@Sidney,you are correct in the assertion that one cannot hide his race in a closet.Hubs was obviously joking/sleepy and the time of his posts supports that.
My concern is on the implication of giving judicial backing to very unusual things.Just like Funmo raised above,this judgement can mess someones white house bid if care is not taken.

__________________
IT IS BETTER TO DIE FOR A CAUSE THAT WOULD LIVE THAN TO LIVE FOR ONE THAT WOULD DIE

In other words if black men where able to bleach their skin white(with some newly invented Black to white cream) then the law stating black people should sit at the back of the bus should have continued. Right ?

Once upon a time blacks had to sit at the back of a school bus ...once upon a time a gay man had to stay single and sad for the rest of his life !

The white man did not feel the black man was worthy of a seat of his choice.The white and black man did not think the gay man was worthy of a mutual partner of his choice.

The oppressor always feels superior and will always find a believable reason to continue oppression !

Hubs is right you can hide ur race. It was featured in Ebony magazine.
South Africa ended Apartheid.Gay men can now wed in South Africa. It seems like South Africa gets it.

Pride and superiority must be put aside when passing law.Months ago I saw this ongoing California supreme court argument on Cspan and I observed the female judges were so cordial and infact kept making references to comments by responding 'u dont know how Im going to rule"! I knew they would overturn the ban. Everywoman who has sat in a makeup artist chair and had a gay man apply her makeup or talk to her understands one thing their sexuality does not make them a bad person.The ones I have encountered are kind sweet understanding ...why shouldnt they marry.Let them join the rest of us that have to stay with one partner till thy kingdom come...if dem wan follow wear husband and husband asoebi ...by all means allow them. They are part of society and to me the sooner society allows them to love and marry the better. The downlow phenomena is getting worse due to the shame.Innocent women end up with men who prefer men but are afraid.They pay taxes therefore they should have access to government issued marriage licenses.
My conclusion White is not superior to Black.Black and White are not superior to Homos.

The fact that we are talking about THE ABILITY TO HIDE ANYTHING being ure rationale for who's rights are more valid than others is illogical !!!!!

Rights are Rights period !
Whether u have the option to hide ur sexuality or bleach ur skin white ...No one should be deprived of their individual rights as long as those rights are not hurting another human being.


A black person if they choose can hid their race ...as proven in Ebony magazine.

He is saying that it is Christian(Republican conservatives)who want to use their religious beliefs to rule a country which comprises of people of different belief systems....they are the ones making homosexuality an issue. Most Unbelievers could care less who another individual marries.

HUH???????????????????????????????????????? I think you've mixed up Race with Ethnicity/Nationality just there, try another analogy

__________________
Nah so we see am oh!!!

yeah and how we miss the cotton picking plantations !!

But a carribean and an african are of the same race but of different origins, so again.......

__________________
Nah so we see am oh!!!

Okay, Spill.................

__________________
Nah so we see am oh!!!

Well, maybe I was wrong.......................................!



What California's Gay Ruling Won't Do
Friday, May. 16, 2008 By JOHN CLOUD
California gay marriage

A little more than an hour after the California Supreme Court ruled yesterday that gay couples can legally wed, one of the plaintiffs in the case, Stuart Gaffney, was exultant. Speaking for himself and his partner of 21 years, Gaffney told a press conference, "This is the happiest and most romantic day of our lives." Really?


Gaffney and his boyfriend should consider a gay cruise, or just a walk in the park before the weather turns hot. As sweeping as they can be, court decisions are not romantic. The sentiment that courts can deliver happiness is one cherished by generations of civil rights attorneys (and, apparently, their plaintiffs), but before we get too excited, we might pause to consider what the California court did not — and could not — deliver: legal equality for gay couples. As I pointed out in an earlier story, more than a thousand federal laws apply to married couples, and many of them accord substantial benefits in an array of programs, from Social Security to food stamps to federal housing. Gay couples in California will now be able to wed under state law, as those in Massachusetts can, but their marriages will still be something less than what straight Californians enjoy.

I am hoping for invitations to some lavish gay beach weddings in the next few months, but at the end of the year, the gays who stage those weddings will still be filing separate 1040s. That's not going to change any time soon, since both John McCain and Barack Obama (and, for that matter, Hillary Rodham Clinton) share the same position on equality for gay couples: they oppose it. Neither candidate would end federal discrimination against gays who want to marry.

One of the most puzzling things to me about heat for Obama on the left is that the Senator has taken such retrograde positions on gays. A little more than a year ago, after Peter Pace, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Chicago Tribune that he believes gay sex is "immoral," Obama initially declined to disagree with him. Obama's campaign waited hours before making clear that gays aren't actually immoral. (Thanks so much!) Later in the year, Obama's campaign enlisted the support of a Christianist entertainer, Donnie McClurkin, who publicly advocates the idiocy that people can change their sexuality by praying to Jesus.

Obama would benefit from reading the California court decision. At enormous length (nearly 30,000 words) and with great clarity, the court laid to rest all the silly arguments against marriage equality marshaled by the right over the last few years. Three quick examples of such arguments:
1. What gays really want is a wholly new right, the right to "gay marriage." The court answered by citing Perez v. Sharp, its own 1948 decision legalizing interracial marriage: "The court did not characterize the constitutional right that the plaintiffs in that case sought to obtain as 'a right to interracial marriage,' and did not dismiss the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge on the ground that such marriages never had been permitted in California. Instead, the Perez decision focused on... the importance to an individual of the freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice... It is a fundamental right of free men."
2. Marriage exists mainly for the purpose of protecting society by encouraging stable homes for children. The obvious retort to this position is that plenty of straight couples don't have children, and yet they can still marry. Those opposed to gay marriage answer this objection by saying that the state can't go around inquiring which straight couples are fertile and which are infertile; they do know, though, that no gay couple can have kids on its own. The California court's wonderfully dismissive response: "If that were an accurate and adequate explanation for the absence of such a limitation, it would follow that in instances in which the state is able to make a determination of an individual's fertility without such an inquiry, it would be constitutionally permissible for the state to preclude an individual who is incapable of bearing children from entering into marriage." Not even the most hard-core opponent of marriage equality takes that position.
3. If gays are allowed to marry, it will send a message to straight people not only that having children isn't important, but that it doesn't really matter whether kids are raised by their biological parents. The court's response: "Although we appreciate the genuine concern for the well-being of children underlying that position, we conclude this claim lacks merit... Our recognition that the core substantive rights encompassed by the constitutional right to marry apply to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples does not imply in any way that it is unimportant or immaterial to the state whether a child is raised by his or her biological mother and father. We do not alter or diminish either the legal responsibilities that biological parents owe to their children or the substantial incentives that the state provides to a child's biological parents to enter into and raise their child in a stable, long-term committed relationship."

I could go on — the court certainly does — but suffice to say that this ruling effectively ends the academic debate over whether marriage inequality can be justified. By taking on virtually every objection to marriage rights for same-sex couples, even the most transparently bigoted, the court has produced a document that will be cited for generations. By comparison, the 2004 Massachusetts decision legalizing gay marriage in that state was much less ambitious. The California ruling will undoubtedly fuel the efforts of those who want to amend the U.S. and California constitutions to ban gay marriage, but for now it's enough to enjoy the court's bracingly simple money quote: "An individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights." I just hope someone alerts the candidates for President.

source : here


From the bolded, it is clear that they all oppose it for now. And they are all ignoring it for now. Let's see how the drama unfolds.

__________________
Tell the truth and shame the devil!

Re-read my original post. You made an assumption that I did not approve of the ruling. I made no such claim. The only thing I said was that to attribute gay rights with racial rights is annoying due to the fact that they are not the same thing.

This is not actually not about race. But if you read the article, which by your responses you did not, they were saying that this ruling was akin to California taking the lead in dropping the ban on inter-racial marriages. This is a tenous link at best. But it is the usual mode of gay rights, or any movement for that matter, to use the racial fight for equality as the same. THEY ARE NOT!! The fight for gender equality it akin to the fight for racial eqaulity, others are not. No fight, is less deserving than the other. But they don't have to be the same to be right.

Falsehood you mentioned:
Gay man would stay single and sad for the rest of his life before this ruling..

Simply an absurd comment. I was the only person on this site arguing that homosexuality was not completely a choice. You're good at digging up old threads, go and look. So my point was not to discuss the ruling but the use of racial equality as the same fight. IT IS NOT!!!

AGAIN! since you have a habit of ignoring the most important point of other people's post.

I AM NOT AGAINST THE RULING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

California has always had the most liberal domestica partneship laws that encompasses gays. So what is the difference. I am not even religious, so I don't have any doctrine that forces me to stand against it.

Again let me re-state, since you might not have seen ,my very first comment on this thread. The reason why I posted this article was not about whether the ruling was fair, just, wrong or otherwise but how it will affect the presidential race.

__________________
"We are the ones, we've been waiting for"
Barack Obama

This is such a absurd comment!!!!!!! Where did I do this??!?! WHERE!?!?!?

All I said was I don't like the association of gay right with racial rights! Are any less important?! NO!!!! But it does not mean they are the same!!

good grief...................

__________________
"We are the ones, we've been waiting for"
Barack Obama

well, for example, recent findings are suggesting that Abraham Lincoln enjoyed a longterm... ah, "intimate friendship" with a man.

Discovery Channel :: News :: Book: Abraham Lincoln Was Gay

and i don't believe he was the only one, either.

Well I think they are the same ..and u dont ...so lets "good griefly" agree to disagree !

I believe Rights are Rights !

Agreeing to disagree is fine if that's what occurred.. Instead, you accused me of saying since I don't think they are the same, that then the gay right is less than racial rights.... I never did that...

Rights are rights.. But some rights are tougher to obtain than others. And the fight for some was much tougher and more vigorous fought and from a position of surbordination.

__________________
"We are the ones, we've been wai