Skip to main content

View Diary: DOMA: Sally Ride's Partner of 27 Years Denied Federal Benefits. Is Romney Smiling? (200 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    you have a point I can sympathize with even if I don't agree 100%, but what you are doing is diary hijacking because you keep repeating the same point over and over again. It stops being responsive and starts being a disruption tactic.  You dilute your own message and break the rules of this site by doing it.

    •  I did not realize I was breaking rules. I (0+ / 0-)

      responded to each post that I felt needed answering. The Globe today has a column by Jeff Jacoby, the conservative columnist. "Within a hour(after Rides death)DailyKos writer Dante Atkins,....had taken to twitter....attack...Boehner...National Organization for Marriage.

      Within an hour.

      I rarely agree Jacoby. His column was about a Post columnist that recently died. A very good column, with many questions and facts, that Dante, for one should have engraved into his brain.  

      My personal computer is limited, can't post without tagging on. Community computer better. Pardon tagging to comments, spelling, please.

      by CuriousBoston on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 05:28:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I considered what the other commenter said (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CuriousBoston, lgmcp

        when I first read your comment(s) on the issue.  After carefully reviewing the FAQs, I came to the conclusion that you were not engaged in diary hijacking.  Which is why I simply disagreed with you.  In my opinion, you are completely entitled to vociferously disagree with a diarist's viewpoint, and even to reiterate that disagreement more than once in the diary comments.  A diary hijack is when someone comments in a diary on a subject directly unrelated to the subject of the diary, and persists in doing so even when told to stop.

        We are entitled to engage in debate.  Sometimes, that's the point of commenting.  

        I do not see the mention of DOMA as a "campaign issue".  It is simply a factual commentary on what really is.  Namely, that Sally Ride's partner of 27 years is not entitled to federal benefits because of DOMA.  And let's not get squeamish here.  What was DOMA in the first place, but a naked attempt by Republicans to appeal to the cultural right wing, supported by some cowardly Democrats.  In other words, a "campaign issue".

        The fact is that in the war on bigotry against GLBT citizens, there is plenty of evidence which suggests that personalizing the issue works in the favor of those supporting equal civil rights.  The more that people know that they have friends or relatives who are GLBT, or that "celebrities" are out, the more likely they are to support civil rights.

        The same thing happened with HIV/AIDS.  Arthur Ashe's illness changed the way blood donations and transfusions happened in this country.  Rock Hudson's disclosure and death changed the conversation.  Magic Johnson was on the Dream Team with HIV.  Personalizing the disease had a positive effect.

        Ancora Impara--Michelangelo

        by aravir on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:57:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you for taking the time to communicate (0+ / 0-)

          with me. I view the rmomey diary, and the Dante tweet as politicizing Rides' death. Rmoney is a Presidental candidate, otherwise the title would not be written about him smiling re DOMA.

          I see progressives turning this into a campaign issue.

          Yes, personalizing any disease has a positive effect. Astronaut Ride and her partner were/are very private people. The examples of people you mentioned were almost all "activists", for lack of a better word.

          I believe none of them had to deal with tweets, emails, or front page web articles.

          Astronaut Ride-that is how I see her-a scientitst, a leader, an educator, was very private. If she and her loved ones chose to be private, that should be respected.

          I worked at the Dana Farber, I worked on a clinical study of pancreatic cancer. One study-one-entering into my little database dates of death. It still does not get the funding it needs.

          ""Celeberties" choose to be activists about their diseases, don't they? Don't you think her family deserves the same choice? SHE chose not to be an activist. Her choice should be respected.

          Thanks for listening.

          My personal computer is limited, can't post without tagging on. Community computer better. Pardon tagging to comments, spelling, please.

          by CuriousBoston on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:16:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Once again, I respect your point (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lgmcp, CuriousBoston

            One of the celebrities on the list was Arthur Ashe.  The fact that he had AIDS was a fact that he kept private until he learned that USA Today was planning on running a story.  He was a man I personally admired, having seen him play, and even having met him on one occasion.  It was unfortunate that his choice to remain private with his condition was not respected.  Ultimately, however, his public acknowledgement of his condition let to changes in blood donation and transfusion which saved countless lives.

            This is a different situation.  Sally Ride undoubtedly was involved in the writing of her own obituary.  She and her partner made a conscious decision, whatever they had done before, to publicly acknowledge their relationship in a way that made clear that Ms. Ride was a lesbian.  The fact that her partner will not be entitled to federal benefit due to DOMA does not exploit her or remove her right to privacy.  She has not been "outed"; she outed herself.

            Are we supposed to believe that it is OK for the right wing to wave the bloody flag of DOMA for political reasons, but it is not OK for us to discuss the consequences of DOMA for people who have deliberately chosen to identify themselves as gay?  

            We are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.  I do find common ground with you on the issue of privacy, the concept of which, if it were generally respected, would have rendered this entire discussion as moot.  

            Ancora Impara--Michelangelo

            by aravir on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:46:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (62)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Culture (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Education (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Media (22)
  • GOP (21)
  • Civil Rights (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Affordable Care Act (19)
  • Texas (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site