From: Michael S. Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Fri Dec 08 2000 - 09:41:46 MST
Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> >
> > Jason Joel Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
> > >
> > > > Working in Vermont as I do, with
> > > > the current Civil Union controversy raging, it has turned out that all
> > > > of the overt 'hate' crimes committed here since the 'Take Back Vermont'
> > > > grassroots campaign began were actually committed by gays trying to gain
> > > > sympathy.
> > >
>
> BULLSHIT. That statement reeks of unsupported claim. And I know my
> people better than that.
I can mail you the newspaper clippings of the confessions. You have
blinders on, as there is nothing that some people will not stoop to to
prove a point, and their sexual preference has nothing to do with it.
>
> > > Please provide referrences proving your contention that all (overt?) hate
> > > crimes commited in the state of Vermont in the period in question were
> > > actually commited by gays.
> >
> > Those were the only two of consequence, that I already mentioned, but I
> > will research and see if there were others. The remainder were mostly
> > all phone calls to judges, clerks, and legislators. Many found that the
> > majority of the hostile invective during this whole period was from
> > those supporting civil unions, making many rather hateful remarks about
> > those opposed to civil unions on principle but who were not anti-gay in
> > particular.
> >
>
> You ducked the question Michael. Put up or withdraw this preposterous
> claim.
No I didn't. I just don't have any links to provide you at the moment,
since we heah up in tha sticks h'ain't got ourn papers all
electronicized.
>
> > Most of the invective in the other direction has been, I have found,
> > anger that is a consequence of the individuals it is directed at being
> > royal jerks no matter what their persuasion is. If thats a crime, then
> > call me a bigot. I hate assholes too.
> >
>
> You seem to have a love of empty generalizations. Can't you make your
> points without them?
I'm not generalizing about all supporters of civil unions (since I am
one). What I am saying is that there are individuals who are doing the
cause in general more harm than good by their misguided actions. Now, I
can understand someone who has been living under a cloud of real or
perceived persecution for a large chunk of their lives internalizing a
lot of the hate they perceive in others, and are consequently
emotionally hair triggered to assume anyone who is not overtly like them
to be thus against them.
>
> >
> > This is funny, actually. Most of those same communities experience no
> > murders, car thefts, robberies, or other major crimes, yet does the
> > federal government claim they are also lying about that too? If so,
> > where are the bodies??? Insurance claims? These communities typically
> > have one or two part time policemen, and some go decades without any
> > sort of death under questionable circumstances.
> >
> > As hard as it may seem for some people to believe, there are, in fact,
> > many communities of peaceful, broad minded, tolerant people in this
> > country who are pushing no agenda, and want nothing more than to be left
> > in peace. There will always be individuals who are bigoted, but guess
> > what? Its their RIGHT. So far as I know, thought is not yet a crime in
> > this country, and its not your right to claim to be violated just
> > because not everybody thinks you are super.
>
> I could really give a shit what someone thinks of me. But when they
> deny me the same rights as others have because of their bigoted opinion
> or attack me and mine then that is a different matter entirely. Don't
> trivialize this. Having people you know killed just for being different
> (one publicly beat to death with baseball bats) tends to make you pissed
> off as hell when someone claims that you're just upset because people
> don't think you and "your kind" are super.
Nobody is denying you the right to join in union with someone of the
opposite sex for purposes of raising children under beneficial taxation
and legal protections. Now, the civil unions law, which I support
(versus some of its other supporters, who hurt themselves more than they
help), does try to redefine this under a separate but equal sortof
definition, while at the same time extending this right to anyone,
regardless of sexual preference (which is mandatory under the equal
protection clause which you claim you are denied your rights under).
Where the law still fails, in my opinion, and which exposes its
hypocrisy, is that it does not also legalize bigamy or polygamy, which
it constitutionally has to to comply with first amendment rights of
freedom of association.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:15 MST