Rickey Hendon's Civil Unions Speech: 'It's Just Fairness, Ya'll' (VIDEO) (Illinois)

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/rickey-hendons-civil-unio_n_790789.html

 

 

Rickey Hendon's Civil Unions Speech: 'It's Just Fairness, Ya'll' (VIDEO) (Illinois)

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/rickey-hendons-civil-unio_n_790789.html

 

He read the kids!

 

I loved it, when he said, "We know what you do at night!  And you know too!" That was fierce!

^I know!  That speech was awesome.  The Illinois Civil Union Bill passed btw. 

 

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/12/01/Illinois_OKs_Civil_Unions//

Some great news out of Cleveland:

 

Cleveland to consider offering health-care benefits to gay couples

 

 

Councilman Joe Cimperman introduced the legislation and said it appears he has enough support to see it passed. Cleveland has more than 100 unmarried couples on the domestic partner registry it made available in May 2009 as a means of getting the couples insurance.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/morning_call/2011/03/cleveland-eyeing-domestic-partner.html

Better hurry up and get it passed before the black religous leaders start throwing their weight around..  straight from Cimperman's mouth he said the DP registry might have failed if they waited a few more hours to vote.

Lord knows those 'leaders' have nothing better to do or other problems to focus on

Lord knows those 'leaders' have nothing better to do or other problems to focus on

 

Considering this could be a matter of life or death for some of their constituents, they probably don't.

 

Thanks for being inconsiderate. Hater.

Ha! Good one. Whether it's fair or not, this is one department where Ohio should be pushing harder: a progressive image. If you're going to try and entice people from the coasts to live in this state you need to be liberal, or have that perception, regardless of the urban amenities to cost of living ratio. Maybe those preachers should speak out against, oh, I dunno, the adoption of gang "culture" as a substitute for real culture and trivialization of human life that their ignorance propagates.

Is our goal to entice people from "the coasts"?

 

And don't you dare accuse me of being a fan of the black clergy up here in Cleveland (.... I could write a book....), but do you really think that they make no effort towards curbing the gang culture?  Trust me, they do.  A LOT.

 

Lord knows those 'leaders' have nothing better to do or other problems to focus on

 

Considering this could be a matter of life or death for some of their constituents, they probably don't.

 

Thanks for being inconsiderate. Hater.

 

I believe he was talking about the religous leaders I reference in my post... not the city leaders.  It's a distinction we try to maintain outside of the bluegrass bible belt ;)

lol, natininja definitely missed what I was saying

Sorry.

Is our goal to entice people from "the coasts"?

 

And don't you dare accuse me of being a fan of the black clergy up here in Cleveland (.... I could write a book....), but do you really think that they make no effort towards curbing the gang culture?  Trust me, they do.  A LOT.

 

Huh? I thought that was the last thing I was insinuating. I would think that, yes, we would want people from the coasts who are looking for an urban lifestyle at a much cheaper price. As for efforts fighting gangs, I don't look at misguided, ineffective efforts. I look at results. Trying to cure ignorance with ignorance is bound to fail time after time as it has all over this country. The theology adopted by many black preachers needs to be dropped: it's a failed theology that is just too out of touch with reality and has proven its uselessness to a ridiculous point. Until they adopt and promote a more intelligent, intellectually-friendly interpretation of Christianity they will continue to lead their sheep to the slaughterhouse. That's sadly a rather literal analogy.

 

It's funny on the other hand that they're so effective on anything banning gay equality. If only they cared about results in shunning violent subcultures in their flock as much as that. You can be a Christian thug, but you can't be a homosexual Christian. Leave it to religious people to have f'd up priorities, but I digress. Simply put, fix your church's community first before criticizing, let alone outlawing equality of other citizens, many of whom don't belong to your church or any church.

Phew! When I first glanced at the results of the poll, I thought it said "Would you support gay marriage if on the Ohio ballot." I was wondering what was up with all the "No" responses on a site such as this. I had to read it again to clarify.

 

Better hurry up and get it passed before the black religous leaders start throwing their weight around..  straight from Cimperman's mouth he said the DP registry might have failed if they waited a few more hours to vote.

 

Speaking as a black person, I find it ridiculous how intolerant most black people are towards the LGBT community. I hear firsthand the derogatory comments many will make directed towards homosexuals. As a matter of fact, just today on campus at UC I heard someone (a black person) openly say, "I'm not taking his class, that dude gay!" I had several instructors who happened to be gay, and I incurred not a single problem. *gasp*

 

My first year as an undergrad, I had an openly gay roommate. Before we met, he contacted me via MySpace (this was 2003) to kind of just let me know who he was. I assume he thought, since I'm black, I probably would not want to be roommates with him. He immediately had my respect just because of how direct he was with me. I used to catch some heat for hanging with a "gay dude," but I've always been the type to not really care what people say.

 

I can honestly say, he's the most exciting person I have lived with. We had many crazy parties with a house full of scantily dressed girls, courtesy of him. I still keep in contact with him on Facebook. I had a few people ask me who the "fag" was on my wall. :roll:

 

There are many complex factors that make it difficult to alter who and what we are attacted to. I feel if someone wants to marry someone of the same sex, and that's what brings them happiness and they're not endangering the lives of others, then they should be allowed to marry...... If I were a female, I would probably want to marry another female also :-D.

Not gay marriage per se ... Not sure if there's a better thread for this, but I didn't see one ...

 

Cleveland approves domestic-partner insurance coverage

By Thomas Ott, The Plain Dealer

Wednesday, July 20, 2011   

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cleveland will extend health care benefits to the domestic partners of city employees, a move that might be more symbolic than financial.

 

Under a proposal approved Wednesday by City Council, only employees and partners who signed up for Cleveland's domestic partner registry before May 1 can get coverage at the city's expense. Other couples would pay nearly $8,000 a year to add the partner.

 

City officials estimate that only 15 couples would qualify, and that number may be high because those who signed up for the registry did not have to state their occupations. Some common names could fall off.

 

The couples could upgrade to family coverage for an annual cost of $630 each. Based on the estimate of 15 couples, the city would pay a total of $101,155 ...

 

... More at http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/07/cleveland_considers_domestic-p.html

 

And shame on Zack Reed for casting the lone "no" vote.

Will they take this up again next year?  If I understood the article correctly, that seemingly arbitrary cut-off date was put in because they did not want to vote on something without having some feeling as to the costs.  Maybe the concern is that the DP registry would skyrocket among City employees once significant economic benefits were introduced?

 

Now THIS is encouraging....

 

An effort by local pastors to do away with the registry failed to get enough signatures to place the issue on the ballot.

 

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

 

And shame on Zack Reed for casting the lone "no" vote.

 

He of all people cast the lone vote?  From everything I've heard from residents in his ward, I thought he was.... never mind.

And shame on Zack Reed for casting the lone "no" vote.

 

He of all people cast the lone vote?  From everything I've heard from residents in his ward, I thought he was.... never mind.

 

HE is!  That why the bitch drinks!

Zach Reed...lolz...

Phew! When I first glanced at the results of the poll, I thought it said "Would you support gay marriage if on the Ohio ballot." I was wondering what was up with all the "No" responses on a site such as this. I had to read it again to clarify.

 

Better hurry up and get it passed before the black religous leaders start throwing their weight around..  straight from Cimperman's mouth he said the DP registry might have failed if they waited a few more hours to vote.

 

Speaking as a black person, I find it ridiculous how intolerant most black people are towards the LGBT community. I hear firsthand the derogatory comments many will make directed towards homosexuals. As a matter of fact, just today on campus at UC I heard someone (a black person) openly say, "I'm not taking his class, that dude gay!" I had several instructors who happened to be gay, and I incurred not a single problem. *gasp*

 

My first year as an undergrad, I had an openly gay roommate. Before we met, he contacted me via MySpace (this was 2003) to kind of just let me know who he was. I assume he thought, since I'm black, I probably would not want to be roommates with him. He immediately had my respect just because of how direct he was with me. I used to catch some heat for hanging with a "gay dude," but I've always been the type to not really care what people say.

 

I can honestly say, he's the most exciting person I have lived with. We had many crazy parties with a house full of scantily dressed girls, courtesy of him. I still keep in contact with him on Facebook. I had a few people ask me who the "fag" was on my wall. :roll:

 

There are many complex factors that make it difficult to alter who and what we are attacted to. I feel if someone wants to marry someone of the same sex, and that's what brings them happiness and they're not endangering the lives of others, then they should be allowed to marry...... If I were a female, I would probably want to marry another female also :-D.

 

Marriage aside, I would always advise against straight guys rooming with gay men. You never know when your gay roommate will stumble home drunk and waltz into your room wanting to have relations because he has a secret crush on you. There were no previous warning signs and he got his ass pushed out of my room and back into his. Or you could just make sure your bedroom can be locked.

^ Why do so many straight men think that they are so hot that every gay guy wants to rape them? Calm down, buddy. Let people room with whoever they want. I'm gay and I think I'm a pretty good roommate. I haven't tried to rape anyone thus far. Sounds like your roomie was just an asshole when drunk, which is a trait both straight and gay men can have.

 

Marriage aside, I would always advise against straight guys rooming with gay men. You never know when your gay roommate will stumble home drunk and waltz into your room wanting to have relations because he has a secret crush on you. There were no previous warning signs and he got his ass pushed out of my room and back into his. Or you could just make sure your bedroom can be locked.

 

Are you serious?  That sounds so self defeatist gay.  It sounds like some propaganda shit from the 60s.  To me that is the same as say a woman shouldn't have a male room mate as he may stumble home drunk and try to force himself on her.  I'm really shaking my head at this one.

Keith, that's as silly as saying a father shouldn't have an attractive daughter live in his home, else he may come home one day trashed and rape her.

Pretty sure Keith was being sarcastic.  He knows way too much about the local "amenities" to be straight.

Keith, I have never stumbled home drunk wanting to hook up with any of my straight, male roommates. As a matter of fact, we often went out and got drunk together. It seems to me that any straight man who is comfortable with his sexuality, wouldn't worry about rooming with a gay man. I hope you weren't being serious, but from your past posts on gays, I'm not so sure.

Maybe Keith is gay and the straight roommate was busting in looking for a little something on the DL.

Pretty sure Keith was being sarcastic.  He knows way too much about the local "amenities" to be straight.

 

IMHO I dont think so....there was no indication that was sarcasm!

Well we could just let the churches decide who they choose to marry.

^I think they already do.

We could also let the straight people keep their marriages.  Such an assurances might go a long way towards quelling the fears

^I think they already do.

 

Unless the couple is same-sex. Then the church isn't allowed. At least not in Ohio.

 

A couple I am friends with was one of the first gay couples in NYC to get married. I feel very proud of them!

What a church elects to do and recognize and what the state chooses to recognize are two separate matters.  No police are going to storm a church to halt a gay wedding, no matter whether the state 'recognizes' that marriage or not.

What a church elects to do and recognize and what the state chooses to recognize are two separate matters.  No police are going to storm a church to halt a gay wedding, no matter whether the state 'recognizes' that marriage or not.

 

Good point.

 

I think the libertarian argument for getting the state altogether out of marriage is an intriguing one.

Perhaps, but in reality it is used as a far too convenient tool for self proclaimed libertarians to not touch the issue.  Marriage will always be regulated by the state because their are too many legal implications of being married.  For libertarian leaning politicians, this is an easy scapegoat to not sound like a hypocrite yet still maintian that social conservative vote.

 

This 'libertarian' approach to the debate is akin to me saying I wish there was no military because, in an ideal world, we would all live in peace.  But we have to deal with issues in the context of modern day realities.

Perhaps, but in reality it is used as a far too convenient tool for self proclaimed libertarians to not touch the issue.  Marriage will always be regulated by the state because their are too many legal implications of being married.  For libertarian leaning politicians, this is an easy scapegoat to not sound like a hypocrite yet still maintian that social conservative vote.

 

This 'libertarian' approach to the debate is akin to me saying I wish there was no military because, in an ideal world, we would all live in peace.  But we have to deal with issues in the context of modern day realities.

 

Nah, you're way off base there Hts. The gist of their argument is that the government should stay out of peoples business.

 

http://pileusblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/new-hampshire-bill-would-abolish-marriage-licensing/

I know what the 'gist' of their 'argument' is and have never been confused on that point.  It just ain't going to happen.  It is political cover, nothing more.  I like to ask people who hold those conviction how they would vote TODAY - while marriage is still licensed by the state - on a ban of same sex marriages because you can never get a straight (no pun intended) answer in response.

 

But, hey, at least they are not in the moronic crowd (Bachmann, Perry, etc.) who argue that the 10th Amendment restricts marriage licensing to state discretion and, out of the other side of their mouth, argue in favor of a federal constitutional amendment banning same sex-marriage.

 

 

^I can't speak for the politicians, but the mainstream libertarian organizations are definitely on board with marriage equality, so long as the state is involved in marriage.

 

What a church elects to do and recognize and what the state chooses to recognize are two separate matters.  No police are going to storm a church to halt a gay wedding, no matter whether the state 'recognizes' that marriage or not.

 

They're not completely separate though, because Ohio allows religious authorities to solemnize civil weddings...but only for straight people.  I assumed that's what natininja was referring to.

  I like to ask people who hold those conviction how they would vote TODAY - while marriage is still licensed by the state - on a ban of same sex marriages because you can never get a straight (no pun intended) answer in response.

 

 

Just who the heck are you asking?

 

You can't seem to differentiate between social cons from libertarians. I don't know of any libertarians that want the government to legislate moral issues. The beauty of it is that it doesn't matter that they personally agree or disagree with gay marriage; this is an issue of individual choice that needs no government intervention.

 

Political "cover" on the other hand, is favoring civil unions.

Plenty of states do.  But I think that MayDay's point (to which natininja was responding) was that there are indeed churches are allowed to choose who they want to marry regardless of whether the state recognizes it.

 

I think Rand Paul's stances on gay marriage are fairly typical of politicians who claim to be libertarian.

How many nationally prominent politicians are even close to being libertarians anyway?  Ron Paul and...maybe Gary Johnson?  Is there even a third one?  Even Rand Paul explicitly repudiated the label (not that calling yourself makes you one).

  I like to ask people who hold those conviction how they would vote TODAY - while marriage is still licensed by the state - on a ban of same sex marriages because you can never get a straight (no pun intended) answer in response.

 

 

Just who the heck are you asking?

 

You can't seem to differentiate between social cons from libertarians. I don't know of any libertarians that want the government to legislate moral issues. The beauty of it is that it doesn't matter that they personally agree or disagree with gay marriage; this is an issue of individual choice that needs no government intervention.

 

Political "cover" on the other hand, is favoring civil unions.

 

Usually people who claim to be libertarians but know very little about the philosophy.

 

Sooooo..... what would the response be?  You seem to have a firm grasp of libertarianism.  Would a 'true' libertarian vote 'yes' or 'no' on a constitutional amendment to ban state licensure of same sex marriages?  And, keep in mind, ballots don't have a write-in third option.  It is a 'yes' or 'no' question.

 

To be clear, I have no problem with libertarianism.  None.  In fact, it is consistent with a lot of my personal principles.

^I think you're making hay where there ain't none: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6379

Plenty of states do.  But I think that MayDay's point (to which natininja was responding) was that there are indeed churches are allowed to choose who they want to marry regardless of whether the state recognizes it.

 

I think Rand Paul's stances on gay marriage are fairly typical of politicians who claim to be libertarian.

 

Rand: He's against gay marriage personally, but believes that, constitutionally, it should be up to the states to decide the issue.

 

While Rand may lean that way, I wouldn't call him a libertarian. Maybe Right/Libertarian or constitutional conservative. A true libertarian obviously would advocate a complete privatization of marriage.

^Rand doesn't even call Rand a libertarian.

How many nationally prominent politicians are even close to being libertarians anyway?  Ron Paul and...maybe Gary Johnson?  Is there even a third one?  Even Rand Paul explicitly repudiated the label (not that calling yourself makes you one).

 

Here's a few.

 

Rep. Justin Amash (R, Michigan) - 'strongly supports DOMA' - http://www.ontheissues.org/MI/Justin_Amash.htm

 

Rep. Jeff Flake (R, Arizona) - 'voted yes on constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage' - http://www.ontheissues.org/house/jeff_flake.htm

 

Rep. Tom McClintock (R, California) - 'no legal rights for same-sex couples' - http://www.ontheissues.org/Tom_McClintock.htm

 

Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas) - voted yes on banning gay adoptions - http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm - and co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act - supporte the We the People Act which was intended to override Texas v. Johnson.  Paul opposes federal government involvement but typically supports states having their run of the mill on any issue relating to anti-gay laws.

 

 

^I think you're making hay where there ain't none: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6379

 

Not at all.  Once again, I know what 'pure' libertarianism is and I know who those who are true believers SHOULD come out on this issue.  But yet, I just don't see it in action (see above)

 

Soooo.... was that a 'yes' or a 'no'.  Forget about a federal amendment.  I'm simply talking about a state constitutional ban.

^Rand doesn't even call Rand a libertarian.

 

But he does claim to believe in libertarian principles..... when it is convenient for him.

 

 

Usually people who claim to be libertarians but know very little about the philosophy.

 

Sooooo..... what would the response be?  You seem to have a firm grasp of libertarianism.  Would a 'true' libertarian vote 'yes' or 'no' on a constitutional amendment to ban state licensure of same sex marriages?  And, keep in mind, ballots don't have a write-in third option.  It is a 'yes' or 'no' question.

 

 

I'm not really an authority on libertarianism, my guess would be the vast majority would vote "no." Might be a good question to post on the Ron Paul forum.

^Rand doesn't even call Rand a libertarian.

 

But he does claim to believe in libertarian principles..... when it is convenient for him.

 

Isn't it possible that those are his beliefs? I mean, I'm sure some of his views hurt him in the election.

^Never said they weren't

 

I'm not really an authority on libertarianism, my guess would be the vast majority would vote "no." Might be a good question to post on the Ron Paul forum.

 

But doesn't Ron Paul himself support a state's "right" to ban same-sex marriage?