GAY SHAME OPPOSES MARRIAGE IN ANY FORM

ok, sfres: you're right, you are just like everyone else. go on bashing groups like gay shame for drawing attention to fucked-upness of institutions such as marriage. groups like gay shame (thought i don't mean to speak for them) are here to be a queer voice against capitalism, statism, and other hierarchical institutions, such as marriage. why can't YOU accept that? let me ask you, how is marraige going to help queer youth in high schools who are contemplating suicide? how is it going to help single lesbian mothers? how is it going to help homeless queers? what about queers (or even straight people) in polyamorous relationships that want to marry eachother? looks like your sacred institution of marriage only helps a certain class of people. and newsom knows that. he knows exactly who he's helping. so you can go on and get married, but don't bash those of us who don't buy into that. if we want to build other communities based on our values and want to make our opinions and stances public, deal with it. you're welcome to contructively criticize, but please don't tell us we are "stuck in the past". maybe you need to look into the future....

and one more thing, i doubt that racist "miss citizen" is a part of gay shame. s/he is probably an instigator trying to start shit.

whoever miss citizen was or is as a collective we try to keep this site free from racism as much as possible and the previous posting by miss citizen was way beyond what most would consider acceptable under this policy ... if folks want to talk about gayshame's statement without getting to insulting or outright racist, sexist, or homophobic...
cool, but otherwise your comments will be hidden and you can look at them if you want, though there is really no point to doing so unless you want to see how far the comments went

I don't care what motivates anti-gay marriage activists: they're all the same to me.

Bush, Fallwell, Robertson, Gay Shame--all these anti-gay marriage extremists tell me that my marriage is wrong and that I should be ashamed of myself and my relationship, accept the discriminatory status quo, and live as they think I should live--my own choices be damned! They know what's good for me, don't you know...

I've got news for the Jerry Falwells, George Bushes, Pat Robertsons and Gay Shames of the world: I'm not going to stop fighting against anti-gay discrimination.

I thought it was largely people like those in Gay Shame that really brought the movement to the forefront in a lot of ways during the Stonewall riot back in the day. After all where else does the original idea come from for todays corporatized version of pride, and the sellout of this legacy is exactly why Gay Shame needed to form in recent years. Or maybe I don't know my history and am just being naive to the roots of the Queer Liberation struggle.

Just a thought...

Stonewall was indeed sparked by marginalized gays--but, you see, they didn't *want* to be marginalized any more. They wanted to make their own choices about how to live, free from discrimination and harrassment and intimidation.

And they sure as hell didn't fight the police so that gays could someday be free to denounce each other and attack each others' relationships.

Well, we've been around this block several times now. Statements like this show the bourgeois gay mentality:

> ...so that gays could someday be free to denounce each other
> and attack each others' relationships.

...to say nothing of each others' tax breaks. Hey, those are sacrosanct in an election year, in all farness.

But seriously: any questioning of the party line is a homophobic attack denouncable in the same breath as jerry bin falwell to these cretins. This kind of equivocation is how queer activists got their heads bloodied in front of "our" "community" center, and expelled from "our" parade, by "our" police department for the sake of "our" mayor. Crime: daring to contradict the mhm's of the gay ghetto.
In public no less. The gall.

I say Go Gay Shame!! More power to ya, and exactly at the expense of these middle class twits.

This is about it for me, I'm out. I don't see any point in debating people who are reduced to television metaphors when logically cornered. It's like ad hominem equals reset with them, their "get out of debate free" card. They just start over again, and again and again.

Proof positive of this proclivity for the superlative of denial:

> And they sure as hell didn't fight the police so that....

Well baby, they sure as hell *did* fight the police. And it wasn't for tax breaks.

I think we should settle for nothing less than the abolition of all marriage-based privileges in society. (Maybe a queer pro-polygamy/polyandry group would get some overextended media attention? Dare to make the Mormon coalition?) It's a wild-eyed goal, the destruction of marriage's shackles which yet enslave the mass of the women of the world, but so is the elimination of its evil twin, war over the domination of consumable resources. Pluck it by the root, I say. No More Marriages for anyone.

You may say I'm a dreamer, and all that. But the haters calling us hateful are truly out to lunch with their sociopathic projectionism. Well, if reduced to projectionism, here's mine: I'd like to see these mhm's illiterate and trying to raise 12 kids on 12 cents a day after a 12 hour shift down at the (gay-friendly!) Disney sweatshop, in Haiti, right now, with a disappeared husband and maybe-gay US Marines keeping him "free" to enjoy the sanctity of marriage as a cornerstone of western "civilization" and with full church approval on the lot, to boot.

In other words, they'll assimilate themselves right into the ovens soon enough without us.

Who has a right to this kind of myopia, by the way? Do Americans really have the right to ignore the consequences of their privileged greed? That may well be the question of the 21st century.

One can try to educate such people, but so often, it's only teaching the pig to sing, in the end.

Alas and alack.

Care to explain in a language that even the evil, evil middle class (spit) can understand exactly how my marriage oppresses anyone?

I don't think Miss citizen was trying to be racist.
She may have been sticking up for Gay Shame.

I read that post and I believe you all misunderstood the comments.

Education education education.
I believe what she was trying to say is that Gay Shame is molding and shaping a politician, not ranting and raving like some people assume.

What about this post. This is racist also. Whoever is editing this page needs an education because there are other racist posts about this abstract that need attention.
Wake up Indybay

Exactly what does Gay Shame find objectionable about the marriage of two gay men or two lesbians?

Most of the recently-married queers at City Hall assert they have been living as (unofficial) married couples for many years. At what point did their unions become objectionable to Gay Shame? At the time of the issuance of a marriage certificate?

Or are coupled gay relationships just intrinsically wrong, in the eyes of Gay Shame, regardless of government recognition?

If queers are to take Gay Shame seriously, then there needs to be more than just overheated and nonspecific rhetoric. Let's have a dialogue.