Town Square

Post a New Topic

Tell Congress to Repeal "Don't ask don't tell"

Original post made by holly blash on Jul 22, 2008

Discrimination is discrimination. Last I checked, ALL Americans are equal under the law... Concerned, contributing, patriotic, Tax Paying Americans are being denied the right to defend their country! If only heterosexual people can go and die and/or get maimed in the defense of our country... whom do you think will be left to run things back here? Hmmmm? Maybe there is a plan in action?

Stronger families and stronger community can only Strengthen US.

Comments (15)

Posted by Bert, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2008 at 2:31 pm

And please vote for gay marriage in November!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 22, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Why?


Posted by holly, a resident of Las Positas Garden Homes
on Jul 22, 2008 at 4:11 pm

"Why" what, Stacy?


Posted by Bert, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Why, Stacey? So that all adult Americans have equal rights. Before 1948, it was illegal for adults of different races to marry. If I said it's a good thing that people of different races can marry, would you say 'why'?


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jul 22, 2008 at 7:08 pm

holly, why vote for gay marriage?

Bert, it isn't illegal for two people to enter into such a contract between themselves (because a marriage is essentially a contract). Why does this need sanctioning from the government? Many states and companies already provide domestic partnership benefits. Is it just because of the word "marriage"? (I'm not of an opinion one way or another on this topic. I'd just like to hear reasons why to vote for or against it.)


Posted by memories, a resident of another community
on Jul 22, 2008 at 7:12 pm

i would hope that i would have said that it was normal for a man and a women to marry, regardless of race creed color etc


Posted by Bert, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 22, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Well, Stacey, just like some men and women prefer to be legally married, so would some men and men and some women and women. Everyone has their own reasons.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Jul 22, 2008 at 8:26 pm

holly...I would appreciate hearing more from you & Bert. What you've proposed is very interesting. Say more...

You will find that lots of posters are supportive of your position. If people get chicken sh_t, take the high road like I do and tell them something nice...something very nice!

Already...somebody has used the word "normal". You will likely find a supporter in Stacey. Can't say the same for Edna or Abe...Plutonian piglets! Tee hee hee, tee hee hee...

Get into the action, split hairs...say more...HOORAY!


Posted by holly, a resident of Las Positas Garden Homes
on Jul 22, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Say more...
Well lets see, "why" based on partnership/marriage being a choice and personal agreement. If a couple can "marry" under the laws (of recognition) of the United States (not just California) they are granted the inalienable rights - some 1001++ - that a simple agreement between equals cannot and will not grant.
The federal government does not grant survivor benefits or transfer thereof, visitation, adoption rights, social security transfer, house ownership tax releif, married tax right offs for any property or business...
If two people are committed and choose to spend the rest of their lives together and possibly raise children, own a business, join the military, leave legacy they are denied this (basic rights) based upon basic bigotry and discrimination which does not jibe with the original premise of the constitution.

(Cholo - you really get around!)
H


Posted by Janna, a resident of Mission Park
on Jul 22, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Holly, can you please clarify your post? I think I'm reading it one way, but don't want to jump to conclusions. I'm really hoping I'm reading it incorrectly.

Stacey,

While there are companies that accommodate domestic partnerships, I think it only applies to men and women living together, not gay couples. There are day-to-day situations we deal with easily in our married lives while gay couples aren't afforded the same ease in those same situations, even though they may consider themselves married. Imagine spending your life with someone and then finding out they can't even visit you in the hospital ICU because they aren't legally family. That would be heartbreaking in my opinion, especially if the person was dying. I don't think 'sanctioned' is the right word here. I think it should be adequate to be legally recognized by the government in the same way married heterosexual couples are legally recognized. I really don't get what the big deal is as far as people who are against this, but then I'm a liberal who believes in equality for every human.


Posted by Janna, a resident of Mission Park
on Jul 22, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Holly,

You posted while I was typing. You have answered my question, thanks!

Janna


Posted by consider, a resident of Livermore
on Jul 23, 2008 at 10:02 am

if i deeply love another person, of the same sex, but only as a person, shouldn't i be granted those same rights?


Posted by holly, a resident of Las Positas Garden Homes
on Jul 23, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Hmmm... Are you proposing that all Love is sacred and should be recognized as equal? And perhaps we can do away with the recognition of "marriage" as a separate institution?

Very interesting and a bit Zen. If, as you say, "i deeply love another person, of the same sex, but only as a person" are you speaking about non-sexual, non-life time committed partnership love?

As above (first paragraph) if we do away with the institution of marriage and the recognition of the caste system of married v. non-married, monogamous v. non-monogamous and the whole legitimate v. non-legitimate (I personally do not recognize "illegitimate" as a category for any human)then are we all "family" and responsible for/to each other as family?

Hmmm....

More questions! This is fun!


Posted by Debbie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jul 23, 2008 at 12:37 pm

It's interesting to read, "but only as a person." If you love somebody and want to have sex with them, are you loving them in a way that considers them not 'a person'?


Posted by consider, a resident of Livermore
on Jul 23, 2008 at 1:06 pm

uhmmm, so sorry, my mistake....i shouldn't have said person, i meant
my dog. (nevertheless, we are committed to one another)


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

The Gay Rights Movement Coming of Age
By Tom Cushing | 25 comments | 1,104 views

Hacienda Business Park evolves to meet demand
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 957 views

A Norman Rockwell Town
By Roz Rogoff | 6 comments | 857 views