line around people based on something that is inconsequential. In order to gain protection, you need to work to draw a line around yourself.
If we could establish a true equality doctrine, we wouldn't need to have protected classes. We all could be protected based on the fact that we're living within a society
Typically this argument gets rejected as somehow racist.
Of course, we all know Lefties are the superior race despite this, however we're not threatened by you and your scissors.
right on, Jim!!!
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThank you. I think our states needs to realize you [highlight]can[/highlight] govern people's basic human rights. This has to stop.
:-?
You mean can't?
[highlight]Excatly[/highlight].
You mean Exactly? ;)
Just kidding
Oh brohter :-/
anyone on board actively doin' anythin'bout this?
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThank you. I think our states needs to realize you [highlight]can[/highlight] govern people's basic human rights. This has to stop.
:-?
You mean can't?
[highlight]Excatly[/highlight].
You mean Exactly? ;)
Just kidding
Oh brohter :-/
I love you gyus!
JJ!
Quoteanyone on board actively doin' anythin'bout this?
you mean about the kentucky state legislation???
if i could do anything, i would, but since i'm in new mexico, i can only worry about new mexico. i'm pretty sure obama wants the gay marriage issue (which should actually be referred to as the issue of civic unions for gays, because of separation of church & state...which most Americans seem to have forgotten about anyway) which means state-by-state we're going to have to vote on it, and there won't be any United States protection of rights for homosexual citizens.
bringing me to another question: is anyone else unhappy with some of Obama's decision-making? I mean, I had this view of him being very tough on issues like this one, but it's not turning out that way. Of course, there's more sides to every issue than I can possibly imagine, but when it comes to our president's decisions on certain environmental and gay rights issues, I'm pretty disappointed.
We all just need to remember that no matter who's president and no matter what the issues are, we must CHALLENGE OUR PRESIDENT and question all authority.
QuoteQuoteanyone on board actively doin' anythin'bout this?
you mean about the kentucky state legislation???
if i could do anything, i would, but since i'm in new mexico, i can only worry about new mexico. i'm pretty sure obama wants the gay marriage issue (which should actually be referred to as the issue of civic unions for gays, because of separation of church & state...which most Americans seem to have forgotten about anyway) which means state-by-state we're going to have to vote on it, and there won't be any United States protection of rights for homosexual citizens.
bringing me to another question: is anyone else unhappy with some of Obama's decision-making? I mean, I had this view of him being very tough on issues like this one, but it's not turning out that way. Of course, there's more sides to every issue than I can possibly imagine, but when it comes to our president's decisions on certain environmental and gay rights issues, I'm pretty disappointed.
We all just need to remember that no matter who's president and no matter what the issues are, we must CHALLENGE OUR PRESIDENT and question all authority.
It's my understanding that Obama has always said He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized. Soooo, sounds like he believes more in civil unions than marriage.
sorry but i need more remedial education -
i believed the american constitution gave everyone equal rights so how can states create laws to limit rights for some citizens?
where does the supreme court fit in?
i obviously got something wrong.
my earlier question was really meant for ky citizens on this board. curious if anyone is taking part in any actions.
Quotesorry but i need more remedial education -
i believed the american constitution gave everyone equal rights
The constitution was written during the time of slavery and women were just a step above slaves. So....
tracey - did original specifically exclude groups - women etc?
Quotetracey - did original specifically exclude groups - women etc?
women couldn't vote and were considered "possessions" to most, but this isn't written into the Costitution (or stated in the Declaration of Independance)
You can find a text of the Constitution on-line.
Quotesorry but i need more remedial education -
i believed the american constitution gave everyone equal rights so how can states create laws to limit rights for some citizens?
where does the supreme court fit in?
i obviously got something wrong.
my earlier question was really meant for ky citizens on this board. curious if anyone is taking part in any actions.
it's not as simple as that. all rights are not equal just because we have equal rights. a 10 year old can't drink a beer just because a 25 year old can. the constitution does not specifically say that everyone is entitled to officially get married under the eyes of the law so it will continue to be a grey area. there is a right to privacy in the constitution but it's all how you interpret it. i mean it wasn't too long ago that sodomy and interracial marriages were not legal.
Fed law (constitution) sets the minimum for states, they are ALWAYS free to make laws that go further to protect their citizens, but cannot take away any rights that the US Constitution gives them (NJ for example goes very far in making their laws extend further, they have a very active state legislature and have basically amended their constitution once a year whereas some states just follow the fed).
as for the supreme court, it's only their job to interpret the constitution, not make law--however, they do end up making law by deciding some of their cases (roe v. wade?) so there is an ever increasing conflict between supreme court and congress. it's way too much to explain on here.
jeez--sorry. maybe you should wikipedia all this stuff or there are some history/govt teachers that post and can explain better.
thx tracy and pennylane. does seem a huge subject.
wonder how canada compares. england doesn't have a constitution but does allow gay people and single people to adopt.
looking forward to those historians posting.
thx again.
Quotethx tracy and pennylane. does seem a huge subject.
wonder how canada compares. england doesn't have a constitution but does allow gay people and single people to adopt.
looking forward to those historians posting.
thx again.
England also has a "royal family" which I always found to be a bit silly.
So did these chaps
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeP220xx7Bs[/media]
tracy, i'm not saying england is better. i do not live here by choice and bitch night and day about it.
loads more than just the royals that is silly here.
only meant that there seems to be no perfect place. and you'd think that by now we'd have all learnt to let people be.
not being american, i like to fantasise that it just might be the perfect place till things like ky come up or i remember that there is no universal health care. that one real scares me. hope for u guys that the new guy gets it done.
canada seems good except that it's weather can kill and it is mighty boring. i'm allowed that one.
so trace where do u nominate as ace? shangri la no go.
Quote
so trace where do u nominate as ace? shangri la no go.
I have no idea what you're saying. :-/
no problem tracy. have a good one.
Quoteno problem tracy. have a good one.
thank you
QuoteQuoteanyone on board actively doin' anythin'bout this?
you mean about the kentucky state legislation???
if i could do anything, i would, but since i'm in new mexico, i can only worry about new mexico. i'm pretty sure obama wants the gay marriage issue (which should actually be referred to as the issue of civic unions for gays, because of separation of church & state...which most Americans seem to have forgotten about anyway) which means state-by-state we're going to have to vote on it, and there won't be any United States protection of rights for homosexual citizens.
Everyone seems to forget that "marriage" is not necessarily a religious issue. If you are married in a courthouse by a judge, that's a civil
marriage, not a civil union. Religion has nothing to do with it.
The term "civil union" is merely an obfuscation, IMO.
QuoteQuoteQuoteanyone on board actively doin' anythin'bout this?
you mean about the kentucky state legislation???
if i could do anything, i would, but since i'm in new mexico, i can only worry about new mexico. i'm pretty sure obama wants the gay marriage issue (which should actually be referred to as the issue of civic unions for gays, because of separation of church & state...which most Americans seem to have forgotten about anyway) which means state-by-state we're going to have to vote on it, and there won't be any United States protection of rights for homosexual citizens.
Everyone seems to forget that "marriage" is not necessarily a religious issue. If you are married in a courthouse by a judge, that's a civil marriage, not a civil union. Religion has nothing to do with it.
The term "civil union" is merely an obfuscation, IMO.
Certain advocates of controlling other people's lives have intentionally intertwined the two to keep people confused.
In all honesty, I'm just surprised that congress hasn't declared marriage a federal issue as a matter of commerce. You'd figure that marriage could and would have a significant effect on interstate commerce.
I think the main hurdle regarding this is that most states have laws on the books saying "if you're married officially in state x, then you're all set here in state y" so even if a state does not have common law marriages (California), they will recognize someone so married in another state if the couple met the law at the time the law existed (like Utah).
So, switch things around and let's say Massachusetts allows gay people to get married and the union is as civil and identical to any other marriage in that state. Then, the couple decides to go to a more conservative state that has the law saying they will recognize all marriages. Except, as a matter of the democratic process in this new state, the people have chosen not to recognize said marriage.
Uh-oh. Suddenly we have people marrying horses and polygamy runs rampant. Or something.
However, I do not believe we want this to be a federal issue, at least not strictly. It would be an instance of opening the door to let in a single butterfly, but also a thousand wasps with the expansion of federal powers.
Quote
canada seems good except that it's weather can kill and it is mighty boring. i'm allowed that one.
Our weather is deadly if you go outside naked in the winter. Plus, if you look at the size of the country, youd realize the many different ecosystems and climates are found up here. Vancouver rarely sees any amount of significant snow and is home to the worlds only temperate rainforest, but if you drive 5-6 hours east, your in the mountains where snowfalls frequently reach upwards of several feet. The prairies......hardy folk......minus 40 degrees celcius is not uncommon during january and february.
The summers in southern ontario are swealtering because we get weather systems from the Gulf of Mexico. Typical max temperature range for Ottawa(capitol city) is about -25( low of minus 39 w/ windchill this year) in the winter to about 33 degrees in the summer and humid ( low 40's humidex not uncommon).
As far as boring goes,id debate that too. But it depends on what you like. Outdoor sports abound year round. If you get stuck in a shitty northern canadian town...than yeah its boring as fuck, if your looking for Rodeo drive shopping, but why not grab a rod and go catch some pike! But cities like Montreal and TO and Vancouver rock! or if youd like, howabout the oldest city in North America, Quebec city. Place is gorgeous!
And we got the best WEED man!
but alas, we arent perfect either
I'll never forget my first summer trip to Lake Newbury just across the border near Kingston-ish. It's not really near anything though.
We thought we'd be in for frigid summertime temps and at night, it did get cold. But holy shit the daytime was sweltering hot.