Kathy Griffin My Life On The D-List gay rights

[Drewbie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9IxKzHjlOM...player_embedded Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOg0Hes-0k...feature=channel part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LAJ_f0u_D0...feature=related part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPKm_t4DHgA...feature=channel part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0T8gCtCwIU...feature=channel Part 5

Love her or hate her, I think she did a good job (I personally like her) , a few things got to me, a couple who's partner is loosing his ability to walk and cannot get his parnets health insurance. and a kathy talks a bit about Matthew Shepard. Teens in this one is from a center in la, and is also transitional house like if they got kicked out, trouble with their parents or street kids. Must get a job or a back to school after 3 or so months.

They also go on a protesting march, were they meet the couple.

And how can you not love when Kathy's mom has a sign gay marriage I'll drink to that :)

[DesDownunder]

I am so pleased that I recently increased my broadband quota, because it meant I could watch all the above links to these terrific videos.

Despite the very American accents, I think the videos show a remarkable ability to reveal that the nature of freedom is the real issue.

For me marriage is not something I want for myself, and my partner of many, many years agrees, that we just don't need it for our own relationship...BUT,

I was once asked by the senior executive of the organisation where I worked, If I would get married to my boyfriend if it were possible.

Before I tell you about my answer to her question, I should tell you she was straight, she had been trained to be politically correct, and she did her best to maintain a positive attitude to acceptance of minority groups. Her question to me, should show you that she wasn't all that tactful when it came down to the issues, to put it mildly.

I had for a long time been in the closet over my years in the work place, but with the new laws on discrimination in Australia in the late 1980s, I had become quite, what I call, the 'silent activist'. This meant I was in the "don't tell, don't confront anyone," stage of my liberation.

Many of my age group could not cope with even the freedoms of legalised homosexuality, let alone adopting an activist role in the community.

When the idea of gay marriage was mentioned, they became somewhat reticent to even accommodate the possibility, often laughing at the idea even louder than some straight people.

I got to thinking (a life long personal curse I might add), anyway I got to thinking about it and suddenly it made sense to me that if we were ever to be accepted we had to have access to the same freedoms as everyone else in society. The issue wasn't about marriage, it was about Human Rights.

So when my old CEO asked me her asinine question of whether or not I would marry my life partner of over 30 years, I looked at her and replied, "Only as a political statement."

She was shocked. She looked at me and said, "You would marry to make a political statement?"

I must admit I replied somewhat offhandedly to her as I said, "Well, people have often married for money, for the sake of the kingdom, for some political purpose. But my boyfriend and I stay together because of the cats, and because we love each other. Marriage isn't going to change that, and for too long, we homosexuals have been dismissed as the scourge of humanity, why shouldn't my marriage be a political statement? Personally we would prefer to affront the social respectability of marriage because it has been used as means for society to exert authority over whom people can live with, let alone love. So yes I would use marriage as a political activism if it would lead to freedom for Human Rights."

"I see, I never thought about it like that," she said.

"You have to consider," I told her, "that for many people marriage is something they enter into because they have been told they should. I think we need to understand marriage is not a commitment to be dictated by others, by society, it is not a thing to buy or worship in itself, it is only a description of two people's love for each other, of their personal commitment to each other, and it isn't any business of the state or any religion. It is a freedom of being human, a human right to love whomever you wish and no one should put that asunder."

She never mentioned the subject to me again.

In case your in any doubt, I would certainly vote against Prop 8 and its kind. Everyone should have the right to marriage, but it should not be compulsory. That's just not right either.

As for weddings...well any excuse to party is okay with us.

Strictly my current (active) opinion.

[colinian]

I like your position, Des. Doug and I are official Registered Domestic Partners in California, having filled out and signed the form and sent it in with my personal check for $33.00 one year, seven months, and twelve days ago when I turned 18 (Doug was already 18) and we could legally fill out the RDP form. Like you and your partner, we don't see a need to be married, or even (if it was available in California) to enter into a civil union. We're in love ("head over heels" is probably the best way to describe it) and committed to each other as life partners. However, our lack of interest in such a ritual would change if the U.S. Federal law was changed and either civil unions or marriage were granted to same-sex couples but RDPs were not recognized. Then we'd do whichever was easiest/least expensive so we would get Federal benefits, something we're not entitled to at this time.

Colin

[DesDownunder]

Thanks Colin,

Under recent amendments to Australian discrimination and welfare laws, any two people living together for more than 3 years are deemed to be possibly in a domestic or de facto relationship and must be tested as such before any entitlements are paid. At the moment those Australian "equality" anti-discrimination laws entitle me to get $50 a week less because I have a "marriage-like" partner. Their terminology not mine. I am philosophical about this, but I do sympathise with the activists who point out that this change to the welfare entitlements is unusual in that the government has not introduced it gradually as is the custom for such changes. The activists claim this as a discrimination in itself and I can see their point of view as valid, particularly for older people who have been receiving the higher single rate of pension for some time.

Like you and Doug, I am prepared to acquiesce to any opportunities provided the (Australian) federal laws on marriage should it be beneficial in someway for someone. My partner doesn't trust the government and thinks they just want a list of gay people so they can lock us all up again. He is untrusting of authority, whereas I am just a tad anarchistic.

[Drewbie]

I like both of your points, personally I don't want to get married for me just being with the person is good enough :) but I'd want to have the tax bennies or insurance for each other,common law marriage, but it's not regular marriage per say.

my uncle when he was with his bf, ymca covered his boyfriend.

As with the video, matthew shepard part got to me and part five of the couple that his union or employer wont' recognize him and cannot get his insurance for his partner