The fact that anyone thinks they have the right to tell grown, consenting adults that they do not have the right to marry, or indeed dictate to them what that union is called, is an offense in itself.
Phase II Blood and Fire Part 2 Grading and Commentary
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
Hmmmm, well, I've been debating whether to join this discussion, as I have not yet had a chance to view part II of B and F (this weekend, I hope.) But, I felt a couple of points needed to be made, apropos the most recent series of posts.
I want to say first off that I appreciate that this conversation has remained as civil as it has. This topic has a tendency to lead to flame wars on this board. But, this is a real discussion. I wanted to add a couple of points in relation to Captain Robert April's and Barbreader's comments regarding the recent political actions around the "equal marriage" issue.
Though I am not one of those "leaders" in the gay community, I am a lawyer and understand something about the process, and I have had conversations with some of those "leaders." Believe it or not, one aspect of this whole thing is nothing more than the very Star Trekian idea that you sometimes have to take a stand for what's right regardless of the "political realities." As someone once said, "The line must be drawn here." Okay, not the most apt quote, but it's the one that sprang to mind.
We could settle for civil unions, but why should we have to? The US Constitution guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws. That has long been interpreted to mean that all laws must be applied to all people in the same manner, regardless of race, color, creed, class, etc. We feel that the civil marriage laws of this country should be applied to us and our relationships in the same manner as they are applied to heterosexual couples. It's as simple as that. If the whole country wanted to switch to civil unions for all relationships, fine. But, as things stand now, many see a dual system of marriage for heterosexual couples and civil unions for same-sex couples as the modern day equivalent of having separate water fountains for the whites and the "coloreds." I know the whole "separate but equal" argument has been beaten to death on this board, but that's truly how many of us see it.
And on a more practical level, California's Prop 8 and more recently Maine's Ballot Measure 1 have only proven that rights granted to a minority by a majority (of the people or the legislature) can be quite fleeting and tenuous. On the other hand, rights recognized as being immutable and protected under the Constitution are forever (relatively speaking.) Once granted, they cannot practically be removed. In this regard, we have no choice but to fight for marriage rights, as that is the right that has historically been recognized; civil unions have not. If we ever hope to have a final resolution to this whole thing, and avoid fighting this battle every other year on 50 different fronts (please forgive the war analogy), we have little choice but to fight the constitutional fight.
Thanks for letting me make my points. I'll be interested to see where this conversation leads.
I want to say first off that I appreciate that this conversation has remained as civil as it has. This topic has a tendency to lead to flame wars on this board. But, this is a real discussion. I wanted to add a couple of points in relation to Captain Robert April's and Barbreader's comments regarding the recent political actions around the "equal marriage" issue.
Though I am not one of those "leaders" in the gay community, I am a lawyer and understand something about the process, and I have had conversations with some of those "leaders." Believe it or not, one aspect of this whole thing is nothing more than the very Star Trekian idea that you sometimes have to take a stand for what's right regardless of the "political realities." As someone once said, "The line must be drawn here." Okay, not the most apt quote, but it's the one that sprang to mind.
We could settle for civil unions, but why should we have to? The US Constitution guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws. That has long been interpreted to mean that all laws must be applied to all people in the same manner, regardless of race, color, creed, class, etc. We feel that the civil marriage laws of this country should be applied to us and our relationships in the same manner as they are applied to heterosexual couples. It's as simple as that. If the whole country wanted to switch to civil unions for all relationships, fine. But, as things stand now, many see a dual system of marriage for heterosexual couples and civil unions for same-sex couples as the modern day equivalent of having separate water fountains for the whites and the "coloreds." I know the whole "separate but equal" argument has been beaten to death on this board, but that's truly how many of us see it.
And on a more practical level, California's Prop 8 and more recently Maine's Ballot Measure 1 have only proven that rights granted to a minority by a majority (of the people or the legislature) can be quite fleeting and tenuous. On the other hand, rights recognized as being immutable and protected under the Constitution are forever (relatively speaking.) Once granted, they cannot practically be removed. In this regard, we have no choice but to fight for marriage rights, as that is the right that has historically been recognized; civil unions have not. If we ever hope to have a final resolution to this whole thing, and avoid fighting this battle every other year on 50 different fronts (please forgive the war analogy), we have little choice but to fight the constitutional fight.
Thanks for letting me make my points. I'll be interested to see where this conversation leads.
Actually, this straight white male doesn't really care - straight white males, as a group, really are the most thin-skinned and whiny people in America.
You are quoting me quoting Robert April, to disagree. AGAIN I don't know how to do multiquotes.
To do multi-quotes, just hit the "multi-quote" button (lower right hand corner of the screen) in each post you want to quote. Then, to create your own post including all quotations you desire, you can either hit the "quote" button in the last post you want to quote or if, as often happens to me, you forget or don't realize you're in the last quote and have already hit the multi-quote button in the last post you wish to quote, just hit the "post reply" button (lower left) and you will have all the posts you want already quoted in your reply window.
Hope that helps.
Hope that helps.
Do you think it's better as things have turned out here... that gays couples have NO RIGHTS? When I thought the gay leadership's work was working, and American gays were getting marriage, I was delighted to be proven wrong. Sadly, my political instincts were not wrong. There have been petitions and public votes on this issue in pretty much every American state that the courts or legislature has created gay marriage, something over half of American states. The result in each and every one of these states is that gay couples can't even get in to see each other when it's 'family only' emergency in a hospital. That gays have no inheritance rights at all. The list of rights gay couples have, is now, in some states, FEWER rights than before gay marriage was passed or demanded by the courts.
Golly gee wiz, that's just so much better than having all the same rights and calling it civil unions. Yeah, I understand why you'd make that choice. Oh, but wait, you just said that you live in CANADA where you aren't suffering the real life consequences of that choice, aren't you? No one is keeping you from the deathbed of your mate because somebody decided that right had to be called one name instead of another. No one is giving a brother of your best friend for life the right to overturn his will because you have no rights.
Most parts of the liberal coalition can be held guilty of this. We all want what we want. We tend to go for exactly what we want, and wind up with absolutely nothing. It's normal. It's human. We say, "Why not me? Why not right now?"
Right now, New York State has civil unions, plus our fearless leader, Gov. Patterson, has taken the ancient rule of law, "A marriage valid where performed is valid everywhere," and applied it to gay marriage. So, any New Yorker who can make it over the boarder to the Horseshoe Falls side of Niagra Falls, can be married, and call it marriage, and enforce it here in New York State. And the way he did this, it's unlikely to be overturned in a petition. But I doubt that this will stand. In fact, he doesn't want it to, he wants legislation. I'm betting the courts or legislature will make gay marriage the law. Then they'll be a petition put on the New York State ballot to overturn that law, and then it will be overturned, and things will be back to 1995. It's like a time loop. Wasn't there a Next Gen like that? The Enterprise kept getting blown up, too?
I'm not ranting because I'm against gays being able to marry. I'm ranting because political change happens in the US in a certain way, and not in other ways. And the shortest political distance between two points is not often a strait line. If you insist on ignoring this, and going in a strait line, you lose. I'm against losing.
Reconstruction didn't work. Things sunk back to barely above slavery after the election (or non-election) of Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876. But the NAACP, the Urban League, the service in WWI and in WWII, the integration of the armed forces, the workforce, the schools, and the assortment of civil rights acts of the 1960s, the changes in the immigration laws at that time, and time... it's still not done, but it's getting there.
I'm certain that if civil unions were adopted, they'd pass in almost every state, and in 20 years the change of the word to marriage would be an 'of course.' factor. Instead, there are states where gays have lost rights they had because special enabling laws were overturned by marriage, and marriage was overturned by the voters. Why is this better than having all the same rights now, and an all but sure road to calling it marriage later? Is it really more important to be able to call it a "triumph?"
Or, maybe I'm just anti-gay! Gee wiz!
Thanks. I'll try to remember how to do that. I hit each multiquote button and then hit reply or something like that and nothing appeared. So I just cut and pasted.To do multi-quotes, just hit the "multi-quote" button (lower right hand corner of the screen) in each post you want to quote. Then, to create your own post including all quotations you desire, you can either hit the "quote" button in the last post you want to quote or if, as often happens to me, you forget or don't realize you're in the last quote and have already hit the multi-quote button in the last post you wish to quote, just hit the "post reply" button (lower left) and you will have all the posts you want already quoted in your reply window.
Hope that helps.
Actually, this straight white male doesn't really care - straight white males, as a group, really are the most thin-skinned and whiny people in America.
You are quoting me quoting Robert April, to disagree. AGAIN I don't know how to do multiquotes.
Sorry; fixed it. I don't see everyone's posts.
Using this logic, why should marriage be limited to 2 people? Why not 3 or 5 or more?
Since Mormon Fundamentalists (who also happen to be some of the strongest opponents of same sex marriage) already do that, clearly some think it should.
Not my cup of tea, but then again, I see no reason to deny them that right, as long they're all consenting adults in their right mind.
Your problem there is...?
Whether or not I was arguably in my "right mind" when I (hypothetically) decided that more than one wife was a good idea I can guarantee that after a few months of it I'd be bugfuck insane.
Has no one brought up bestiality yet? How long can one debate same-sex marriage with the narrowminded before bestiality and child marriage come up? This may be a record.
Ironic comment NiteTrek since you were the person who initially "dialed things up on here" --- I believe with your inane attempt to equate same sex marriage with tacos
Hmmmm, well, I've been debating whether to join this discussion, as I have not yet had a chance to view part II of B and F (this weekend, I hope.) But, I felt a couple of points needed to be made, apropos the most recent series of posts.
I want to say first off that I appreciate that this conversation has remained as civil as it has. This topic has a tendency to lead to flame wars on this board. But, this is a real discussion. I wanted to add a couple of points in relation to Captain Robert April's and Barbreader's comments regarding the recent political actions around the "equal marriage" issue.
Though I am not one of those "leaders" in the gay community, I am a lawyer and understand something about the process, and I have had conversations with some of those "leaders." Believe it or not, one aspect of this whole thing is nothing more than the very Star Trekian idea that you sometimes have to take a stand for what's right regardless of the "political realities." As someone once said, "The line must be drawn here." Okay, not the most apt quote, but it's the one that sprang to mind.
We could settle for civil unions, but why should we have to? The US Constitution guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws. That has long been interpreted to mean that all laws must be applied to all people in the same manner, regardless of race, color, creed, class, etc. We feel that the civil marriage laws of this country should be applied to us and our relationships in the same manner as they are applied to heterosexual couples. It's as simple as that. If the whole country wanted to switch to civil unions for all relationships, fine. But, as things stand now, many see a dual system of marriage for heterosexual couples and civil unions for same-sex couples as the modern day equivalent of having separate water fountains for the whites and the "coloreds." I know the whole "separate but equal" argument has been beaten to death on this board, but that's truly how many of us see it.
And on a more practical level, California's Prop 8 and more recently Maine's Ballot Measure 1 have only proven that rights granted to a minority by a majority (of the people or the legislature) can be quite fleeting and tenuous. On the other hand, rights recognized as being immutable and protected under the Constitution are forever (relatively speaking.) Once granted, they cannot practically be removed. In this regard, we have no choice but to fight for marriage rights, as that is the right that has historically been recognized; civil unions have not. If we ever hope to have a final resolution to this whole thing, and avoid fighting this battle every other year on 50 different fronts (please forgive the war analogy), we have little choice but to fight the constitutional fight.
Thanks for letting me make my points. I'll be interested to see where this conversation leads.
Great post TrekkieMonster
Based on his/her subsequent rant, I don't think that Barbreader read your comments though 
You just did. So, just subtract that posttime from the posttime of your first post in this thread, and there's your answer.
I, too, am waiting for final-form before I watch. Audio matters a lot to me. But this is not all that surprising, given the sort of show I make.
I know I'm not going to enjoy Part II as much, though, because Nick's character is dead. Tear.
Ironic comment NiteTrek since you were the person who initially "dialed things up on here" --- I believe with your inane attempt to equate same sex marriage with tacos
Time out there friend....YOU were the one who "dialed things up on here" by responding to a post I made over a MONTH ago, that simply said I hope Phase II does not turn into "Gay Trek."
Do you go searching through old posts with the hopes that someone, somewhere types something you find offensive to your lifestyle and then try to start a flame war by throwing a tantrum demanding people to accept you! Accept you! Yeah, I fell for it, but the flag waving gets to be annoying.
Believe it or not, I have a few gay friends and NONE of them is on some type of crusade, constantly looking for something that offends them and throwing a fit about it. Sometimes a gay joke comes up and we laugh about it and that's it. In fact, they are usually the ones that start off telling the jokes. We all know where we stand on the issue and it almost never comes up.
So, instead of continuing to pollute this thread, how about getting it back on topic?
No, I don't go trolling old posts and lash out to defend my personal situation (it is not a lifestyle). I have a very busy job, I am on vacation, and logged in here for the first time since my last vacation (last summer) to read and catch up. I commented on several older posts from several threads across this board. This was the only "gay themed" discussion I have participated in recently.
As for dialing it up --- it is pointless to argue with you. Others on here have used terms such as "juvenile" and "moronic" to describe your comments. I will let others judge what they think of you (and myself as well) as they read our previous comments in this thread.
As for getting this thread back on track --- the topic of same-sex relationships is one of the core themes of Blood and Fire, so I feel we are on topic. I initially feared that I had taken this thread off track, but the subsequent discussion (aside from your comments) has been interesting. Star Trek has always served as a mirror for our present society and as a springboard for discussions about progressive (or in your case regressive) issues.
I loved both parts of Blood and Fire. The production values were excellent, the acting continues to improve, and the same-sex relationship was portrayed in a realistic and accurate manner.
As for dialing it up --- it is pointless to argue with you. Others on here have used terms such as "juvenile" and "moronic" to describe your comments. I will let others judge what they think of you (and myself as well) as they read our previous comments in this thread.
As for getting this thread back on track --- the topic of same-sex relationships is one of the core themes of Blood and Fire, so I feel we are on topic. I initially feared that I had taken this thread off track, but the subsequent discussion (aside from your comments) has been interesting. Star Trek has always served as a mirror for our present society and as a springboard for discussions about progressive (or in your case regressive) issues.
I loved both parts of Blood and Fire. The production values were excellent, the acting continues to improve, and the same-sex relationship was portrayed in a realistic and accurate manner.
Could have fooled me!
Yes, because they can deeply relate to those descriptions - what's the old saying about the pot and the kettle? You started the flaming (no pun intended) and I took the bait and responded. It's no surprise that a few other gay people ran to your defense. Their closet doors have opened a crack wider and they have you to thank!
I don't think anyone has a fundamental "right" to marry any more than anyone has a fundamental "right" to a bar mitzvah or to take communion.
Personally, I think, from a legal standpoint, they should ALL be civil unions, both gay and straight, and the whole "marriage" label should remain in the church. But that's not gonna happen, either, so we're stuck with the political reality we have now.
And, as I tried to make clear upthread, but apparently didn't, we're not talking about basic human rights of not being physically assaulted or denied lodging for who you are, when you start taking on a basic underpinning of just about all of the world's major religions and try redefining that, you are in a whole new ball game, where the stakes are a lot higher, the players are meaner, and cheating is allowed.
Y'all want to keep up with the political equivalent of taking on a Balrog with a pocket knife and a wet paper towel? Keep up with the current tactics.
Personally, I think, from a legal standpoint, they should ALL be civil unions, both gay and straight, and the whole "marriage" label should remain in the church. But that's not gonna happen, either, so we're stuck with the political reality we have now.
And, as I tried to make clear upthread, but apparently didn't, we're not talking about basic human rights of not being physically assaulted or denied lodging for who you are, when you start taking on a basic underpinning of just about all of the world's major religions and try redefining that, you are in a whole new ball game, where the stakes are a lot higher, the players are meaner, and cheating is allowed.
Y'all want to keep up with the political equivalent of taking on a Balrog with a pocket knife and a wet paper towel? Keep up with the current tactics.
I wish I knew why this isn't a more popular position. It makes good sense to me, and I'm a fringe conservative papist! It therefore seems to me that such a moderate position should have enormous appeal among, you know, actual moderates. The key to making it politically viable is to advocate for it, though.
Alright, I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this argument. So, deep breath... Okay, I'm out. Cheers! Enjoy the debate, willing participants!
Make room for me on that bandwagon. I guess it's too "moderate" for everyone who has a dog in the fight.
Similar threads
