This extract is from an article which appeared in a local magazine, dated October 2003. It is by Andrew Bell, and the whole article is a critisism of our local member of parliament's support for our prime minister, and of his support of president Bush and the invasion of Iraq.

I found it amusing, some may not.
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the details.
Sue.

'Here is an extract from the CV of George W Bush.'

"My accomplishments as President include: losing the presidential election but becoming President anyway; presiding over the worst security failure in US history; seeing over 2 million Americans lose their jobs since I came to power; cutting unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any President before me; being the first President in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and to do so against the will of the United Nations and the world community (except for my good old buddies the British); setting the all-time record for the most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest against an American President (15 million people) and being the first ever US President to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability; being the first President in decades to execute a federal prisoner and the first to enter office with a criminal record.
Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history (the 'poorest' is multi-millionaire, Conoleeza Rice, who has a Chevron oil tanker named after her). I withdrew from the World Court of Law and have dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history; I refused to allow inspectores access to US prisiners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for the most corporate campaign donations. My biggest lifetime canpaign contributor, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Eron Corporation). I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history and in a little over two years have created the most divided country in decades.
My records and references include at least one conviction for drunk driving and deserting the military in time of war.
For personal refences please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker. (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war profiteering)."

That certainly sounds like the idiot in the White House. I am increasingly convinced that he is one of the worst presidents in U.S. history - maybe even worse than Warren Harding and definitely worse than Herbert Hoover, and certainly the worst in recent memory. If he gets elected (or ends up with a second term anyway), I wonder if the country will survive intact. Unfortunately, John Kerry isn't looking very good either.

Heather H.

After living through Clinton, I doubt I could call Bush the worst, but he's certainly not the best. Unfortunately, the Democrats are about to nominate someone even worse than Bush this year, so I agree with Heather about Kerry not looking very good (as a candidate). Thank goodness we have other choices.

An interesting point to note... since I've been politically aware (which starts with the 1976 Ford/Carter election in the USA - I was 10), I can't remember a single president who wasn't constantly being trashed by one side or the other. I've done some trashing myself, especially regarding Clinton. So far, Ronald Reagan was the most popular President during my lifetime, but even he had very loud and numerous detractors, and his popularity suffered somewhat during his second term.

My question is this: is it possible for us to have a President who won't have at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the population dissatisfied with him? Can any person in that position please most of us most of the time? Can a President get anything done without also incurring the wrath of those who don't support his policies?

What would such a President (or Prime Minister) be like? Can you name any real individuals who has the qualities and policies that would enable him to be supported by the majority of the country? In my opinion, American society is currently too divided for any President to enjoy the support of an overwhelming majority of the population. A President/administration that pleases one citizen will displease another. It's one thing to win an election, but how can any President win over the people as a whole?

In general, I have to agree with your point. I don't think there is anyone around right now who has the leadership qualities to bring people together. Reagan was probably the last who came close. Although he had his vociferous detractors, he had substantial public support, and that translated into comfortable election victories for him and for Bush just after him - I don't think anybody took Mondale or Dukakis seriously; they simply could not win. Bush, of course, did not display Reagan's leadership qualities and his popularity soon vanished.

With the country so deeply divided these days, we need a leader who can bridge the divides and bring people together. Unfortunately, neither the younger (and more idiotic) Bush nor the corrupt, flip-flopping Kerry has these qualities. No matter who wins, the country will remain bitterly divided. I hope someone with good leadership skills comes along soon; if not, I am worried for the future. The kinds of issues that divide this country have caused civil wars in others.

Heather H.

Hi everyone:

Personally, I think Charles Manson would be a better president than the delusional, Devil Worshipping, Lying, murdering, cowardly, traitor we have in the White House at the moment.

Compared to President Moron, Clinton was a saint and almost anyone would certainly do a better job.

You better believe it makes a difference whether it's Kerry or Bush. You say either way the country would be divided. It's not true. You will always have the right wing religious idiots who seem to hate everything and everyone. The only difference is that the guy in Oval Office won't be letting them determine his policies if Kerry is elected and they can crawl back under the rocks they came from.

Unless your a miserable Stepford person these folks don't approve of you and they influence Bush way too much. Kerry has already said he supports same sex unions with all the benefits of the so-called "sanctified marriages". Kerry actually seems to care about the plight of the unemployed suffering from the current Republican economic ineptness.

You better believe it makes a difference if it's Kerry or Bush. Four more years of Bush could finish the U.S. as an economic and political entity. He is THAT bad.

Hugs

Betty

Heather, Amen sister!

Tiina, I'm glad you found someone you could support, although I don't think 68 is too old, at all. As long as she still has a clear mind and reasonably good health, I'd stick with her. Her sex would make no difference, to me. I also found someone whom I could comfortably support, Harry Browne, although he lost both times I voted for him (in 2000, he received only 384,431 popular votes - 0.36%), but at least I did my part.

Betty, while you have some points about Bush, I (as expected) respectfully disagree with you about Kerry. Not only do I consider both candidates unworthy, I consider both major parties unworthy. For the most part, the two nominees reflect the values of the party members who nominate them and vote for them in general elections, and most voters seem to be in one camp or the other (or don't even vote). There are few voters like myself, who consider voting for alternative candidates/parties, but even we tend to be right or left (for example, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party).

The population of the USA is indeed very divided. In the 2000 election, Bush got 271 electoral votes and 50,456,002 (47.87%) popular votes, while Gore got 266 electoral votes 50,999,897 (48.38%) popular votes. Of 538 electoral votes (there was 1 abstention) and 105,405,100 popular votes cast, that's as close as it gets. The 2004 election promises to be another close one.

I just don't think the winner of the 2004 election will have broad support after taking office as President. Half of the country will be dissatisfied, either way.

So you were also a Harry Browne supporter. I voted for him; I didn't like Bush or Gore. This year, I don't like Kerry all that much, but I hate Bush so much that, for the first time since I reached voting age, I am supporting a major party candidate. I even bought two Kerry political buttons at the Utah State Democratic Convention (along with lots of anti-Bush buttons with good sayings on them - see my thread about my political involvement for more). Of course, my vote in the race will not count for much, since I live in Utah, which overwhelmingly supports Bush. Our system gives too much power to a relatively small number of "swing states" where the election is up for grabs. But maybe I will donate money to the Kerry campaign; that will count for more than my vote.

You are quite lucky in Finland to have a president who can truly unite the country. I don't think we have been as strongly united as that in the U.S. since World War II. As long as fear and hatred, along with social wedge issues, rule the day, we will remain bitterly divided.

Heather H.

Hi again:

I do admit that the Democrats leave much to be desired while the republicans are hopeless.

For anyone who wants to cast a vote on principal for someone who has no chance of winning I have some interesting news which I just received today.

A very good friend of mine owns a company trying to do business with the government. She was told today, by the general accounting office, that she would have to remove herself as the owner for the company to have any chance of getting a contract with the government. It did not mention the fact that she was a trans sexual woman but the implication was blaringly clear. She has no criminal record of any kind or any questionable political affiliations. In fact she usually votes republican.

This is what we have running this country right now. People who are a disgrace as human beings let alone just doing a lousy job of handling this country's problems.

You can say what you want about the Democrats but I'm very sure this wouldn't have happened if John Kerry were president.

Voting to prove a principal can be a good thing however, as I see it, this time it is paramount we remove the stench that is inhabiting the Whitehouse which will also remove the twisted and disturbed people he has put into positions of power who share his sick view of the world. This is not what this country was ever meant to be and this fool could destroy anything good we have left.

Just the way I see it.

Hugs,

Betty

I agree That little BUSH boy has to be taken out of office.This Guy is dangerous. From the lies about weapons of mass distruction to the attitude of "LET SHIP JOBS OUT OF THE US" we can all be retrained to flip hamburgers for the rich.
He stands behind Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. A man who knew about the things going on in Iraq . prisoner abuse.
He stands behind Vice President Dick Cheney and his corporate connections to one of the companies "REBUILDING IRAQ" for billions of dollars.
He declares an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003. What a joke since that time more then 587 U.S. troops have died in Iraq and climbing.
My God they remind me of two Children playing war in the sand box. Nither one gets hurt as they hold troops for even longer in
a contry who doesn't want us there.
As the two look to the rest of the world (who they gave the middle finger to and went to war) to help out.
They can't ask for help because of that they did to the rest of the world.
Sorry I get mad when I think of what he has done,and the path he is leading us down.
Sharon

Well, if I left the Libertarian Party and voted for one of the big two, I'd be voting Republican every time, so you should probably encourage me to stick to my principles.

Considering that republicans seem to hate everything we are why not consider walking out in front of a freight train which makes about as much sense as voting for them.

Betty

Elizabeth:

Tell me...what can Kerry offer me? How will he be any better than Bush? What will he do to protect what's left of my rights? And will he make much of a difference if the House and Senate are still locked up by Republicans? Somehow, I doubt it.

I see a lot of Bush-bashing (some of which is well-deserved, frankly) but I have heard little or nothing about what Kerry can and will do. All I hear is that he is better than Bush. This tells me nothing!

Does that mean I like Bush? Not really...I may be a registered Republican but may well vote Libertarian come November because Kerry has said nothing I like as yet.

As a vet, whether or not he agreed with Vietnam, finding out he tossed his medals/ribbons over the White House fence kinda was a slap in the face. But then, so is murdering our best and brightest in an oversized sandbox for no real reason other than Hussein was a crazed idiot. The world is full of crazed idiots, however. Pick a country; they're all over. Trust me on this!

Talk is cheap. Wiggle some tangible, solid evidence in front of my face to convince me. (My glasses are dirty.) Otherwise, I'll vote (and speak) my mind--or rightly, what's left of it.

Dr. Mina Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

Hi Minako:

You want to hear some of what Kerry has said, no problem. Here is a start.

First, unless you haven't been keeping up with the news republicans have been doing everything they possibly can to maintain a discriminatory aura concerning those of us who live an alternative lifestyle. From opposing same sex marriage/unions to blocking hate crimes legislation and to opposing anti-discrimination legislation that would greatly benefit us and many others republicans have been leading the charge to make us second class citizens. This is mostly being done in the name of religion. If you don't know this there is plenty of information out there concerning their antics.

Now for Kerry! John Kerry has said in no uncertain terms that he supports same sex unions with all the benefits attributed (including tax breaks) usually attributed to heterosexual marriages. This alone promotes equal rights us and legitimizes people who live alternative lifestyles. These rights are already guaranteed in the constitution. These are the very rights republicans are trying to take away from us and/or ignore.

Next he has stated in no uncertain terms that he strongly favors civil rights for everyone. That means us too and he has included transgender in some of his statements. This is a far cry from the bigoted stance the republicans are taking.

This whole thing is about securing our rights to exist free of discrimination and having some protections under the law. Until this happens I really don't care if I agree with republicans on some things and disagree with democrats on others. I do know civil rights are endangered by the republicans and I see this as an atrocity. After all, what good would it have done a Jewish Rabbai to vote for Hitler just because he liked his economic policies?

Until our rights to exist are etched in stone I will support the people who believe we deserve the same rights as anyone else which we absolutely do. After this is achieved we can go back to discussing economics, education, etc.. Republicans have been doing everything they can to step on our rights while Kerry has strongly supported them. It's that simple.

As I see it, a vote for Bush would be a betrayal not only to who we are but it would also be a betrayal to all those in the GLBT community who have been fighting to secure our rights.

As I see it, what Kerry will do for you is give you the best chance to live as Minako without being fired for it, being denied housing for it, being denied health care for it, a much lesser chance of being physically harmed for it and if you should decide to enter a lifelong relationship with someone (no matter who) you will receive all the benefits a legally committed relationship should provide. Republicans have proven they will do everything they can to amplify the problems we already have.

Betty

Betty:

I am well aware of the religious right. I work within that framework on a daily basis and have to listen to all the drivel. I have had to remind my fellow employees that God is not a Republican. (He's not a Democrat, either--get over it.)

Kerry supports same-sex unions. Big deal. Does he support Gay/Lesbian Marriage? Big diff here, honey--I want to get married as Minako, not unionized!

We had civil rights...all of us...until long before the Bush Admin took over. Score to you for reminding us that under Bush we have had a bunch of them removed under the guise of the Patriot Act and other idiocy. Will Kerry abolish that and return us to the pre-Patriot days? I'm not holding my breath. (Of course, under another term of Bush, it may well become permanent. I like to try to be fair.) And really--your quote: "These are the very rights republicans are trying to take away from us and/or ignore." Ignore is a better term. You cannot take away what never existed.

The real argument is, did we ever have all the rights we are entitled to? The answer is no. Yes, I agree we have lost ground. I said as much two years ago. But it isn't just the Trans movement. It's all Americans.

My major problem is that I just don't trust either of them. I think Kerry will say whatever it takes to get as many votes as possible in what has been acknowleged as one of the tightest elections in history. Should he win, and Democrats resume control of the House and Senate, he **might** try to pass a few things to appease us. I rather suspect he will not do squat--it's all a pack o' lies to take office.

What I'd like to see is a centrist politician--not too far left OR right--who has and will keep his/her word, and will promise to take care of the Trans community...not just gays and lesbians. I am tired of being treated like a b*tch stepchild on all fronts--and that ESPECIALLY INCLUDES by the HRC!!!

Then--and ONLY then--will I dare to believe my civil rights will get set in stone. Not one minute before. And I don't care who's ruining--uhh, running--the country.

Mina

Mina:

If you want to make a big deal over the terminology ie civil union or marriage that's up to you. As for me I know what I am and what my relationship is so frankly I don't care what they call it as long as I get the legal rights that go along with it.

Of course all Americans have been screwed by Bush. If you've ever read any of my posts it's very clear how I feel about this but the Bush and his followers have taken additional aim at us as well. I suspect you know this too.

It's one thing to say you don't trust Kerry and quite another to know we will DEFINATELY get screwed by the Bush. As far as I can see the choice is obvious. Kerry voted against the defense of marriage act calling it discriminatory so I wouldn't say he's just pandering to us to get elected. He's proven where he stands on this by how he voted. Also he was questioned about transgender issues directly by Monica Helms the president of TAVA (Transgendered American Veterans Assoc.). My partner is the membership chairperson for TAVA so I get alot of info through her. He never wavered from his commitment to ensure equal rights for us as well as all Americans.

No we have never had ALL the rights we should have but we're alot worse off now than 4 years ago and you know it.

Like it or not the only real choice we have this election is between someone you say your not sure of and the other who will definately work against us and would like to deny us any rights at all.

If this is a choice between 2 evils then one evil is far far worse than the other for many reasons as well as our issues.

The HRC has screwed us. That's a given. We talked with some of the girls that were in Washington during the protest against the HRC. Also some of them met with senators and congressional representatives. What came across loud and clear was the the politicians generally stated they had absoultely no problem supporting transgender rights but it would be easier if the HRC had mentioned it. They couldn't figure out why the HRC wasn't behind them. This really stinks doesn't it?

We can't stand quietly by while the HRC puts us on the back burner. Things are going on now regarding this. I'll let you know if I hear something interesting.

Betty

Mina:

If you want to make a big deal over the terminology ie civil union or marriage that's up to you. As for me I know what I am and what my relationship is so frankly I don't care what they call it as long as I get the legal rights that go along with it.

Of course all Americans have been screwed by Bush. If you've ever read any of my posts it's very clear how I feel about this but the Bush and his followers have taken additional aim at us as well. I suspect you know this too.

It's one thing to say you don't trust Kerry and quite another to know we will DEFINATELY get screwed by the Bush. As far as I can see the choice is obvious. Kerry voted against the defense of marriage act calling it discriminatory so I wouldn't say he's just pandering to us to get elected. He's proven where he stands on this by how he voted. Also he was questioned about transgender issues directly by Monica Helms the president of TAVA (Transgendered American Veterans Assoc.). My partner is the membership chairperson for TAVA so I get alot of info through her. He never wavered from his commitment to ensure equal rights for us as well as all Americans.

No we have never had ALL the rights we should have but we're alot worse off now than 4 years ago and you know it.

Like it or not the only real choice we have this election is between someone you say your not sure of and the other who will definately work against us and would like to deny us any rights at all.

If this is a choice between 2 evils then one evil is far far worse than the other for many reasons as well as our issues.

The HRC has screwed us. That's a given. We talked with some of the girls that were in Washington during the protest against the HRC. Also some of them met with senators and congressional representatives. What came across loud and clear was the the politicians generally stated they had absoultely no problem supporting transgender rights but it would be easier if the HRC had mentioned it. They couldn't figure out why the HRC wasn't behind them. This really stinks doesn't it?

We can't stand quietly by while the HRC puts us on the back burner. Things are going on now regarding this. I'll let you know if I hear something interesting.

Betty

Betty--

Before I say anything else, I want to tell you I appreciate all you have said. You have given me much to think about. I also appreciate all you do.

Now--I just got this resent to me via TransgenderNews. I found it interesting. However, what troubles me most are the sections I've highlighted. I'd like some feedback, please. Should these trouble me or not? I have added some personal comments in a different color.
------------------------------
Windy City Times - Chicago, IL, USA

The John Kerry Record on Gays
by REX WOCKNER
2004-05-12

In the beginning there were eight candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president and three of them were more pro-gay than John Kerry, who is opposed to same-sex marriage. Now it is a given that Kerry will win the Democratic nomination in July in Boston. Where does he stand on gay issues?

— The federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act: "In 1985 ...I became the original sponsor and author of the gay civil-rights legislation in the United States Senate—before Ellen DeGeneres, before Will & Grace, before anyone knew who Melissa Etheridge was, before there'd been a march on Washington, when it was radioactive. ...I have co-sponsored ENDA and voted for it when it came before the Senate in 1996. I have also adopted a nondiscrimination policy for my congressional offices so that sexual orientation is not a factor in employment decisions." Good!

- Inclusion of transgender people in ENDA: "I oppose discrimination of all kinds and my office policy prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity and expression. I believe that we should focus efforts on getting ENDA passed and signed into law, and I am concerned that adding gender identity and expression to the ENDA legislation is likely to significantly hinder that effort." As a transsexual, this bugs me. Sounds like he's been hanging with the HRC line.

— Inclusion of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in federal hate-crime laws: "It is shameful that Americans still suffer as victims of hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender and remain without protection at the federal level. I support S. 966, and voted for a similar amendment in 2000, which extends the definition of hate crimes to add actual or perceived sexual orientation and actual or perceived gender as protected categories." Good! Now…when will these actually pass into reality if not into law—or did I miss this one?


— Same-sex marriage (1): "While I do not support gay marriage, I support civil unions and I believe that gays and lesbians should have full rights and equality under the law. ...Same-sex couples should be afforded the same rights and benefits as married couples...including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation and survivor benefits. ...Additionally, I am one of six cosponsors of legislation to provide domestic-partnership benefits to gay and lesbian federal employees."

— Same-sex marriage (2): "It may well be that if we achieve civil unions...then we may—all of us—progress...to a place where there is a different understanding (on marriage). But I think that one has to respect the current cultural-historical-religious perception (against same-sex marriage), and I respect it." Looks to me like he’s trying to have his cake and eat it, too….

— Same-sex marriage (3): "Whether you call it marriage or not is up for grabs, but you have to have the rights. ... I think marriage is a term that kind of gets in the way of this discussion. But there is a distinction between church-sanctioned marriage and what rights the states give. A state itself can afford different rights. The rights is what's critical. It's equal protection under the law that is at stake here." I’ll buy this much….

— Same-sex marriage (4): "Marriage to many people is obviously what is sanctified by a church. It's sacramental. Or by a synagogue or by a mosque or by whatever religious connotation it has. Clearly there's a separation of church and state here. Marriage is a separate institution. I think marriage is under the church, between a man and a woman, and I think there's a separate meaning to it."

— Same-sex marriage (5): "An equal-protection clause, I think, pertains to the rights you give to people, not to the name you give to something, so I'm for civil unions. That gives people the rights: the rights of partnership, the rights of inheritance of property, the rights of taxation and so forth. But I think there is a distinction between what we have traditionally called `marriage' between a man and a woman and those rights. ... I believe very strongly that we can advance the cause of equality by moving toward civil unions. But that's where my position is at this point in time. What is distinct is the institutional name. Whatever people look at as the sacrament within a church or within a synagogue or within a mosque as a religious institution, there is a distinction. The civil state really just adopted that. It's the rights that are important, not the name of the institution."

— The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage: "While I continue to oppose gay marriage, I believe that today's decision calls on the Massachusetts state legislature to take action to ensure equal protection for gay couples. ... I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision."

— Social Security benefits for same-sex partners: "Support."

— Immigration rights for same-sex couples: "Support."

— The military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy: "In 1993, I was one of four senators who testified before the Armed Services committee that it was fundamentally wrong to continue to deny gay and lesbian Americans the right to participate in the armed forces of the United States."

— Is being gay a choice?: "I think it's entirely who you are from birth, personally. Some people might choose, but I think that it's who you are. I think people need to be able to be who they are. I have a friend who was married for many years and then the marriage dissolved and he came out and he announced that he was gay, and he lived this life of tension, and of great difficulty. And I don't think that's a kind of choice. I think that's being who you are. It's in your system. It's in your genes. ... I think that people have a right in America to be who they are, who they are born as, and we are all God's children, and that is my view."

--------------------------

Your quote--"If you want to make a big deal over the terminology ie civil union or marriage that's up to you"--Seems to me Mr. Kerry is making a big deal out of it himself!

Please do not take me wrong here. I think we are agreed on many points. However, terminology IS important here. I make most of my living with words--a certain term carries a lot of weight. I am not sure that "civil unions" are what is at stake. I support (in theory) the concept of gay marriage--and I am not convinced that anything less will be found Constitutional. The issue is not so much the Government as it is the Church. And since the current admin leans to the religious right....

Now, to a larger issue: If Shrub is re-elected, it is almost a given that there will be a Constitutional Amendment for one man/one woman (or straight) marriage. Another quote: "As for me I know what I am..." I do too, hon. Very much so. So, if Uncle Sam is paying attention, catch this--Passage of ENDA without adding gender identity and expression screws me--and every other Transgendered person in existance in the USA--out of valuable, needed, and necessary protections! I, for one, as a Transsexual above anything else, resent the concept of ENDA going through...and we get shafted again. This must stop here and now.

Mina

Hi Mina:

The ENDA thing bugs me too. It looks like Kerry has been listening to the HRC and it seems they're feeding him the same crap they've been trying to feed us. In reality it seems to me that they're looking for the path of least resistance. His words were verbatim what they said to us. It's the HRC we have to work on and the changes will filter up from there. At least that's what my strategy would be.

As I see it where ever the state is concerned regarding rights in a relationship whether it be a straight or same sex couple it's function is that of enforcing a civil union. The marriage aspect is more of a church function.

Since the church I attend (Unitarian-Univeralist) will perform the ceremony the marriage part is covered.

It's the rights associated with the relationship that we need to make sure we have.

I see Kerry as playing politics with the terms and let's face it "marriage" seems to be a big buzz word for alot of people. He needs the middle of the road swing voters to get elected. This is a political reality so I see him as trying not to offend them while at the same time supporting our equal rights. Since, to me, the terms are irrelivant I don't have a problem with this as long as we get the rights and benefits we should have.

We already know we won't get anything from the shrub. In fact we will loose what little we have and the rest of the country will loose more civil rights as well.

Thank you for the quotes. I've heard these before but it's tough to remember them line for line.

Betty

Betty--

Re quotes: You're welcome. Anytime I can help, ask.

Now-wanna run for office? We could use someone like you in the White House...!

Mina

Kerry is against gay marriages, which means he's anti-gay. If he'll treat homosexuals as second class citizens, what makes anyone think he'll be any more enlightened about trannies?

As for the Democrats, I'm not a communist, so I can't support them, no matter how many mistakes Bush makes. The Libertarians have my vote.

Stevie:

Your conclusion that Kerry is anti-gay is wrong. See my previous posts and Mina's. Also, calling people communists is way out of style. But frankly, even if I did think they (the Democrats) were communists (which I don't) the issue here is our chances of attaining the rights we (transgendered people) should have. I'll be happy to talk economics after this happens.

Betty

Yes, Betty, I know it's out of style for the politically correct crowd to use that word in 2004, but totalitarian socialism still spells communism, to me. If the Democrats had their way, there'd be no capitalism, no first amendment, and certainly no second amendment. In fact, the whole Bill of Rights might be thrown out, and we'd all be forced down to the lowest common denominator. I'm sure we'll always disagree on that, but I'm probably as much an anti-Democrat as you are an anti-Republican, so voting for the Democrats will never be an option for me.

I did read all of those other posts prior to what I posted about Kerry, but I wasn't convinced. If one believes in gay rights (not special or different rights, but equal rights), then it follows that one would support the legalization of homosexual marriages, assuming we recognize marriage, at all. Kerry's support for civil unions as a substitution is comparable to having separate restrooms and water fountains for blacks and whites. Things like that (including our tax system) divide us into classes, and that's never healthy. Kerry considers homosexuals to be second class citizens (if that high), because he doesn't consider them worthy of marriage. Of course, it's O.K. for John Kerry to marry the person he loves, because he's "better" than gays.

While this is an important issue to me, I'm not going to base my Presidential vote on any single issue. However, neither Bush nor Kerry has any interest in seeing homosexual marriage legalized, so if I were voting strictly on this issue, I'd still have to consider a third candidate.

Maybe you didn't read or understand the passage I wrote about playing politics with terms which is exactly what you're doing. It doesn't wash. You're bent out of shape because Kerry said he is in favor of civil unions which would carry all the rights and benefits of what is now termed marriage but doesn't favor the term "marriage" being used? Paleeeeeeeeeeze give me a break. That's anti-gay by you? Then what is Bush pray tell? Next you're probably going to try to spin it that there isn't any difference between Kerry and Bush with regard to gay issues. That won't wash either.

I'm really curious as to how on God's Earth you have come up with these views on Democrats that to me and most of the people I have ever known would seem to be from another reality.

PURE CAPITALISM WILL NEVER WORK! Witness Enron, Tyco and rest of the lot. Companies CANNOT now and NEVER will be able to be trusted to operate without the proper constraints. Any attempt at pure capitalism would end up a disaster. NO IDEOLOGY IN IT'S EXTREME FORM WILL EVER WORK WITHOUT EVENTUALLY DESTROYING ITSELF!

Your spin doesn't work regarding Kerry. I'll repeat: Kerry voted against the "Defense of Marriage" Bill calling it discriminatory. If that's anti-gay I can certainly live with that as opposed to the unspeakable Cretan we have to endure at the moment. Kerry is not now nor ever has been anti-gay. In fact he is the GLBT community's best hope to finally get the rights we should already be guaranteed by the constitution.

Betty

I disagree (with most of that).

Capitalism does work. Capitalism doesn't imply a lack of regulation, and socialism is not the same as regulation. Enron and Tyco executives broke the law and they will be punished. They don't represent other companies any more than Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer represent us as individuals. In a free society, we'll always have those who break the laws. It's up to us to provide adequate regulation and punish convicted criminals accordingly. We shouldn't do away with freedom (economic or otherwise) just because a few can't handle the responsibilities and obligations that go along with that freedom. Socialism is not the answer. It has never worked, and our experimentation with it is currently crippling our society. We could easily put an end to deficit spending and begin to pay off the national debt if we'd get rid of all of our social programs.

Socially, I agree that we need a mix of conservatism and liberalism to maintain a stable democracy, because democracies need a balance of social order and liberty. On some social issues, I take a conservative position (abortion) and on others I take a liberal position (gay rights). If we, as a society, were consistently too conservative or too liberal, then I agree it's likely that our society would eventually destroy itself, falling to either a dictatorship or anarchy.

Economically, I think we do have to choose between capitalism and socialism, because the two approaches don't compliment each other, they work against each other. Over the course of the 20th Century, the USA has proven that a hybrid system doesn't work much better than pure socialism. I hope we wake up in this century.

Whether we're referring to economics or social issues, I don't equate choosing one ideology or another with being "extreme." True, conservatives can become reactionary, and liberals can become radical, but most conservatives and liberals are I know are not extreme in their views, they just prefer one ideology over the other, and most of the time, their applications of ideology are issue-specific, not general. Likewise, I think capitalism should be pure, in that it should be free of socialism, but not that it should be free from regulation. That doesn't make me an extremist, it simply makes me a capitalist.


Regarding Kerry, he says and does whatever he considers politically expedient at the moment. He cares nothing about gay rights, except when the issue can help him, in some way. I do believe that many Democrats do care, he's just not one of them. As with many politicians, he's just in it for power and personal glory. Kerry knows that taking a firm pro-gay stand on the marriage issue will hurt him in the election, and his personal goals come before the rights of any citizens. Yes, Bush is flat-out against gay marriage, but he's more honest about it. As I've said, neither candidate has my support.

If homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, then why should heterosexuals? Why not have civil unions for both orientations? The reason is simple: prejudice. I'm hardly the one spinning.

Hi there again:

First of all. I never said capitalism doesn't work. I've been a capitalist for many years maybe even more than you. I said unrestrained capitalism breeds corruption but since you've admitted the you don't oppose regulations I suppose we have an agreement here of sorts. I will say capitalism doesn't work for every situation that occurs in our country which I believe will probably be an ongoing disagreement based on your posts I have been reading over time. I could go into details but this isn't really what we started to discuss and I'd like to get back to Kerry.

Your quote was: "Regarding Kerry, he says and does whatever he considers politically expedient at the moment. He cares nothing about gay rights, except when the issue can help him, in some way. I do believe that many Democrats do care, he's just not one of them."

Ok, for the THIRD time I will say this again because it seems you have either missed or ignored it the last 2 times. KERRY WAS IN THE MINORITY WHO VOTED AGAINST THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT. HE STATED HE COULD NOT SUPPORT IT BECAUSE IT WAS DISCRIMINATORY. There was nothing to gain politically from doing this other than to vote his conscience. This shoots your argument down.

His vote against this act is a blatant affirmation of his support for gay rights and at the time there nothing to gain from it. If you can't see this than maybe you just don't want to. If Kerry was the anti gay person your trying to convince us he is he would have voted for this disgusting piece of legislation and then bragged about it like so many others did.

Another of your quotes says: "Kerry knows that taking a firm pro-gay stand on the marriage issue will hurt him in the election, and his personal goals come before the rights of any citizens. Yes, Bush is flat-out against gay marriage, but he's more honest about it. As I've said, neither candidate has my support."

I absolutely support Kerry in using the term "civil union" as long as two things happen. First, it gives us ALL of the rights and benefits now associated with the term "marriage" which he also has said he strongly supports and second, it rids us of the irresponsible creep now in the Whitehouse which will benefit the vast majority of Americans as well as us. It is perfectly OK with me if he wants to play politics with the terms if it get's him elected mainly because the terms tend to be a charged issue with so many voters such as yourself.

Unfortunately for now, most voters seem to charged in the other direction so I say do what you have to do to get in and get us the rights we should have which Kerry has said he will do.

Marriage is and always has been a function of a church or similar institution. Churches can choose or not choose to marry same sex couples. The government's interest has always and should only be the oversight of the civil union whether same sex or heterosexual. After all, if you've ever been through a divorce it's very clear that the legal rights and responsiblities associated with a civil union are in question not the religious aspects.

Your quote: "his personal goals come before the rights of any citizens" is just so off the wall that I won't bother responding.

Lastly you want to somehow equate the person who supports our rights in a civil union with the hateful bigot just because the hateful bigot is "honest" about being a hateful bigot. Again, I just can't relate to this at all. I suppose we all have our way of looking at the world but this inference just doesn't fit into mine.

Betty

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree about our views on John Kerry, and to some degree, George Bush. Maybe there's more common ground in what you and I believe about marriage, as opposed to what we think of the candidates. Let's see...


It's true that marriage began as only a religious institution, but that is no longer the case. Marriage is also a civil institution and a marriage has the ramifications of a legal contract. Many couples are married both legally and in accordance with their religions, but many couples are married without the involvement of any church or religion, whatsoever. Just look at how messy some divorces are. It's hard to call marriage a function of the church when couples are battling in court.

The marriage ceremonies conducted by certain churches for homosexual partners might be considered real marriages by the participants and the churches involved, but they aren't legal, and society doesn't recognize them as being legitimate unions. Employers, hospitals, insurance companies, government agencies, etc. will usually recognize only legally married couples, who have marriage certificates on file with the states in which they were married. The certificates themselves read "Certificate of Marriage" (at least in my state), so marriage is clearly regulated by the government, not just churches.

Now that we have this government institution known as marriage, I think it's wrong (and should be illegal) to deny marriage to any couple based on race, skin color, nationality, sex, gender, sexual identity, or sexual orientation. Either straights and gays should be allowed to marry, or neither should be allowed to marry. I think marriage is a positive, stabilizing force in our culture, so I don't think we should do away with it.

What we actually call the legal unions (marriages, civil unions, family contracts, whatever...) isn't that important to me, as long as we have only one type of legal union for all couples. If most citizens like the term marriage, then we can keep it and allow gay marriages. If most citizens would prefer to reserve marriage as a religious term, then we can call all (straight and gay) legal unions civil unions, and religious couples will have the option of being united both legally and religiously (they'll have both a marriage and civil union, independent of one another). We can call marriage whatever we like, just as long as we apply it equally. I think it is insulting, discriminatory, and destabilizing to have different types or levels of legal unions for couples. Whatever the stated intentions, such a division will likely create a hierarchy of unions, some being preferred over others, as happened when our nation once operated under the notion of "separate, but equal" accommodations for blacks and whites.

So, here are my two suggested options:

1) Allow gay marriages and continue to call all legal unions marriages.

2) Replace the term marriage in legal unions with civil union, and allow both gay and straight couples to form civil unions, leaving "marriage" to the churches.

I prefer the first option, but I could live with either. I'm interested in hearing what the rest of you think.

Hi again:

Stevie I absolutely agree on your assessment regarding the use of the terms "marriage" vs "civil union". In an ideal world we would choose one of the two terms, make it standard for everyone and be done with it. Then we could all go on our merry way.

Unfortunately we aren't, as of yet, living in an ideal world. If we can first make the rights and benefits a standard, regardless of whether we use differentiating terms or not, this would be a major step in eventually achieving standardization across the board to eventually include the actual terms that are used to define a legal relationship.

For this to happen, the average American would have to realize that their world isn't coming to an end if same sex couples are allowed to legally join together and receive the appropriate rights and benefits now associated with the term marriage.

I see total equality happening in steps as opposed to all at once. I might be wrong about this seeing that the first same sex "state recognized" marriages are occurring as we speak in Massachusetts. I hope I am but there is so far to go and most states still resist same sex marriage so that a Federally recognized civil union with all the rights and benefits of marriage would be a major step for them and for us.

If this is the case and I'm afraid it might be then lets get our rights and work on changing the terms later which will be much easier and successful than it would be now.

Just the way I see it:

Betty

Stevie:

Your quote: "Just look at how messy some divorces are. It's hard to call marriage a function of the church when couples are battling in court."

Remember, dear--marriages are made in heaven. Divorces, sadly, are available locally.


Betty:

I agree with you. (Oh, come on--don't look so stunned. )
"In an ideal world we would choose one of the two terms, make it standard for everyone and be done with it."

Everyone--

I have posted so much on the concept of the terms "marriage" vs. "civil unions" I am nigh onto ill of it. (They are all over the politcal forum, and in at least two prose artices on http://www.sakuramina.com) One thought does come to pass, however. It is still is true today as when I first wrote it:

"...we must stand united as TG's. We can make a difference, but we have to do what Christianity has not done: present a unified front. If we as TG's continue to squabble amongst ourselves, we will never get anything we want/need to do accomplished."

Anybody wanna argue this point with me?

Mina

Mina - Will I argue against a united front? Sure, why not?

It depends on what the "united front" stands for. We might be generally united, in that we want the application of civil rights to be fair & equal, without regard for sex, gender, orientation, identity, etc., but if we get too specific, we'll have disagreements that could undermine our ability to remain united.

O.K., that was more an expression of caution than an argument against your statement, but I tried.


Betty - Good point about getting the rights first, then worrying about the labels, but is that what will really happen? Will civil unions really be marriages under a different name, or will the two be treated differently? Will the language in the statutes and regulations that create civil unions require everyone else to recognize the two as equal? Isn't there a good chance this will cause major confusion?

For example, if asked whether you're married or single, be it for an insurance form, a job application, your federal income tax filings, an attempt to adopt a child, a club application, acting as next of kin when consenting to emergency surgery for your injured partner, etc., would "yes" be a legal answer, and will everyone else be required to accept that answer? Would the question even include the phrase "married or single" anymore, or would there be 37 different options? Will a dissolved civil union be considered a divorce or equal to a divorce? What about a separation?

I'm assuming heterosexual couples will be allowed to form civil unions, as well. If not, why? If so. will there be a different legal certificate, or will there just be a check box to indicate that the certificate is one or the other? Will terms such as spouse, wife, husband, bride, and groom have to be removed from official documents associated with marriage and/or civil unions? What terms will be used instead? Will there be any different legal or tax implications in indicating one or the other? Will there be any criteria for making the selection or will it just be a personal preference? If heterosexual couples are denied civil unions and allowed only the option of marriage, will that increase the chances of civil unions being treated as less than marriages?

If civil unions and marriages have equal standing under the law, won't those who are against gay rights, especially gay marriage, still try to stop civil unions? Won't those with religious and/or secular objections to the legitimizing of homosexual couplings have just as much reason to fight gay civil unions as they do gay marriages?

I know I'm throwing a lot of details out there, but those questions and others will come up, no matter which way we go. I think we'll have fewer problems with one type of union.

I do understand the logic behind the incremental approach, and that strategy can work worth some issues. However, I don't think it's the best way to go here, because we might wind up setting precedents that we never intended, and it's difficult to go back once we've opened a can of worms. I think it's in our best interest to push for the legalization of gay marriage, and to call it that. My main concern is that when we have separate rights for different groups and/or individuals, those rights are rarely equal. My secondary concern is that multiple types of unions will be potentially confusing and socially destabilizing, which I assume is the opposite of what we want. Maybe that wouldn't happen, but I think it's worth noting.

As for living in an ideal world, I agree that we will never reach perfection. Utopia doesn't exist, but that's not what we're asking for in this case. I'm not suggesting we ignore practicality, but I don't think I'm being too idealistic. We just want the same rights for homosexuals and heterosexuals, and I don't think we should wait for the concept of gay marriage rights to become popular, because it might never happen. Many of our civil rights laws regarding race weren't popular at the times they were enacted. Generally, the majority (or at least the plurality) rules in a democracy, but the Constitution does protect the rights of the minority. Sometimes, public opinion leads, and new laws follow. At other times, our existing laws have to lead, even if public opinion is slow to follow, which is currently the case in Massachusetts. We'll see how the public reacts. At this point, I think the only thing that can stop gay marriage is a ban at the Constitutional level.

Hmm... it looks like we've hijacked this thread... LOL

Stevie--

I am not sure if you are being a brat or what!

You are reading too much into what I said. What I am seeing are Trannys that can't agree on what makes a tranny. There are TS's that feel if you are not going after SRS, you are a mere imposter. There are CD's that look at TS's and think they have gone too far. There are those inbetween that wish both sides would kiss and make up. Straight trannys argue as much as gay trannys over different items...from the best shade of lipstick to our basic rights as Transgendered individuals.

The term "Transgender" covers a lot of ground. Anyone who carries the term "Transgender" needs to see that there are a number of people who qualify--and that we need to have some sort of unity in order to get the rights we need secured.

I understand what you are saying, however. It is that narrow focus that causes disunity in the first place...

Mina

Stevie:

Civil unions MUST have all the rights, benefits and responsibilities of a "marriage". Yes, they would be "marriage" under a different name for now. Not to bring the Kerry issue up again but for reference this is exactly what he said he supports. Anything less and my claws come out.

A Federally recognized civil union under these circumstances would almost impossible for any state or number of states to legally refute or deny.

I love what Massachusetts is doing and we still need something at a Federal level. BTW, these weren't activist judges as our incompetent leader loves to call them. They were simply following the law as it is stated. Our federal constitution offers no grounds to deny same sex marriage either which why the right wing religious folks (they're not real Christians as far as I can tell) are so worried.

Either we're the "land of the free" or we're not. It's time to step up to the plate and prove all of our self aggrandizing over the years wasn't just words that sounded good.

Betty

Betty:

No, those were not activist judges legislating from the bench, at all. We agree 100% on that point. Not that I'm a lawyer or anything comparable, but from what I read of it, I think the MA court interpreted the MA constitution correctly. I hate it when judges try to make law themselves by reading things into existing laws, but in this case, they did no such thing. Of course, I'm sure a prohibition against gay marriages would've been written into their constitution (and other states' constitutions), had it occurred to anyone that homosexual couples would eventually try to marry, but that's history.

I just hope that the timing isn't going to cause a backlash and cause most states to amend their constitutions to prevent gay marriages. In other threads, we discussed whether gay rights were being pushed too far too soon, and I personally don't think so. We'll see.

If the MA situation doesn't change, and gay marriages continue, couples from other states will marry in MA and return to their home states as married couples (I've heard that's already starting), avoiding any prohibitions at home. That means the U. S. Supreme Court will eventually have to rule on the recognition of gay marriages by other states, as those couples sue for equal recognition. I just hope the Supreme Court justices will interpret this correctly:

U.S. Constitution, Article. IV., Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


As for the civil unions carrying equal weight for both homosexual and heterosexual couples, I just don't think the politicians will ever let that happen, nor will most voters want that to happen. Again, we'll see.


Mina:

Brat? I think you have me confused with someone else.

I don't think I read too much into that, I just thought you meant political issues, not daily trans interaction issues. Yes, I agree CD, TS, TV, TG, intersex, androgynous, and other trans factions/individuals don't always get along or even agree on terminology. Some of us don't even know what to call ourselves, at times. I think if we're less militant about the lingo and who's in what category, we'll have enough common ground to at least rally for general civil rights. We might even get left-wingers and right-wingers to support the same bills... maybe.

Just don't include riders on the bills that raise taxes or restrict gun ownership, and I'm with you.