|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights |
|
Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
Current rating: 0 |
by Kimberlie Kranich
Email: kranich (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified!)
Address: 85% Coalition |
17 May 2004
|
|
Four committed same-sex couples applied for and were denied marriage licenses today at the Champaign County Clerk's Office. A faux opposite-sex couple consisting of one gay man and one woman was granted a marriage license. Over a hundred stood in solidarity with the couples to call for equal rights for gay and lesbian partners. |
|
Four committed same-sex couples applied for and were denied marriage licenses today at the Champaign County Clerk's Office. A faux opposite-sex couple consisting of one gay man and one woman was granted a marriage license.
"He's gay and we're not in love, does that matter?" asked Aimee Rickman after she and her faux fiancé, Adam, were granted a marriage license after they turned in a completed marriage application, showed their driver's licenses and paid their $15.
"No," was the reply from the staff member in the Clerk's office.
Marriage licenses were denied to Kathy Spegal and Lynn Sprout, Ginny Sims and Janice Lyons, Steven Henderson and Mike Berkshire, and Dixie Spencer and Patty Cutright. All same-sex couples are in committed long-term relationships, hold joint bank accounts, share a joint residence, two couples share children together and one couple is caregivers for one of their parents.
Champaign County Clerk, Mark Shelden, denied these same-sex couples marriage license because "Illinois state statute requires you to be of a different gender," he said.
The Champaign-Urbana same-sex couples suspected that they would be denied marriage licenses and decided to ask for them anyway to build a case for legal action against the County Clerk's Office that could eventually lead to legal marriage for same-sex couples in Illinois.
When asked if he would grant same-sex marriage licenses if the courts found in favor of these same-sex couples, Mr. Shelden said "my gut reaction is not to obey the courts." He said he would “obey the law” if the state legislature passes a law that allows same-sex couples in Illinois to marry.
Supporting the couples in their attempt to obtain marriage licenses were more than 100 people who wore t-shirts that said, "Marriage Rites For All," "Straight Rights For Gay People," and "'It's We the People, Not We the Heterosexuals'" and carried signs with similar supportive messages.
Same-sex couples in Chicago also applied for marriage licenses. The actions in Champaign-Urbana and Chicago coincide with other actions across the country that were timed to occur in solidarity with the granting of marriage licenses in Massachusetts.
Today Massachusetts is the first state in the United States to legally allow same-sex couples to marry and grant them licenses. No other state allows such marriages and most states have passed laws that define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman and deny recognition of same-sex marriage licenses granted in other states. The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996 by the Clinton Administration, did the same thing.
The legal struggle for same-sex marriage rights has only just begun. History offers us insight in how minority groups gain their rights.
Exactly 50 years ago today, the Supreme Court handed down its Brown v. Board decision that made racial segregation in the public schools illegal.
African Americans first challenged legal segregation in the public schools back in 1849. This attempt was unsuccessful. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the NAACP created a nationwide strategy to legally challenge public school segregation. All across the country, the NAACP organized parents and told them to enroll their children in white public schools. They knew their attempts would be unsuccessful and on that particular day they were. But now the NAACP had evidence of discrimination and could create a legal case that the only reason these children were denied their right to attend the white public schools was because of their race. The Brown v. Board case was not the single efforts of the Rev. Oliver Brown attempting to enroll his daughter, Linda, in the local white public school in Topeka, Kansas. Others in Topeka came before him. The Brown v. Board case combined similar legal challenges in four states and the District of Columbia and represented 200 plaintiffs in all. It took African Americans more than 100 years of legal challenges to overturn laws that allowed racial segregation in the public schools. Educational equity is an ongoing struggle today.
Today's same-sex couples, by applying for marriage licenses at the Champaign County Clerk's Office were engaging in a necessary step in the ongoing struggle for the legalization of gay marriage. Two of the four couples said that they would legal challenge their denial of a marriage license.
Today's action on behalf of the four same-sex couples was organized by the 85% Coalition, a grassroots direct action group based in Champaign-Urbana. For more information, email: kakranich (at) yahoo.com |
| |
See also:
http://www.benjamingrosser.com/may17/
|
Related stories on this site:
In defense of Biblical marriage
| 
This work licensed under a
Creative Commons license. |
Comments
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by aimee
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 May 2004
|
Same sex marriage is not about anyone's "god," and is hardly about family. God is not supposed to be the concern of a state institution, and many gay couples already have families. Marriage isn't needed for that. It's about the human rights that we straight people, without thought, arrogantly allow our government to afford to hetrosexuals based solely on their sexuality, and that we withhold entirely from gay citizens. Family leave when a partner is
sick or dying. Visitation rights. Transfer of property and finances and shared children in a partner's death in the absence of a will. Our
institutions protect these things as rights for couples who are in hetro marriages, no matter who is involved. Gay people have been given no legal access to these same protections. Seeking same sex marriage is not asking for special rights, it's demanding human rights.
Cause it's supposed to be "We the people" not "We the hetrosexuals", y'all.
Great job today. Thanks for your courage to come forward and request for what you deserve, couples! |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by Bob
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 May 2004
|
Sorry, Sam. But you're the wrong one. There are over 1000 Federal rights accessed automatically to couples who marry. Social Security survivors benefits is just one. There are some state 300 benefits.
Briteny Spears automatically accessed these rights and benefits during her 48 hour marriage.
Wills can be challenged, the benefits intended to one's same sex partner snatched by biological relatives who get the ear of a sympathetic bigot judge.
YOU get an education, Sam. |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by Myka
trimtab (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 May 2004
|
First, heartfelt thank-yous to all who participated in this action (couples and their allies). Federal and state governments have demonstrated their willingness to harass and even assault nonviolent activists who organize for minority rights. This action took a certain courage, and I salute you for it!
Furthermore, I express my certainty that the cause will prevail...eventually!...especially when we can prove the hypocrisy of the opposition's own arguments, as with the marriage of the gay man and straight women not in love. If that doesn't prove that "defense of marriage" is malarky, I don't know what does!
To Sam, who commented below...sigghh. Perhaps someone should tell you that when a your legal spouse dies you have estate rights even if your spouse did not leave a will. Queer couples do not get the same "default setting" in the absense of the will. Furthermore, cases exist where the deceased's family sought to overturn a will that left property/money to a same-sex partner...and in some cases, the family won! Even when partners try to look after one another after death using formal means, these rights are not respected (yet people others have left thousands, even millions, to their pets!).
And...at the risk of making ad hominem attacks... check your spelling and punctuation before condemning others' educational backgrounds. If it has failed, well, I can only point out that the government that educated them (and, I wager, you as well) is the same institution that upholds idiotic and outdated laws against same-sex marriage. |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by LadyNaz
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 May 2004
|
If marriage is religiously based--why is the state in the business of marrying people?
Either it is a civil contract -- and therefore there is no legitmate reason to deny same sex couples,
Or it is a religious institution -- and therefore the state shouldn't be marring ANYONE. Seperation of church and state, remember? Everyone should be getting the same civil union. Let each church decide what it wants to call a "marriage". But the state should only be recognizing "civil unions".
I'd prefer the state continue with "marriage" and allow same-sex couples to marry. But I'd be ok with straight people also being unable to legally "marry" and everyone having to get "civil unions" -- as long as those unions are the same for all couples! |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by NRA4Freeedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 May 2004
|
You need ot CLEARLY EXPLAIN how my message that you censored and hid is NOT
"informing, educating or adding to a public discourse"
That is EXACLTY what it is doing, and while I do agree that SOME of the messages here need censored when they are attacks on other people personally, there is NO WAY that my last two messages should have been removed. This is EXACTLY why you get the reactions from people posting here...both messages were perfectly relevant to the discussion, and just because YOU may be all for homosexual marriage, there ARE two sides of the argument.
Rememebr, someone once said that "censorship is an outrage", and they were talking to YOU PERSONALLY! |
|
It's This Simple: Knock Off the Trolling |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 May 2004
|
You want it straight from the shoulder, NRA4/Jack Ryan/bfd/etc, etc? Then here it is.
If you come here to simply repeat the same tiresome platitudes as might be found in the News-Gazette, Fox News(sic), WorldDreckDaily, etc, then just DON"T.
Because we are tired of you thinking that you have free run of this website to say what you will with the objective of doing nothing more than a dog does when it wants to mark its territory. The collective has come to the conclusion that your repeated multitudinous posting to every article at the top of the page is a tactic of disruption. It's part of the Panopticon (read some Foucault, who I often don't agree with, but who could teach you a thing or two.) It's a tactic of intimidation.
You are telling us nothing new, that hasn't already been heard by everyone here a thousand times already. Unless you have something truly unique to say on this (or many other subjects here) then just step back from the keyboard, because you are on notice that we consider that your bad habit of having nothing better to do than troll Indymedia is at an end.
Trolling is over, period. We are the judge of what is considered trolling. If you have any further questions, send an email to imc-web (at) ucimc.org |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by ben grosser
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 May 2004
|
|
I now have a full image gallery of the event posted on my website. |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by ijustkrushalot
uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
18 May 2004
|
marriage has been between man and women for thousands of years.... i don't think society is under any obligation to change that. These people have the right to do what they want with their life, and i personally believe that it is genetic. But the fact still stands that marriage has always been between a male and a female.
There is no denying the fact that this country was founded on christian principals, and the laws of marriage that exist in this country follow not only christianity, but virtually every other religion in the world.
I do not doubt for a second the love that two homosexual couples share for each other is any less than a heterosexual couple, but i do not believe they have the right to get married. |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 May 2004
|
You said, "You want it straight from the shoulder, NRA4/Jack Ryan/bfd/etc, etc? Then here it is."
Since you were mistaken in believing that the same person is all of the above names and there really are various different people speaking their mind behind the various names, what you are then really saying here is that "anyone" who doesn't agree with your viewpoint is unwelcome...be honets, doesn't that about totally cover it?
>"If you come here to simply repeat the same tiresome platitudes as might be found in the News-Gazette, Fox News(sic), WorldDreckDaily, etc, then just DON"T."
Considering that we are all individuals here, and we all have different individual niewpoints on any given subject, just because someones viewpoint "might" happens to possibly agree with some "conservative" sites(Fox News being the only one of the above that I happen to recognize), what makes THEIR comment any less worthwhile that those of people whose viewpoints may not? Are you so blinded by idealism, that you cannot comprehend that what you are doing is nothing but censoring messages that you, or the "collective", don't happen to like? Is that what you REALLY stand for, censorship? Now, I don't really believe that is the real intent here, since the articles get posted, and people's "comments" are actually being solicited here! Maybe if there was a big red banner on each page that said "Add Comment" ONLY IF YOU AGREE WITH THE LEFTEST VIEWPOINT ON EVERY SUBJECT" or "YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINTS OR IDEALS", then maybe what you are saying would make sense. But what you are saying is contradictory to the simple fact that peoples comment ARE solicited on every subject! I don't expect you or anyone else to always agree with my viewpoint, but it IS my personal viewpoint, so aren't I entitled to it?
>"Because we are tired of you thinking that you have free run of this website to say what you will..."
Think about this. What would YOU do if you showed up to protest the war or have a rally for something and all showed up on the streetcorner, and the police came and arrested you and put duct tape over your mouths and said, "we are tired of you thinking that we have to hear anything that you have to say", and hauled you off to jail. Could you PLEASE explain how what you are doing here is any different than that???
>"...with the objective of doing nothing more than a dog does when it wants to mark its territory."
I cannot speak of any of these other people that post messages, since I don't know any of them. But I read the articles, consider what is being said, and comment back with my personal viewpoint. Or, read some of the other comments, and respond with personal opinion on those opinions. That is what happens in a free exchange of ideas isn't it? Isn't that what soliciting the comments is all about...free speech? If not, then perhaps the web site whould specifically spell out exactly who, and what CAN be posted here. Oh wait, it already does that, and the last two messages of mine that you sent to the hidden area did or said NOTHING that is against any of the rules stated here, so why did you hide them?
>"The collective has come to the conclusion that your repeated multitudinous posting to every article at the top of the page is a tactic of disruption."
Then the "collective" is wrong! It is nothing more than posting of ones personal opinions, nothing more or less. Don't you people understand that what you are doing is totally anti free speech? How can you be missing that truth, people who totally rely on free speech to protest whatever it is you are against? What if this whole Country was run exactly like you are trying to run this web site...would YOU be satisified with the inability to simple post YOUR personal opinions on any given subject?
>"You are telling us nothing new, that hasn't already been heard by everyone here a thousand times already."
And many of these articles, and especially the comments, are likewise "nothing new", and have been heard by all sorts of people lots of times too, but that doesn't make you hide those other peoples comments does it?
>"Unless you have something truly unique to say on this (or many other subjects here) then just step back from the keyboard, because you are on notice that we consider that your bad habit of having nothing better to do than troll Indymedia is at an end. Trolling is over, period. We are the judge of what is considered trolling. If you have any further questions, send an email to imc-web (at) ucimc.org""
Trolling, as I understand the term, is totally different from anyone simply posting their personal opinion. Why excactly are you against people posting their opinions, and how is it that you believe that you should have the right to write YOUR opinions on a sign for everyone to have to read when you are unwilling to tolerate other peoples opinions? |
|
Off-Topic Again? And You Act So Innocent... |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 May 2004
|
NRA4, etc,
And what exactly does anything you say have to do with the topic in this thread?
Someone who spends as much time in a place where it is clear that most disagree with you (as well as your engaging in the multiple personality deal and stuffing the rating box) really should check their motives. If you are spending every evening trying to come up with something snappy to say in the way of disagreement here, you really ought to get your own website, blog, whatever.
This isn't about your opinion, it's about your belligerently disagreeing with the opinions of others. It's about someone who likes to pick barfights, without going to the trouble of getting arrested. It's about bullying people constantly, a sick pattern of behavior.
The campaign of intimidation that your posts represents is the issue here. We are completely familiar with exactly what your opinion is on this and many other issues. Your repetitious versions of the same old schtick represent exactly what I previously indicated, nothing more than what a dog does when he pisses on your leg -- and we are tired of you pissing on our leg. You may be proud of it and insist it is your right, but, no, it is not and we are tired of it.
You constant barrage of oh so predictable banality will not change anyone's mind. This was clear some time ago and those more respectful of the right of others to differ would have moved on to happier trails.
Your continued presence is both pathological and obsessive. It is designed to carry the tyranny of the majority into what is a safe space for people who care about society, instead of just themselves. You want to extend a monopoly of rightwing opinion into a space which threatens the way you think things should be. Get over the fact that people disagree with you and will continue to do so.
As for the hidden articles, you could not stop with just a single reply, stating your opinion, but no, you have to go on at length what we all could have figured out in one brief paragraph about where you stand and why you hold the opinion you do. That is why the first post you made under NRA4 is considered trolling. You not only attacked every point you could think of, you had to come back round again and do it all over, that time calling out someone by name. That is trolling. It's way more than just your opinion. It's you choosing to piss on someone's leg and claim that it's just raining.
If you have further comments about our editorial policy, questions about its enforcement, or wish to appeal, you have already been referred to an email contact. Use it, because your whining here is basically just more trolling, as well as being completely off-topic (unless you're a troll here to do nothing but whine about our policies when you ignore them.) We set the policy and your failure to make any substantive attempt to live up to its spirit is your problem, not ours. |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2004
|
>"NRA4, etc, And what exactly does anything you say have to do with the topic in this thread?"
Obviously nothing in the last post, because it was in responce to your response to my response to you hiding two messages of my that DID have everything to do with the subject of this thread!
>"Someone who spends as much time in a place where it is clear that most disagree with you (as well as your engaging in the multiple personality deal and stuffing the rating box) really should check their motives."
I know very little about the personalities thing, having apparently come into the fray after it was well underway. As for stuffing the ratings, it isn't too hard to get a few people at work to hit the web site and jack up the rating in order to counter the censorship that was taking place via it. But truthfully, IF it wasn't being used to censor opposing viewpoint messages here, then no one would worry about the rating system at all. I notice that on most other IMC web sites, virtually no one uses it at all much of the time.
>"If you are spending every evening trying to come up with something snappy to say in the way of disagreement here, you really ought to get your own website, blog, whatever."
Again, opinions are like you know what, everyone has one, and this web site asks for anyone and everyone to comment on what they read. So, unless censorship is going to be practiced, then you might just expect a few people might not happen to agree on every issue here. You didn't see me disagreeing with the food give a way thing. I didn't exactly understand it, but it seemed like a nice idea. But the point is, someone else might have thought it was a terrible idea, and said so...isn't that their right to have that comment if you are soliciting comments? Because if you only are going to accept comments that you happen to like and hide all the rest, then you should say so clearly on the page so people know, otherwise, they see it as censorship, which it is.
>"This isn't about your opinion, it's about your belligerently disagreeing with the opinions of others."
I guess the same thing could be said of you also then, there is nothing different between you grabbing a magic marker and writing what you have to say on a sign, nailing it to a stick, and carrying it around on a street corner someplace. The vast majority of the people who read your sign will not agree with your opinion and what you have to say, but you certainly do have the right to say it...right?
>"It's about someone who likes to pick barfights, without going to the trouble of getting arrested. It's about bullying people constantly, a sick pattern of behavior."
Not at all, it is about the fact that the IMC ask for others comments. Other people comment, and when you don't like them, they most often get zapped into the hidden area. Now, I'd agree that you have every right to zap the ones that attack people personally, or that are indecent, or whatever else is against the rules, but to just zap them because you don't like what they say...what would YOU call that?
>"The campaign of intimidation that your posts represents is the issue here. We are completely familiar with exactly what your opinion is on this and many other issues."
Posting ones opinion has nothing to do with "intimidation"! "Intimidation" is when someones opinion, goofy or not, correct or not, gets censored off because someone else doesn't happen to agree with it!
>"Your repetitious versions of the same old schtick represent exactly what I previously indicated, nothing more than what a dog does when he pisses on your leg -- and we are tired of you pissing on our leg. You may be proud of it and insist it is your right, but, no, it is not and we are tired of it."
Sounds like you are referring to Jack's messages again, since I have read the same things you say here before posted to him. Isn't the fact really that you are just tired of anyone who doesn't happen to agree with everything you want to believe, and so you want them gone? And since that is the real crux of the situation, are you willing to do the same thing and go away when everyone is tired of seeing you marching around with a sign protesting whatever? No, the answer to that is that you are not willing to do that, because you have opinions and this is a free Country and you want to express those opinions. That's why speech is "free", because it is nothing more than what someone else happens to think about any given subject. It doesn't hurt anyone, and it might convince others to recognize something they had not been aware of before. But even if it doesn't, it is still nothing more than someones opinions, and they have a right to them here in America...don't they?
>"You constant barrage of oh so predictable banality will not change anyone's mind. This was clear some time ago and those more respectful of the right of others to differ would have moved on to happier trails."
Again, you talk about the "rights of others", but you intend to apply those "rights" at your convenience. This really is all about "free speech", and nothing else. Why are you so unable to see that? If you have the right to go out and carry a sign in protest on someone street corner, then why doesn't everyone have the right to come to a web site and post their personal opinion in a little box that ASKS for "comment'???
>"Your continued presence is both pathological and obsessive."
No, it's free speech! Just like what you want for yourself. Because IF it is "pathological and obsessive", then what you are doing is the exact same thing! Do you think your opinions are "pathological and obsessive"?
>"It is designed to carry the tyranny of the majority..."
Wait a minute...the "tyranny of the majority"??? We don't live in a Democracy, so how can there be a "tyranny of the majority"? We need to have a detailed discussion about what it means to live in a Republic, and our "place" within that Republic. Because what you indicate above is that you believe the Republic here in America is no different than a simple Democracy, and the "majority" is trampling down the "minority". If that is so, then please outline YOUR idea for an alternative to what we have here in America. What form of government do you endorse instead???
>"...into what is a safe space for people who care about society, instead of just themselves."
In the first place, I see nothing on the pages here that indicate that this is a "safe space" for ONLY people of a liberal or anarchist slant. Where does it say that? What I do see is a web site that posts articles that are out of the norm, some of which are actually interesting, and which asks for others to "comment" on the subjects. IF you want to turn the IMC into a place where only certain opinions and comments are welcome, then the web pages should clearly show that to be the case, right?
>"You want to extend a monopoly of rightwing opinion into a space which threatens the way you think things should be."
I don't know what a "monopoly of right wing opinion" is exactly, but all individuals have their opinions. Some are "right wing", some are "left wing", some fall somewhere in between, some have right opinions on some issues and left on others, whatever. I hold no animosity against anyone who holds different opinions than I do, but I sure do have a problem with people who claim nothing but their "right" to free speech while at the same time trying to silence others they don't agree with.
>"Get over the fact that people disagree with you and will continue to do so."
Right back at ya! You need to understand that not everyone agrees on the issues, but that doesn't mean that they cannot be discussed, and reasonable people can simply agree to disagree on soe things.
>"As for the hidden articles, you could not stop with just a single reply, stating your opinion, but no, you have to go on at length what we all could have figured out in one brief paragraph about where you stand and why you hold the opinion you do. That is why the first post you made under NRA4 is considered trolling."
So, because you thought my opinion was too long, you hid it?
>"You not only attacked every point you could think of..."
"Addressed" every point maybe, but opinoins are certainly NOT "attacks". When I read a sign someone is carrying that says, "I oppose the war because I think...", I don't see that as an "attack". It's their opinion, nothing more or less.
>"... you had to come back round again and do it all over, that time calling out someone by name."
That time, the second message, it was responding to a point made in another persons comments, the name merely cut and pasted to show what was being responded to.
>"That is trolling."
No, that's reasonable discussion! That's how discussions work. One person says whatthey think, another says what they think, and on and on.
>"It's way more than just your opinion. It's you choosing to piss on someone's leg and claim that it's just raining."
It's no different than you writing your opinion, or Jack writing his, or anyone else writing theirs. The truth is, you don't want any comments that you don't agree with, and you are willing to actually censor those messages just because you have the power to do so, and that makes you FAR more dangerous to a free society than ANYONE you protest against. Can you not understand that?
>"If you have further comments about our editorial policy, questions about its enforcement, or wish to appeal, you have already been referred to an email contact. Use it, because your whining here is basically just more trolling, as well as being completely off-topic (unless you're a troll here to do nothing but whine about our policies when you ignore them.) We set the policy and your failure to make any substantive attempt to live up to its spirit is your problem, not ours."
Truth is, the problem seems to be yours personally, and it is amazing that you, a person who obviously values your freedom of speech very highly in order to say what you have to say is SO willing to trample on other people's freedom of speech in order to silence them. |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by red herring
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2004
|
"mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming out of queers..."
let's focus on disussing the positives and future plans, and leave the trollers to amuse themselves. enough of our space and voice has been silenced already. let's get it out to say what we want to say, not to argue with those who want to distract our time and attention and energies. May 17 was beautiful. keep up the actions. keep up the talk. keep up the momentum. keep it up. |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by chuck
chuck (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2004
|
|
It did have something to do with the topic until you deleted everything. I'm sorry, "hid" everything. If getting rid of all dissenting opinions is how you make yourself believe all your misguided notions that is pretty sad. Marriage is for man and woman, period. Always has been, always should be. |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by 5
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2004
|
Using the argument "It's the way it's always been" isn't very effective. Injustices are corrected. I'm sure when women and blacks attempted to gain the legal right to vote, this argument was used. I know this is a popular "argument", but it has no teeth. Slavery has always been around, should that remain today?
The basic problem is that the state is deciding who can participate in a partnership that confers legal rights. The state doesn't decide who may be baptized in the Catholic church or who may be bar-mitzvahed in the Jewish temple. But in the US, marriage is not only a religious ceremony, but a legal definition.
And here is where the protesters at Brookens pointed out the hypocrisy. When a straight woman and a gay man applied and were granted a marriage license, the whole religious argument falls to pieces. Marriage has become an institution in which only same-sex couples are excluded. Whether they are in love or intend to marry doesn't matter. Just be of opposite genders and your petition is granted. Kinda like a government-sanctioned screening process.
Either marriage is a religious rite that the state has no business regulating or using as a legal definition for tax purposes, wills, child custody, guardianship, transfer of property, family leave, visitation rights, etc., or government-sanctioned marriages are available to all. You can't have it both ways. |
|
Thou Protests Too Much |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2004
|
I'll be convinced that the issue is really "free speech" when I see NRA4 and his cohorts go on Rush Limbaugh's website and protest about the lack of it there.
What's that? You can NOT do that on Rush's site?
Well... what about the trolls demanding a minute of right of reply for the left on Mark Hyman's conservative lovefest for the right on Channel 15?
Oh, you can NOT do that either?
Well, how about going to WorldNetDaily and demanding that they offer a right of reply to the left in the midst of the barrage of ridiculous rightwing conspiracy and Rapture stories they offer everyday?
Oh, you can NOT do that there, also?
The right spends an inordinate time bleating about "free speech" and "censorship" here. Jack Ryan did that here for more than a year before the editors started dealing with his pottymouth misogyny as they should have right from the beginning. Then he and his buddies want to run around like Chicken Little complaining that the sky is falling.
The reality is that "freedom of speech" is often a demand from the right, but it hardly ever _offered_ by the right to others...
Which may be the reason the trolls are here. They can't find anyone on the right to offer the relative freedom they have here at Indymedia to have their say, so the do it here. Is it really true yu'all got kicked off of freepers because you are too liberal? |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2004
|
Dose,
>"Is it really true yu'all got kicked off of freepers because you are too liberal?"
LOL, yea, that's probably it!
Seriously, there is no question about the fact that ML probably has a tough job riding herd over this site. And I have certainly seen messages posted here that needed to be sent to the hidden area...some of mine included. But, when the line gets crossed and messages are removed not for the fact that they are against the rules here, but instead because their content happens to be not what some individual intends to read, then it becomes a censorship issue, not a sysop one. If any messages break the rules, then they should go...but that must be even handed across the board also...left views and rights views alike. Only then are issues addressed, while free speech is not infringed. People who truly believe in freedom of speech will go to the mat for those who ideas to express, especially when those ideas do not happen to agree with their own. I may not like what you say, but I'd stand beside you for your right in this Country to say it. Well, until it borders on treason anyway! |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
20 May 2004
|
(ignoring most of this thread)
Yay for the protestors! And thanks for the pictures Ben. |
|
Re: Mark Sheldon |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 May 2004
|
Mark sheldon sez, "my gut reaction is not to obey the courts."
What a delightful response from an elected official.
@%< |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by thorn
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 May 2004
|
ML, you're doing an excellent job here, and a thankless one at that!
Hide or delete the Jack&Friends troll posts as you see fit. And there is no need for you to waste one word explaining your actions. UCIMC might want to modify the guidelines of acceptable behavior to forewarn the dittohead pinheads that any bigoted, Limbaugh-esque posts will be deleted/hidden without warning or explanation, and at your discretion.
Enough is enough with these children, don't waste your time explaining your actions, just delete their manure as often as they splatter it here, and eventually they'll take their childish games elsewhere. Block IP addresses and/or poster names.
As for the attempts at gay marriage in Champaign, Right On! Keep fighting the good fight. Glad to read about your efforts here. UCIMC is a very valuable resource for the community, and I'm proud to hear of the efforts of CU's progressive activists.
It is so inspiring to come here to catch up on local happenings, and read about an anti-chief sit-in, or the event described here. Makes a townsperson proud! |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by Rob G
RGADZI1661 (nospam) rogers.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
21 May 2004
|
|
Yes, what a stupid comment by an elected official. i guess that means you could ignore other court decisions like the one that awared that pin head Bush as President. It seems with all the money tha Bush is spending in Iraq fighting for so called freedom this 'freedom' is being denied to a segment of citizens of the USA. I don't think Bush understands what a constitution is suppose to do. It's no use having one if on the one had you same all have equal rights then on the other hand try and negate these with laws denighing them for this person or that. It's just so screwed up. Our constitution worked here in Canada. |
|
Re: Same Sex Couples Denied Marriage Licenses at Champaign County Clerk's Office |
by Arun Bhalla
bhalla (nospam) uiuc.edu (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
25 May 2004
|
|
I have some amateurish photos I took available online at http://arun.groogroo.com/~bhalla/img/gallery/2004/05-17/. |
|
