The Daily Roxette discussions forum has been closed. The forum is only available as a read-only archive.
Anti-gay Euro boss
27 replies
rox-kuryliw said on October 12, 2004 21:55:
Eveytime i feel im ready to come ’out’ so to speak , i have to read something like this! ! it just makes me sad and puts me right off doing so.
The following taken from AOL news, but first saw it on news at 10 tonight, and wanted to know more.
”The battle of wills was hotting up tonight over the political fate of an Italian European Commissioner-designate who thinks homosexuality is a SIN.
Centre-left Euro-MPs set the scene on Monday with a majority vote declaring centre-right staunch Catholic Rocco Buttiglione as “unsuitable” to take charge, as planned, of EU civil liberties and justice policy from next month.
Many want him given a less sensitive job - and most say he should be rejected altogether as one of the new 25-strong Commission team led by Portugal’s Jose Manuel Barroso.
Mr Barroso had promised to take MEPs’ views into account if they opposed any of his nominated Commissioners.
But he fuelled the row by insisting Mr Buttiglione was entitled to his views on homosexuality or anything else and should not be discriminated against.
Tomorrow European Parliament President Josep Borrell will hold talks with party political leaders on all sides to discuss an unprecedented power struggle before the new Commission begins work on November 1.
The Commission team needs formal approval of the Parliament in a vote later this month. MEPs can reject all 25 en masse, but they have no legal power to pick off individuals.
The approval vote was expected to be a formality, but the growing clamour over Mr Buttiglione has put Mr Barroso on the spot.
If he fails to respond to the demands, crucial good relations between his new team and the Euro MPs will be scuppered.
If he does move or reject the Italian, he will worsen the already foul mood of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who nominated Mr Buttiglione for a top Brussels job. ”
I just find stuff like this that i find scary to read, its bad enough hearing ’bush’ and his views on gay people ect!
coyboyusa said on October 13, 2004 14:18:
well ok here comes my 2 cents as a gay man living in america.
I never truly understood the necessity of ” coming out.” Most gay liek to say that being gay isn’t the central part of their lives its just an element, so where in lies the necessity to proclaim it to the world? Not to mention that as much as society in gerneal has progressed you are still painiting a target on your back when you come out..another thing I think makes no sense.
As for the marriage thing, in america we so proudly stand by our division of church and state, marriage by definition is an institution of the church, so there in why do we feel the need to legislate it? I believe in domestic partnerships, pennsylvanai has it where anyone living together for a period of 7 yrs or more by law adopts the rights of a married couple. Why isnt’ that satisfactory enough for us gays? why do we want the monicker of marriage attached to us, an element of a religion that has tried throughout history to erradicate us? I dunno maybe I just don’t understand
Jud (moderator) said on October 13, 2004 15:53:
as i said many times before, i don’t want the marriage as the church institution for me and my gf, all I want is that if we buy a house, we have no problems in case one of us dies, or if we have children, I don’t want problems if the biological mother dies - right now the child goes to the biomum parents, what about the other mum? Another thing: benefits when it comes to taxes, possibility to enjoy my gf’s social health in case i don’t have a job, etc etc etc.
Call that whatever you want, I want the CIVIL rights, not the blessing from those bunch of child molesters ;)
ncurran said on October 13, 2004 15:55:
coyboy, marriage is no longer a religious institution. Millions of straight couples get married every year in registry offices ( i think city halls in the US?). This is completely separate from the church, and there is no religion involved. I couldnt give a rats arse whether the church allows gay marriages or not, but the state should. And why do we need the label “civil partnership”? In an equal society all couples should be able to have the same legal document...its not about religion.
rox-kuryliw said on October 13, 2004 17:11:
i agree ncurran well said, my mum and dad got married in a registery office 25 years ago. They are christian but they didnt want to do the church thing ! non of my business why really lol religion is something personal i dont think alot of people need to shout it form the roof top anymore. As long as the person knows i think thats fine :-). i know what i believe and thats all that counts to me, i dont think people can say whats what now ? where do they get the right to do so ?
’coyboy’ i find some things you said interesting, you use the words ’Why isnt’ that satisfactory enough for us gays’ Im not part of a gay group (us) im dont find myself any different to a stright person lol. Im a person and i have the rights or should have the rights as a black person asian person old person ect. i just found what you said or how you put it like your in a group of your own. I think it really hard to label something weather its a group / person /sexuality ect, i always think america tends to do that more than anywhere else in the world. Just look at the schools! (jocks, cheerleaders, goths, geeks ect) we had non of that when i was at school and it was only 3 years ago i was lol. i just think for someone who has or expresses anti-anything laws should not be in a postion to abuse there power. I read today that tony blair meet the EU BOSS to declare his worrys also which im pleased about. It would be a huge world uproar if it was an anti-black euro boss. just something to think about i guess.
coyboyusa said on October 13, 2004 22:50:
yeah but gays in general are using marriage as a monicker for equality and it isn’t thats what annoys me the most about the whole thing. And what is wrong with the term domestic partnership...thats what a marriage is. And judith trust me I know all about the legailty issues revolving around gay couples all too well, and yes legally things need to be changed, biomums parents can even contest living wills under laws here in the states which I think is a load of crap.
And as for the whole identity thing aka jocks preps and stuff that isnt wholly an american thing thats natural. I do agree if this was a black issue it woudl cause an uproar, but then again the EU itself is kinda evil in the way that it requires nations who seek meebership to conform to a set rule of legislation etc.
StillFar said on October 15, 2004 19:55:
there’s a interesting situation happening in the US, involving the vice-president and his gay daughter:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1097863307903_932725...
Jud (moderator) said on October 15, 2004 20:09:
i really would have a hard time supporting my dad if he would think that I am a sinner and some kind of 2nd class citizen. Talk about what money can do :S
StillFar said on October 15, 2004 20:40:
actually Judith, the article was about how disrespectful and offensive the comment of John Kerry was ;)
Jud (moderator) said on October 15, 2004 20:50:
I know :) just adding my comments/thoughs about her :P Anyway, she isn’t the only one who shuts up for money ;)
But i got the impression the author of the article thought it was/is worse the way her family treats her? anyway, she is out so Kerry wasn’t really telling any secret.
StillFar said on October 15, 2004 20:57:
I’m kidding of course...I do not think that the comment was in any way disrespectful. But you know, it’s funny to have this outrage about the comment, considering that a good part of their campaign is based on a ban of gay marriage or in other words mobilising against gays and to add to that the lesbo’s running the campaign of her dad...
Maybe I’m too tired to gasp it, but there is way to much contradiction and hypocrisy to express any outrage at all. He should take a good look in the mirror and be judge of himself. If then he’d say that he’s an angry dad I’d actually agree with him.
ncurran said on October 15, 2004 21:20:
but cheney was the one who brought up his daughters sexuality in a previous debate...by doing so it was him that made this an issue as part of his political campaign. kerry simply used her as an example of a gay person that had already been talked about in this campaign and said that he believed that gay people didnt choose to be gay....Bush’s answer to the same question was “I dont know Bob, i just dont know”....before spouting some crap about the sanctity of marriage...
ncurran said on October 15, 2004 21:22:
Heres the full transcript of that question:
SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let’s get back to economic issues. But let’s shift to some other questions here.
Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question.
Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
BUSH: You know, Bob, I don’t know. I just don’t know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It’s important that we do that.
And I also know in a free society people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live.
And that’s to be honored.
But as we respect someone’s rights, and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn’t change – or have to change – our basic views on the sanctity of marriage.
I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it’s very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman.
I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution.
It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution.
I’m deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States. You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.
My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and woman.
But I’m concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we’ll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don’t think that’s in our nation’s interests.
SCHIEFFER: Sen. Kerry?
KERRY: We’re all God’s children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as.
I think if you talk to anybody, it’s not choice. I’ve met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.
And I’ve met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.
I think we have to respect that.
The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we’re a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can’t discriminate in the workplace. You can’t discriminate in the rights that you afford people.
You can’t disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I’m for partnership rights and so forth.
Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they’re proving today, every state, that they can manage them adequately.
pardek said on October 16, 2004 22:58:
..this is so damn interesting, thanks guys for the information!
i think Kerry got the point “visiting partners in hospital” and so on...but he must go further.
sometimes i wonder if we gays should go further ourselfs; more than a csd and gay games... we’re so many! i think there’s a need for real political demonstrations. imagine, all gays gathered together...
ncurran said on October 17, 2004 08:27:
pardek, i think we are doing just fine....gay rights have improved so much over the past years....but it’s a slow process.
Jud (moderator) said on October 17, 2004 10:39:
that Buttiglione guy opened his mouth again, this time to say that children without a dad are children of a not so good mum. And children with only a dad aren’t children because a man can create a robot but can’t have children.
Is this guy missing some screws?
coyboyusa said on October 17, 2004 14:58:
gay rights havent advanced as far as lot of people think they have. There arent anti bias laws protecting gay peopel here in america. even if a gay couple has a living will or last right document established by a lawyer, either parterns parents can contests it, especially when it regards custody of children. Lest we forget the petty sentence the guys that murdered matthew sheperd got. Or the 3 kids that murdered a transgender teen in calfornia 3 months ago. As for the whole kerry thing I still don’t see what cheney got offended about at all. I dont’ think family matters should play into politics at all.
lol judith isnt ignorance disturbing>?
Jud (moderator) said on November 9, 2004 21:55:
I cry everytime I listen to Scarecrow :´(
And this is the same for Connie and I, we have a flat, rented under her name, tis a special rent and such rents contracts can only be hold by 1 person, same applies for married (straight) couples, but of course, if the one holding the contract dies the wife/husband gets the flat. Well, in my case I’d be kicked out cuz I am nothing ... or if I get ill or she gets critically ill, none can go to the hospital and stay with the other, not even visit in case of intensive care... if we’d have children, being her the bio mum, and she’d die, whatever papers she’d have signed, bla bla bla, her parents could ask for custody of the children, even if I would have been let’s say 10 years the other mum.. bla bla bla
I am waiting to see what happens in Spain, if they really pass the law, even if we would get married in Spain, the marriage wouldn’t be accepted here in Austria BUT at least something..
What I am still not quite understanding is.. ok Bush opposes to having gay _marriage_ but he agrees in having gay civil unions?!?! Am I missing something? :S
StillFar said on November 10, 2004 14:04:
Gay rights changed, not only because we think they have, they actually have changed in MANY countries around the globe. Just a week ago the province of Saskatchewan ruled that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. Within a year half of the Canadian provinces / territories allow same-sex marriage. Few countries legalized same-sex marriage but civil unions have been adopted in a number of places. Gay rights advance/increase and other countries will follow the examples set by those who already adopted the laws. Of course some countries will follow faster than others (we always have the choice to vote for the party fighting best for our interests. Considering that we’re about 1/10 of the population, our voice is LOUD and could make a difference! hint hint)
coyboyusa said on November 10, 2004 15:14:
judith i think its bush quietly trying to say that marraige as a religious institution isn’t a matter for the courts. I mean think of it. Noone needed a constitutional ammendment in america to ratify the idea that black people were human beings. To free them from slavery yes, but to declare them human no. The simple fact is the whole coinage of marriage is wrong. Catholics don’t want the name being associated with gays I say so what, give me my civil union anytime, i mean afterall marriage end in divorce what will a civil union end in :) hopefully something less horrid :)
StillFar said on November 10, 2004 16:07:
I might be completely wrong but from what I understood Bush does not support civil unions.
-ok, that might not be correct, Bush does support civil unions as long as he’s not involved creating the platform for it.
“I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so. ...”
“I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman.”
Jud (moderator) said on November 10, 2004 18:04:
yeah that’s it, if these fundamentalists are happy with keeping the “marriage” as a “sacred” word (it was after all created to “marry” properties, never had a meaning of love from day 1 ;)), then let them have it. There might be christian gays who might want to MARRY but hej, I am sure most of us only want to have the RIGHTS, after all being blessed by a priest only won’t give me those rights, it is the CIVIL LAW giving them ;9
StillFar said on November 10, 2004 18:33:
I think there’s a difference between the religious marriage and the legal marriage. Legalizing gay marriage doesn’t mean every catholic, protestant, etc church will have to marry same-sex couples.
Of course the churches will decide whether they marry same-sex couple or not and they already do. Some will allow others won’t. There is no problem with that, because this is FAITH and in most their books a marriage is defined as a union between man and woman.
But this is not the issue, we’re talking about marriage as a social, a legal issue and not as a religious issue and I do not think that there is any valid point against same-sex marriages.
Religion and politics should be separate....you combine the two and you will exclude people who might not share the faith but still are citizens and should have equal rights.
ncurran said on November 10, 2004 18:43:
but marriage isnt religious for most people these days....you dont have to get married in a church. I dont give a toss if churches refuse to marry gay people, but i also dont agree with labelling gay marriages as civil unions, and putting them under different legal circumstances than a straight married couple. There should be no distinction, marriage is marriage. No one should force the churches to perform the ceremonies...even now some churches refuse to perform ceremonies for divorcees or other circumstances, but gay couples could get the same civil ceremony straight couples get if they choose not to marry in church. The problem is if you create a whole seperate legal process for gay civil unions then inevitably there will be some legislation left out of the bill so that gays will still not be treated equally.
Jud (moderator) said on November 10, 2004 19:06:
are there actually ONLY civil unions in USA? In some countries one can choose to get married in the church (and automatically married legaly) or have a civil wedding, that is the town major or whoever has powers for that marries you, not the priest. The “civil wedding” should be this “civil union”, as far as I understand it.
It is a complicated subject but I have the feeling sometimes the gay community goes for the “all or nothing”
In Sweden they passed the law for gay registered partnerships in 95 (!!), it wasn’t a marriage from the first day, this I think helped people who were not sure or who opposed to gay marriage because they found it “weird” or because marriage can only be man+woman to a) don’t feel attacked and like their “marriage” was missused/stolen b)see that such partnerships/couples are as normal as any other. If I am not wrong, the Swedes changed the law some time ago and now gay marriage is legal, actually they only renamed the whole thing.
IF some sectors of the society feel attacked or offended or whatever, well, why not play their stupid game and take what’s offered? people (we want it or not) have to get used to these “new” unions/marriages/partnerships, to see that we aren’t harming anyone, that “their” marriage isn’t affected by “ours”, etc and this takes time.
I personally would not mind if Austria, a very conservative country, started by passing a minimum-rights law because I know the more it would go and the more couples would sign such partnership/union, the more people would get used to it and in the end the step to the gay marriage would feel just normal.
Jud (moderator) said on October 12, 2004 22:23:
this guy even dared to say that the marriage (as the institution he says it is) was created for the women to have children and the man to take care of her WHAT? did we go back 1000 years?