ProudParenting.com - civil unions - Comments

Our "inalienable rights" don't depend upon what the masses think

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:57:00 -0700

Barack's a wonderful man. A few weeks ago while driving to work I was inspired with this idea about him: He's a trojan horse full of what America needs to heal, to move on to our true beautiful destiny as a very great nation that will help heal the entire planet. Greatness doesn't mean military power or religious affiliation. It refers to our nation's spiritual maturity, and how we express it. It refers to the degree to which we do whatever is necessary to bring about prosperity, true justice for all, and happiness for all beings. If we elect him, we'll be taking the next important step toward our spiritual destiny.

Our Declaration of Independence affirms that all people have "inalienable rights." No presidential decree, act of Congress, or voter referenda can interfere with rights that are "INALIENABLE," which means irremovable. To do so is illegal and monstrous from the start. Look up the meaning of the word "inalienable." Go read the Declaration of Independence. What voters think doesn't matter, because they have no authority to interfere with rights that are sealed and guaranteed. If they don't agree with that, then they should reconsider whether they want American citizenship. Citing poll results to cozy people up to the idea that gays should have rights may be very well-meaning, but they still don't change the fact that all Americans have certain universal, natural born rights, God-given, not society-given.

Madison Reed

Not quite the whole truth, eh?

Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:50:05 -0800

Note there's no comment from Mr. Obama about the part about full equality. Mr. Obama maintains that "separate but equal" is ok. Really now. You'd think a black man, above all the rest, would understand and know better than that. And no, NHers don't have all the same rights, responsibilities and obligations as those who are married, and won't, as long as the Feds continue our classist society. But it's a nice start.

About time

Wed, 02 Jan 2008 07:38:23 -0800

The more politicians realalize that Gay people are being treated like they are less deserveing than other people and are treated like second class humans in this country, then the myth of agenda will only be exploited and turned into hate. Cann't we just all get along and accept each other for whom they were born.

Mr. McConkey we applaud your

Sun, 23 Dec 2007 10:49:11 -0800

Mr. McConkey we applaud your efforts. As gay residents of the State of Wisconsin, we believe my civil liberties were infringed upon by the voters of the State of Wisconsin when they cast this vote. The U.S. Supreme Court found in Loving v Virginia (388 U.S. 1 (1967))"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, (1888).316 U.S. 535, 541 125 U.S. 190 To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law." Even though, this quote is in reference to race, the same argument is valid in regards to sexual orientation.

Thank you and a comment.

Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:12:53 -0800

I thank you and so does the rest of my family.

I am not critical of those who are afraid to speak up. Fear is a real thing. It is, however, up to us who are not afraid to fight those things we think art evil, wrong or dangerous. the Wisconsin amendment was all three. It was evil because political people used human beings as inanimate objects in a political fight for votes. The voters were not demanding this amendment. They want good schools, lower crime rates, honest legislators, decent roads. It was wrong because it violated our own Constitution in several ways. It is dangerous because it sets a precedent that allows a majority to isolate minorities and take away the basic human rights that we are all supposed to enjoy. Who is next, short people, the lower IQ's, the Blacks, Jews, Catholics. What a dangerous precedent, indeed.

We must not let these kinds of things go unchallenged. And, parents must not abandon their gay children, not ever.

For me and my family, again, we say thank you. Bill McConkey

Could'nt have said it better myself !

Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:00:48 -0800

Very well said. If more people felt the way your family does, this country would be a better place. We need family's like yours in this country. Thank you so much for what your doing McConkey family.

Support for Bill McConkey & Family

Momsinthetub — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:27:21 -0800

Well said. You sound like a fair-minded citizen who might be straight too. Vote, vote, vote. Thank you McConkey family!

Support for Bill McConkey & Family

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:09:00 -0800

Why are American's so afraid of non-traditional family units? I think it is an inspiration for Bill to step up and help his daughter pursue marriage... or civil union.

American was founded on the belief that all men are created equally, and our forefathers were inspired to fight for their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; why are they now allowed to decipher what someone else's happiness is? Does it make them happy to know that there are people in their own neighborhood who simply want to love and be loved, and to be recognized for that?

Growing up, I recall hearing that "history repeats itself". Well, it seems to me that the American people are now placing gays, lesbians, and other people leading an 'alternative lifestyle' on the back of the bus, because 50 years ago, men and women of the 'white' population were afraid of African American people, and where did they sit?

Where do they stand now?

Why is it that as American's, we feel safer with the label 'civil union', as opposed to marriage? Does that mean that people who were wed in a church are married, and people married in Vegas or in a courthouse in Madison, WI., are not? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, my friend.

What about common wealth marriage? There's a whole new can of donkey dung. Why are we labeling human beings to keep us apart, versus trying to find what makes us all the same? Today, the hot topic is human rights. Tomorrow, will children of alternative couples be sent to their own schools? Why not segregate them too??? After all, they have 2 moms or 2 dads who love them... but OH MY GOD!!!! They might turn your children gay too!!! Look how long it took (and continues to take) children of racially mixed ethnic backgrounds, to be accepted. Unfortunately, there are towns and cities all over this great FREE nation where that is not the case.

This country is a country that millions have died to fight for. And they were not all heterosexual; or white; or single; or married. America is the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

Thank you Bill McConkey, and your family, for maintaining your bravery.

JUMPING THE BROOM - BUT LEGALLY.

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:37:20 -0800

Five nations have it completely and absolutely right (pun intended). Marriage equality is a secular definition. The city clerk's office says Marriage Licenses and not Civil Union Contracts.

Marriage Equality requires the need for one definition where two human beings, of opposite or same sex, contract to marry each other and often decide to raise families. That is the definition of thirty one years, four years of legal marriage not recognized in my nation, and a five year old son together.

Why does anyone expect us to take permanent second tier rights and privileges. Separate but equal is blatant bigotry.
I will accept a civil union contract if every heterosexual surrenders their marriage licenses and certificates and gets one too..... No takers, I thought so...

well said

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:04:02 -0800

I wish there was a petition circulating that mirrors your sentiment. I would wait on line indefinately to add my signature. Well said. I hope more people say the same thing!

Agreed, absolutely.

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:29:13 -0800

I doubt it'd fly in today's political climate, but it would certainly seem to meet all the major objections based on religious principles (or those using such as a pretext), not to mention preserving the state/church separation.

I support gay marriage

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 13:45:48 -0800

While civil unions aren't the same as marriage, they are a step in the right direction. I feel that gay and lesbian people will soon be able to marry...it may just be a matter of time.

Get the religion out of government.

Sat, 10 Nov 2007 07:23:18 -0800

A state-sanctioned union is called a 'marriage' but it has nothing to do with religious rules. It is merely a business relationship, as there is no punishment for breaking the vows.

If you want a state-sanctioned joining, everyone should get a civil union which allows them all the privileges associated with today's "marriage". If the religious want to inject their god beliefs into it, they can get an additional, non-legally-binding, ceremony at a tax-exempt church. You're welcome.