Governor Romney on Equality Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Equal Mom, a resident of East Palo Alto, on May 9, 2012 at 2:50 pm
"I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent ... We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern."
Posted by shame on NC, a resident of Stanford, on May 9, 2012 at 3:22 pm
"This issue of homosexual should be a matter for the voters in each state to decide-"
Each state should decide whether people will be allowed to be homosexual???
Should voters actually decide on issues like this? Not that long ago laws against mixed marriages were on the books. Laws against minorities having equal rights were on the books.
Should issues involving equal rights be put to a vote???
"In reality the issue of homosexual is a trivial distraction."
Then why do the republicans harp on it so much?
The results of the election yesterday in North Carolina are shameful. It is too bad that the republicans are endorsing and supporting hatred and intolerance. They are waging a war against minorities, women and homosexuals.
Posted by Equal Mom, a resident of East Palo Alto, on May 9, 2012 at 3:39 pm
I guess Sharon "should be a matter for the voters in each state" won't be voting for Romney, who supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as well as supports the federal DOMA.
So much for Romney and states' rights.
If the issue is jobs, improving the economy and deficit, oh-oh, Romney has more news for Sharon:
Mitt said Monday: "Now, I'm not going to cut a trillion dollars in the first year. And I heard a question. Why not? And the answer is: taking a trillion dollars out of a $15 trillion economy would cause our economy to shrink and would put a lot of people out of work."
Mitt understands that austerity in Europe has weakened their economies and lowered GDP and job creation. Mitt understands that the Stimulus here in the US helped our GDP recover from the negative Bush GDP. The stimulus allowed America to recover from the huge job losses under Bush, 700,000 per month, and start hiring again.
If Romney says spending cuts hurt the economy, why are spending cuts at the heart of his fiscal policy? Why does Mitt want to follow Bush policies that made this mess in the first place?
Maybe Mitt is just fibbing, evolving, Mything or lying again, like he did to Republicans about equality.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 9, 2012 at 3:39 pm
In NC 85% of Black voters voted against homosexual marriage
Blacks also take offense at equating homosexual marriage with the Black civil rights movement
The said- quote
-"we never saw homosexuals stuck at the back of the bus"
The key issues are-
1/jobs, jobs, jobs-
2/our national debt-
3/the fact that we are involved in 2 wars and a seemingly endless war on terror which are adding many of $ trillions to our national debt and weakening our position with China and will impoverish our children and our children s children .
It is time to get real and focus upon what is important for a change
Posted by David, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 9, 2012 at 4:21 pm
I once heard someone suggest a Constitutional Ammendment, "All consenting adults may marry".
Why do homosexuals oppose this proposal, with all their extreme bigotry, considering that they want a redefiniton of marraige?
Barack Obama is an empty vessel, just anything to favor his base, whenever convenient. No spine.
If we are going to redefine marriage, beyond the traditional meaning, then we should go all the way,and get all bigotry out of the way. This, especially, means that homosexuals need to shed their bigotry. Gay marriage, heterosexual marriage, plural marriage, incestual marraige...as long as it is consentual among adults.
Just watch the homosexual bigots jump on this one!
Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 9, 2012 at 4:31 pm
There are many people a man cannot legally marry, his mother, his daughter, his sister, etc. all for good reason. If marriage can be between all consenting adults then this would be the logical next step. In Europe, there is already one case of brother/sister marriage being contested. Web Link.
Marriage must remain as a legal contract between an unrelated man/woman before the whole thing becomes a joke.
Posted by pants on fire, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on May 9, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Sharon once again provides her fantasies as facts. David comments ate equally ridiculous. I also call on Sharon to provide proof for her assertions. Of course that will never happen. Basic rights should not be put to a vote.
Posted by Equal Mom, a resident of East Palo Alto, on May 9, 2012 at 5:55 pm
So Sharon can't find anything to back up her false claims about yesterday's exit polls, or her false statement "we never saw homosexuals stuck at the back of the bus". Instead, she posts a bunch more unsubstantiated trash.
Just more noise, and everyone tunes it out except those that hear the dog whistle. Sharon and W routinely inject race into an issue.
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto, on May 9, 2012 at 6:14 pm
Sharon, where do you get your info that gay whites ignore the HIV/AIDs problem in the US?
I agree w/Sharon that the deficit, the economy are vitally important right now. Civil rights for non-majority groups and/or legally & socioeconomically disenfranchised groups are always time-consuming & slow moving (although, truthfully, GLBT rights have evolved quickly in the last 30 years). But slow moving & time-consuming doesn't mean that working on civil rights is unimportant when our economy is suffering. ALL of it is important, on the balance - even if the civil rights issue doesn't affect you directly. Of course, part of this is people recognizing that gay marriage is a civil rights issue - and that's an evolving process.
I think that Sharon, despite all the stuff we pick on her about, as well as Equal Mom, bring up good points. The intersection between the two that I've seen - economy & gay marriage - has been a good one. I've observed that gay marriage is *very* good for the economy!
On a delighted side note: I used to notice gay couples a lot more than I do now. I was right near a 2 dads & their kids over the weekend at a public venue & didn't notice for hours that it was a dad/dad household, because it's part of the range of normalcy amongst families that I see.
Posted by David, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 9, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Do you oppose the bigotry, especially among homosexuals, that oppose the question of true free marriage? I have heard a ton of bigotry, among my homosexual friends, once they understand that that freedom of choice means just that. Gays are just as biggoted as straights, related to marriage, yet they are only 1-2% of the general population.
I have yet to see a single state vote in favor of homosexual marriage. Have you? BTW, what is "equal" in "Equal Mom"? You seem to be among the unequal biggots.
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto, on May 9, 2012 at 7:32 pm
How is that minority group destroying the Demo party?
Re gay white activists in EPA working on HIV/AIDs issues, where do you get your info? FYI, groups, when soliciting volunteers, don't ask about sexual orientation - it's illegal, so pray tell, where would this info be kept publicly?
While I personally know a number of LGBT white folks who've worked on HIV/AIDs issues among the African American population, that's because I've worked in the nonprofit sector.
Posted by David, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on May 9, 2012 at 9:05 pm
"Basic rights should not be put to a vote of the public."
They usually are, because judges are the result of the public vote. However, I agree with you, in principle, plural marraige should not be banned, even by majority vote or judges. Why do homosexuals, who favor gay marriage, so strongly oppose plural marriage or intra-family marriage? I can only think that it is gay bigotry.
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto, on May 9, 2012 at 9:54 pm
David, I'm straight, so I can't answer for the gay populace re intra-family marriage. But the gay people I know are just as smart as the other folks against family marriages, unless the family members are sufficiently distant, for medical reasons - NOT for bigotry. But you know this, right? Or are you really a proponent of intra-family marriage?
As for plural marriage, how do you know that the gay community is against it? I can't recall reading anything of late that the gay community has taken a stand for or against it.
Why do you insist that gays against either or both are bigoted when you haven't offered any facts?
And again, you're joking about all of this, right? Maybe I have the date wrong & it's really 4/1.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 10, 2012 at 9:24 am Perspective is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Let's see...Obama and Dems had full control for 2 years to do whatever was important to them..did they turn over the Defense of Marriage Act? No
Did they put forth any legislation about gay marriage?
Have they allowed the private sector to create more jobs for Gays? No
Have the put Gays into as much national debt as everyone else? Yes.
So, is this a political comment to raise money by Obama? Yes.
Did it work? Apparently.
Are some people easily and repeatedly fooled? Yes.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Stop being played, folks, over an issue which is like abortion..nothing at all a President can or can't do without a super majority in the House and Senate..and even then whatever they do has to pass muster with the Supremes. Stop treating a President like a king or tyrant who is somehow magically endowed to raise a wand and make your dreams come true. You set yourself up to be fooled, repeatedly. What does that make you?
In the meantime...jobs, jobs, jobs. Housing values, housing values, housing values. Middle East stability. Oil production. Ability to defend ourselves individually and as a nation (military). Dying in absurd wars without an end-goal (don't use the word "victory"..it makes Obama uncomfortable)
Those affect every American, young, old, black, white, brown, gay, straight. The vast majority of us don't care if 2 straights or 2 gays or 3 of whatever etc stay together forever and have sex. In fact, the majority of us, as has been shown in State after State, support equality in unions, just not changing the definition of a word. THAT has legal ramifications with unintended ( or intended in some cases) consequences of interfering with other peoples' rights. ( See Massachusetts as the original test case and what happened to adoption agencies, various churches, and private businesses ). So, stop being played, folks.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 10, 2012 at 9:50 am Perspective is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Forgot this little maneuver by our "brave" and "equal" Flusher in Chief (no, not being derogatory, just referring to his brilliant comedic pre-stage "open mic" routine at the White House Correspondents dinner where he courageously had a toilet flush, giving everyone an image of the POTUS in the dignified position of using a toilet...).
In any case, forget that our Flusher In Chief still hasn't signed the Executive order prohibiting discrmination against gays etc for hiring at the federal level. Web Link
Yup, y'all keep getting fooled, Obama will love to keep playing you as long as you keep your wallets open and your votes coming.