Can Gays Be Conservative?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sure, the women's suffrage and civil right movements were marked with events such the spread of the woman's vote by state for example and blacks had the support of the abolitionist movement and so on. There were events that took place and you can find it in any basic U.S. history on look it up online. I read the article and still found it wanting on my question and it certaining doesn't explain at all way different countries only now recognize legal gay marriages.

Why does that need an explanation? Anyways, it's all on the webz, too:

The American Gay Rights Movement: A Timeline

This timeline provides information about the gay rights movement in the United States from 1924 to the present: including the Stonewall riots; the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy; the first civil unions; the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut; and more.

1924

The Society for Human Rights in Chicago becomes the country's earliest known gay rights organization.

1948

Alfred Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, revealing to the public that homosexuality is far more widespread than was commonly believed.

1951

The Mattachine Society, the first national gay rights organization, is formed by Harry Hay, considered by many to be the founder of the gay rights movement.

1956

The Daughters of Bilitis, a pioneering national lesbian organization, is founded.

1962

Illinois becomes the first state in the U.S. to decriminalize homosexual acts between consenting adults in private.

1969

The Stonewall riots transform the gay rights movement from one limited to a small number of activists into a widespread protest for equal rights and acceptance. Patrons of a gay bar in New York's Greenwich Village, the Stonewall Inn, fight back during a police raid on June 27, sparking three days of riots.

1973

The American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders.

1982

Wisconsin becomes the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

1993

The “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy is instituted for the U.S. military, permitting gays to serve in the military but banning homosexual activity. President Clinton's original intention to revoke the prohibition against gays in the military was met with stiff opposition; this compromise, which has led to the discharge of thousands of men and women in the armed forces, was the result.

1996

In Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court strikes down Colorado's Amendment 2, which denied gays and lesbians protections against discrimination, calling them “special rights.” According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, “We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These protections . . . constitute ordinary civil life in a free society.”

2000

Vermont becomes the first state in the country to legally recognize civil unionsbetween gay or lesbian couples. The law states that these “couples would be entitled to the same benefits, privileges, and responsibilities as spouses.” It stops short of referring to same-sex unions as marriage, which the state defines as heterosexual.

2003

The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws in the U.S. are unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.”

In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition followed the ruling.

2004

On May 17, same-sex marriages become legal in Massachusetts.

2005

Civil unions become legal in Connecticut in October.

2006

Civil unions become legal in New Jersey in December.

2007

In November, the House of Representatives approves a bill ensuring equal rights in the workplace for gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals.

2008

In February, a New York State appeals court unanimously votes that valid same-sex marriages performed in other states must be recognized by employers in New York, granting same-sex couples the same rights as other couples.

In February, the state of Oregon passes a law that allows same-sex couples to register as domestic partners allowing them some spousal rights of married couples.

On May 15, the California Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. By November 3rd, more than 18,000 same-sex couples have married. On November 4, California voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage called Proposition 8. The attorney general of California, Jerry Brown, asked the state's Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The ban throws into question the validity of the more than 18,000 marriages already performed, but Attorney General Brown reiterated in a news release that he believed the same-sex marriages performed in California before November 4 should remain valid, and the California Supreme Court, which upheld the ban in May 2009, agreed, allowing those couples married under the old law to remain that way.

November 4 voters in California, Arizona, and Florida approved the passage of measures that ban same-sex marriage. Arkansas passed a measure intended to bar gay men and lesbians from adopting children.

On October 10 the Supreme Court of Connecticut rules that same-sex couples have the right to marry. This makes Connecticut the second state, after Massachusetts, to legalize civil marriage for same-sex couples. The court rules that the state cannot deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry under Connecticut's constitution, and that the state's civil union law does not provide same-sex couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

On November 12 same-sex marriages begin to be officially performed in Connecticut.

2009

On April 3, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously rejects the state law banning same-sex marriage. Twenty-one days later, county recorders are required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

On April 7, the Vermont Legislature votes to override Gov. Jim Douglas's veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry, legalizing same-sex marriage. It is the first state to legalize gay marriage through the legislature; the courts of the other states in which the marriage is legal—Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa—gave approval.

On May 6, the governor of Maine legalized same-sex marriage in that state in Maine; however, citizens voted to overturn that law when they went to the polls in November, and Maine became the 31st state to ban the practice.

On June 3, New Hampshire governor John Lynch signs legislation allowing same-sex marriage. The law stipulates that religious organizations and their employees will not be required to participate in the ceremonies. New Hampshire is the sixth state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage.

On June 17, President Obama signs a referendum allowing the same-sex partners of federal employees to receive benefits. They will not be allowed full health coverage, however. This is Obama's first major initiative in his campaign promise to improve gay rights.

[alienlovechild 75]

Why does that need an explanation? Anyways, it's all on the webz, too:

The only recent non-legal event listed was Stonewall and that was in 1969. If you can't explain how or why there was a cultural shift to something you believe is so important then you haven't thought much about it.

There's a lot of info on the Internet but unfortunately most people don't read it and hope the link or article will make the questions go away. It's old debating trick of burying your opponent in numbers and text without explaining anything.

[scandal 951]

I just thought I'd bump this thread, given all the discussion in the SCOTUS/Gay-marriage thread.

If you hadn't done so already, do yourself a favor and read post #2 by Big Dog in this thread. In its entirety. The article by Ted Olson on why he and David Boies have teamed up to fight California Prop 8 as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment is masterful.

[scandal 951]

Well, here we go .... Prop 8 is about to go Federal Appeals Court, Boies/Olson are going to get their wish of taking this to the next level. I wish them well. The unconstitutionality of Prop 8 is self-evident, it flies right in the face of the 14th Amendment and is a travesty.

SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 5 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court is set to hear legal challenges in San Francisco to the ban on same-sex marriage in California's Proposition 8.

Arguments set to begin Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will center on whether Proposition 8 treats gay couples as second-class citizens or whether society, which has traditionally defined marriage as between a man and woman, may continue to do so, the San Jose Mercury News reported Sunday.

In the spring of 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage, initiating a lawsuit by a civil rights group suing to overturn the law.

"(Proposition 8's) unmistakable purpose and effect is to isolate gay men and lesbians and their relationships as separate, unusual, dangerous and unworthy of the marital relationship," the group's lawyer Theodore Olson, President George W. Bush's solicitor general, wrote in his 9th Circuit brief.

"Before the recent movement to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships, it was commonly understood and acknowledged that the institution of marriage owed its very existence to society's vital interest in responsible procreation and child rearing," Proposition 8 backers wrote in their appeal.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the gay marriage ban in August as government-sponsored discrimination, paving the way for the case to go to the 9th Circuit Court, and possibly, the United States Supreme Court, the newspaper said.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Why not? How is resepcting someone's privacy a "liberal" issue? Doesn;t seem like privacy and private property or anything "private" is high on a liberals list of important things.

The natural place for Gays is the Libertarian party as it is for nearly any thinking indvidual.

[Danno 1,228]

Anyone know how the EU court recently decided on the question :Is the right to Gay marriage a fundamental right?

A few of our Supreme Court members are into "considering other courts of law".

[scandal 951]

Since when is liberalism inconsistent with civil liberties and personal freedoms and upholding the Constitution?

It most certainly is not. That's part of the right wing brainwashing campaign that's been going on for years in this country, that somehow it's the Right that champions personal freedoms while the "sinister Left" is out to steal them away. Hogwash. That is such hypocrisy.

The Right, as a group, consistently opposes a woman's right to choose, opposes the individual's right to get high on weed in their own basement, opposes openly serving Gays in the military, and opposes the rights of same sex couples to have the same rights to marriage as the rest of us. The Left, in general, is much more receptive and supportive of all these mentioned rights.

So, just which political philosophy in America takes the cherished rights of individual freedom most seriously? I consider myself a staunch civil libertarian, offended and concerned about Bill of Rights abuses by the government. I witnessed the Bush Administration wiretap untold American citizens without court ordered wiretaps or FISA oversight, and I saw Alberto Gonzales's DOJ continue to prosecute marijuana possession cases for cases of clear personal use. In contrast, I see the Obama administration issuing Executive orders to comply with FISA, to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell, and to cease & desist on federal prosecutions of simple marijuana possession. I know which of the 2 parties I pick as a champion of the rights I cherish.

Libertarians? When they are a serious political party in their own right that can actually affect policy rather than just catcalling from the peanut gallery, give me a call. Actual policy is made by sitting legislators. Last I checked those all had a (D) or (R ) after their names.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The Right, as a group, consistently opposes a woman's right to choose, opposes the individual's right to get high on weed in their own basement, opposes openly serving Gays in the military, and opposes the rights of same sex couples to have the same rights to marriage as the rest of us. The Left, in general, is much more receptive and supportive of all these mentioned rights.

So, just which political philosophy in America takes the cherished rights of individual freedom most seriously?

Libertarian

All the above are good reasons to be Libertarian. Libertarians also support peope's right to own firearms, choose which schools get their property tax money, freedom of choice on such things as union membership. All things I am sure you support as a civil libertarian.

When the majority of Americans come to the conclusion that they are, in fact, Libertarians, the party will become the dominant one as it should.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Libertarian

All the above are good reasons to be Libertarian. Libertarians also support peope's right to own firearms, choose which schools get their property tax money, freedom of choice on such things as union membership. All things I am sure you support as a civil libertarian.

When the majority of Americans come to the conclusion that they are, in fact, Libertarians, the party will become the dominant one as it should.

Libertarians are also for open borders and I've yet to see any self-proclaimed Libertarians on this site say they are for open borders. Even Ron Paul is against the idea.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Libertarians are also for open borders and I've yet to see any self-proclaimed Libertarians on this site say they are for open borders. Even Ron Paul is against the idea.

I am. But such things cannot exist in a vaccuum. Implement the fair tax and we will need everyone we can get to fill all the jobs we will have as the world's greatest place to do business. All things go together Steven. You cannot have draconian liberal tax laws running jobs out of the country and the hiring of illegal aliens.

On the other hand, making the illegal aliens "legal" for work purposes will reduce their marketability and actually less will be hired. Do you think that illegals are hired because the are the best roofers? Most of them have never been on a roof, most of them never had a roof. Make them compete in price (wages) and they are no longer so attractive. Remove the tax burden of hiring legal workers and qualified, English speaking people start to look more attractive again.

Libertarianism does not look good, completely, unless it is applied completely. If vestiges of liberal racism are allowed to remain it poisons the well of freedom. If we are allowed, or forced as we are now, to maintain a system of slavery in competition with free labor then open borders cannot work. When minimum wage applies to ALL people, ALL people will be hired for the value they offer. I have no problem with that and do not fear that.

[Danno 1,228]

Since when is liberalism inconsistent with civil liberties and personal freedoms and upholding the Constitution?

It most certainly is not. That's part of the right wing brainwashing campaign that's been going on for years in this country, that somehow it's the Right that champions personal freedoms while the "sinister Left" is out to steal them away. Hogwash. That is such hypocrisy.

Speaking of hogwash, personal freedom and all that.....

Yes it is correct to say there is an accepted concept that certain vices, and other activity are harmful to society as a whole... so we do regulate or outlaw them.

As time passes and the needs arise new ones will be added and some will fad in importance but make no mistake: these regulations or laws are consistent with the founders principles as well as practices.

But let's get real here, to suggest Libs are mindful of personal rights is a FN JOKE.

In what areas do The Left Rule, do they have unchallenged power to make laws or regulation?

A few come to mind, others could be added. Centers of educations, Holly Wood, Environmentalism.

How many educational facilities allow smoking ... anywhere?

Most ban it completely from their grounds, my local college has a huge banner proclaiming this at the main entrance. Right across the street, the smokers gather.

Universities are the only place I know which enact "speech codes"... and bodies to hold trial over offenders.

The mono-thought of Holly Wood is akin to the output of the Soviet guided movie production centers.

The EPA is rapidly seeking to control everything from gas passed by cattle to, ammunition (made of lead). Speaking of.... the Liberal gun control crowd is still in business, last I checked.

Environmentalism is now leading to the scanning of your trash to determine if by weight and type you are recycling sufficiently for a house your size.

I could go on and on but what's the point, everyone is well aware there is no shortage of control freaks in the liberal camps.

On the bright side, the Left's control over the media is waining if not over.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Oh the typical liberal idiocy in the thread title.

Of course they can be.

Unlike closes minded dipshits, normal people actually vote on more than just a single issue....

Reasonable people look at issues across the spectrum and decide their vote based on that.

Just as right wing religious nuts only vote Republican because of Abortion, that's no different than a homosexual who only votes Democrat based on Gay marriage... Neither one helps anything at all.

Normal people try and have an educated vote, so it stands to reason that you're going to find 'homosexuals' that are conservative, liberal, libertarian, communist, etc.. based on their other beliefs rather than just ones that might effect them personally at one point in their life....

That and there's that large part of the 'gay community' that doesn't support gay marriage either....

[Krikit 1,164]

Post violating the TOS has been removed. Slurs of any kind are an actionable offense so please refrain. Thank you.

[tmma 467]

Sure they can.

[The_Dude 1,142]

That and there's that large part of the 'gay community' that doesn't support gay marriage either....

Care to provide a link to support your conjecture?