Plenty of states offer equal rights for gays under civil unions. But they are still crying that they want to use the word "marriage" and it's not the same if they can't. So all that bitching and moaning when they ALREADY HAVE their rights but want it called marriage?? Cry me a river.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't care about the word. But the rights and benefits have to be there, and have to be valid in any state.

Anonymous wrote:
Plenty of states offer equal rights for gays under civil unions. But they are still crying that they want to use the word "marriage" and it's not the same if they can't. So all that bitching and moaning when they ALREADY HAVE their rights but want it called marriage?? Cry me a river.

There are only a handful of states that have any type of civil union or domestic partnership laws. And in some of those states, they only grant some of the protections of marriage and not all. Additionally, even if you reside in a state that does grant civil unions, if you travel to a state that does not have civil unions and/or reciprocity, you can still be denied the rights of your civil union, something which cannot happen to couples that are married. It's much like the case for segregation "separate but equal" which, of course, was not equal at all. One problem with this state-by-state problem is that a couple can have full civil union rights which in say, DC, but if they were to travel out to see some friends in MD or VA and one of them happened to have a health emergency, the other partner would have limited rights in the hospital because the state only provide 11 (of over 330) protections accorded to married couples. The partner is entitled to hospital visitation, but no protections to make legal or medical decisions or any other next-of-kin rights.

As for "plenty of states" there are 9 states (and DC) that offer some form of civil union or domestic partnership that resembles marriage. There are five states that offer a limited form of civil union that gives only a subset of marriage rights. That's 28% of the states that give some form of civil union. I'd hardly call that "plenty."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am amazed that, in the past several years, "gay rights" has become The Most Important voting factor for a small majority of people, and that the media coverage of such has given it the appearance of having such importance.

Economy? Unemployment? Border control?
No. None of these is as important as GAY RIGHTS, damn it!
What a laughing stock and how pathetic. Nothing is more important than alternative lifestyles who preen and dramatize themselves into importance in the lives of Americans who have so much more to worry about.

When you have no legal protection for your family or rights as a parent because you and your partner are the same gender, get back to me on prioritizing between that and border control.

Plenty of states offer equal rights for gays under civil unions. But they are still crying that they want to use the word "marriage" and it's not the same if they can't. So all that bitching and moaning when they ALREADY HAVE their rights but want it called marriage?? Cry me a river.

11 is "plenty"? And, the rights aren't the same. Feel free to look it up.

Meh, I can take it or leave it.

I find that most people that proclaim their disdain for one thing and boycott it or make a big deal out of it, don't really walk the walk. They may well be making purchases at other businesses or other decisions that also discriminate against others or treat them poorly. It is more their hypocritical public stance to look good but it isn't backed up in practice. I see this on both sides of the political divide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am amazed that, in the past several years, "gay rights" has become The Most Important voting factor for a small majority of people, and that the media coverage of such has given it the appearance of having such importance.

Economy? Unemployment? Border control?
No. None of these is as important as GAY RIGHTS, damn it!
What a laughing stock and how pathetic. Nothing is more important than alternative lifestyles who preen and dramatize themselves into importance in the lives of Americans who have so much more to worry about.

When you have no legal protection for your family or rights as a parent because you and your partner are the same gender, get back to me on prioritizing between that and border control.

Plenty of states offer equal rights for gays under civil unions. But they are still crying that they want to use the word "marriage" and it's not the same if they can't. So all that bitching and moaning when they ALREADY HAVE their rights but want it called marriage?? Cry me a river.

A) Not all states offer civil unions.
B) Gays are still denied all the benefits of federal marriage.
C) By "reserving" the term "marriage" for straight couples, you are implying that straight couples are worthy of this designation and that gay couples aren't; that gay couples are somehow lesser than straight couples. Which is crap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am amazed that, in the past several years, "gay rights" has become The Most Important voting factor for a small majority of people, and that the media coverage of such has given it the appearance of having such importance.

Economy? Unemployment? Border control?
No. None of these is as important as GAY RIGHTS, damn it!
What a laughing stock and how pathetic. Nothing is more important than alternative lifestyles who preen and dramatize themselves into importance in the lives of Americans who have so much more to worry about.

When you have no legal protection for your family or rights as a parent because you and your partner are the same gender, get back to me on prioritizing between that and border control.

Plenty of states offer equal rights for gays under civil unions. But they are still crying that they want to use the word "marriage" and it's not the same if they can't. So all that bitching and moaning when they ALREADY HAVE their rights but want it called marriage?? Cry me a river.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will still eat there and bring my kids to play there.

It's one man's opinion on it.


What about all the workers that work there, that might be out of work because of this "boycott"...do you fault them for working there? If you have a friend that works there, will you defriend that friend because of it?

Honestly, I do fault them. It's their choice to work for a company that actively opposes gay rights. And if my friend worked there, I'd have to factor that into what I know about my friend -- that my friend has no problem working for a company that spends its money advancing bigoted causes. Whether or not I'd "defriend" that friend would depend on the rest of our relationship.

Oh, you total idiot. You would defriend someone because they work for a fast food restaurant whose owner has a belief that may not even be theirs? You are a Class A moron. Maybe people work there because they don't have any other good options. Maybe for someone with a family, it's nice to have Sundays guaranteed off which you might not have at other retail or restaurant jobs. I worked at a Chick-fil-A in college, and we employed gay people. Yes, gay people worked with me at this restaurant! Can you believe it? It must be so, so nice to live in a world where you can choose how to feed your family based on whether or not the company giving you a paycheck holds the exact same set of morals and beliefs as you.

Well, good morning to you too! Please reread. I specifically didn't say that I would "defriend" a friend who worked at Chick-fil-A. I said that I would "factor that into what I know about my friend" and go from there. That would include whether they were desperate for a job and this was all that was available, etc. And you knwo what I'd do if, say, a gay friend worked at Chick-fil-A? I would ask them why they worked there, and then I would listen to their answer.

I haven't been called a "Class A moron" in a while, though. That was great

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This controversy caused the VP of PR to die:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chick-fil-a-20120728,0,765557.story

You are one sick asshole.

That's how the story itself in the Times was presented. What's the matter with you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am amazed that, in the past several years, "gay rights" has become The Most Important voting factor for a small majority of people, and that the media coverage of such has given it the appearance of having such importance.

Economy? Unemployment? Border control?
No. None of these is as important as GAY RIGHTS, damn it!
What a laughing stock and how pathetic. Nothing is more important than alternative lifestyles who preen and dramatize themselves into importance in the lives of Americans who have so much more to worry about.

When you have no legal protection for your family or rights as a parent because you and your partner are the same gender, get back to me on prioritizing between that and border control.

Yep. When you are a woman who doesn't have access to birth control and can't work or find a job because you are pregnant or have a dependent child, you can't afford child care, and you don't have access to legal, safe abortion - so you have to stay married to some abusive asshole because hey at least he pays your bills - talk to me about the economy.

Anonymous wrote:This controversy caused the VP of PR to die:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chick-fil-a-20120728,0,765557.story

Using the Westboro Baptist Church logic, God is punishing Chick-Fil-A for their un-Christian attitude towards gays.

Anonymous wrote:I am amazed that, in the past several years, "gay rights" has become The Most Important voting factor for a small majority of people, and that the media coverage of such has given it the appearance of having such importance.

Economy? Unemployment? Border control?
No. None of these is as important as GAY RIGHTS, damn it!
What a laughing stock and how pathetic. Nothing is more important than alternative lifestyles who preen and dramatize themselves into importance in the lives of Americans who have so much more to worry about.

When you have no legal protection for your family or rights as a parent because you and your partner are the same gender, get back to me on prioritizing between that and border control.

Not a big gun fan. If the only way I could feed my family was working for the NRA, I'd do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will still eat there and bring my kids to play there.

It's one man's opinion on it.


What about all the workers that work there, that might be out of work because of this "boycott"...do you fault them for working there? If you have a friend that works there, will you defriend that friend because of it?

Honestly, I do fault them. It's their choice to work for a company that actively opposes gay rights. And if my friend worked there, I'd have to factor that into what I know about my friend -- that my friend has no problem working for a company that spends its money advancing bigoted causes. Whether or not I'd "defriend" that friend would depend on the rest of our relationship.

Oh, you total idiot. You would defriend someone because they work for a fast food restaurant whose owner has a belief that may not even be theirs? You are a Class A moron. Maybe people work there because they don't have any other good options. Maybe for someone with a family, it's nice to have Sundays guaranteed off which you might not have at other retail or restaurant jobs. I worked at a Chick-fil-A in college, and we employed gay people. Yes, gay people worked with me at this restaurant! Can you believe it? It must be so, so nice to live in a world where you can choose how to feed your family based on whether or not the company giving you a paycheck holds the exact same set of morals and beliefs as you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am amazed that, in the past several years, "gay rights" has become The Most Important voting factor for a small majority of people, and that the media coverage of such has given it the appearance of having such importance.

Economy? Unemployment? Border control?
No. None of these is as important as GAY RIGHTS, damn it!
What a laughing stock and how pathetic. Nothing is more important than alternative lifestyles who preen and dramatize themselves into importance in the lives of Americans who have so much more to worry about.

It's not reallly gay rights to me. It's human rights. I don't think the govt should be using a religious justification to interfere in our personal lives. Very dangerous, slippery slope. To me it is part of freedom of religion - which was important enough to the founding fathers that as you recall, it was mentioned in the FIRST amendment.

I agree. Replace the words "gay rights" with "civil rights" in the PP's post, and turn the clock back 50 years. Was that movement important?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This controversy caused the VP of PR to die:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chick-fil-a-20120728,0,765557.story

You are one sick asshole.

Um? Fucking excuse me? Who the fuck do you fucking think you are, you fucker?

He had a heart attack. Probably caused by the stress of the controversy.

Fuck off.

Or possibly fried chicken.

<ducking lightning bolt>