As the result of this posting yesterday and the comments that followed, I would like to take this opportunity to re-state my personal position on “gay marriage.” It pretty much comes close to the comments of Matty here, and Michigan-Matt here.
I personally oppose intruding on the religious institution of marriage via court mandates or legislation. One of the main reasons, aside from intruding on religion, is that I have never once, during the entire gay marriage debate, heard anyone say they favor it due to wanting a covenant with God and their partner.. or frankly because of love.
The entire gay marriage debate has come down to this: We want financial benefits. That is a legitimate argument for civil unions, which I and the President support. But it is a very selfish and love-less reason to support gay “marriage” as Gryph describes here.
Gays and lesbians don’t want “gay marriage”, what we want is traditional monogamous marriage. It’s people such as yourself that attach all the labels to it. The facts are that we have families and children to take care of just like straight people. So we should have benefits of marriage to help us shoulder those responsibilities like everyone else. So quit hiding simple prejudice behind pseudo-intellectual word games.
Me, me, me, me, me. That’s the problem with the American gay communities’ stance on gay marriage. “It is all about me.” Guess what folks, real marriage is not “all about me.” It is all about a covenant between God, you and your spouse. Until the language of the debate from our side moves to talking about love, commitment and covenant — and less about financial gain and selfishness — we will continue to lose. Straight Americans know what marriage is about. We, by and large, haven’t figured it out yet. No one in the straight world gets married in a serious relationship only in order to improve their financial situation on April 15. That is the only argument we seem to bring to the table.
Finally, much has been made by our friend Andrew about this public exchange between a 16-year old Virginian and US Senator George Allen over the issue of gay marriage. Says the teen,
I never dreamed of the day when I would reach a political debate on a human rights issue based on civil liberty and the foundations of our great country with a Senator, former Virginia Governor, and a potential candidate for the Republican Presidency. Senator George Allen (R-Virginia), held a public hearing in Culpeper this evening.
If you haven’t, please read the whole posting. I agree that this young man was very courageous and professional in the way he handled himself and I applaud him for it. But it reinforced my mystification at the argument that gay marriage is a “civil right.” Huh? Andrew loves citing this over and over. But aside from saying your tax refund would be higher under “marriage”…. no one has yet explained (to me) how withholding marriage (Gryph’s definition) is “trampling on my civil rights.”
Sorry folks, I don’t see it and I think it demeans true civil rights infringement such as senseless gay bashings in Blue State cities such as San Francisco, Philadelphia and New York City where most seem to take place.
I’m sure there is much more to be said in my “re-re-clarification”… but I figured this was a good start to get the moonbats a’jumpin!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
#0 – “No one in the straight world gets married in a serious relationship only in order to improve their financial situation on April 15.”
Have to provide a different data point here.
I personally know straight couples who were in serious (but unmarried) relationships, who then married only in order to improve their financial situation on April 15.
And to improve their situation in other, unrelated way – unquestionable hospital visitation, unquestionable inheritance, etc.
Love was and is a huge factor in their relationship – but not in the marriage as such. Also, forget about child-rearing or anything like that (for these couples I know). And forget about God.
There IS an element of injustice in allowing any unrelated straight adults to marry – death row inmates, the childless elderly, atheists – but not allowing unrelated gay adults to marry. I support gay marriage because I support equality before the law and oppose injustice.
Having said that: I am perfectly happy to take “civil unions” for a couple generations while society adjusts.
Partly by reading comments on this blog, I have come to “not support” (though “oppose” would be too strong a word) gay marriage that is imposed by mere judicial fiat.
Typo – paragraph 4 should read – “And to improve their situation in other, RELATED wayS”.
I know a lot of gay people who want a convenant with God. I’m not one of them. I just want the same government benefits that straight married couples get. And, as for this attempt to malign more liberal states:
Just FYI, most deaths of Black people take place in Africa.
And I don’t think hospital visitation and inheritance rights qualifies as “me me me.” That’s pretty callous!
And I don’t think hospital visitation and inheritance rights qualifies as “me me me.” That’s pretty callous!
You don’t need marriage to get those, either.
P.S. Bruce – As far as marriage being a “civil right” – I believe it has been held to be so by the courts. Which might be why death row inmates can marry their groupies, for example. (We are getting out of my expertise here.)
Again – If death row inmates can do it, I don’t see why we can’t. But again, I will take “civil unions” if that makes some people feel better.
Ding! Ding! Ding!…. right you are, VtheK (#5).
Michael – YOU may feel that way. But YOU have to admit that the rhetoric of our gay organizations who are pushing to disrupt the religious covenant of marriage do NOT talk that way. Their language is extremely selfish and money-driven. It is apparent when you leave the cities…
-Bruce
You don’t need marriage to get those, either.
You need marriage to guarantee them. Try signing a contract with your partner and then trying to have that contract stand up to a family determined to make sure their son’s partner doesn’t get a dime.
It happens. Feel free to ignore those instances though because they don’t support your point.
#0 — I’m glad you clarified because I had many of the same questions before other commenters raised them. You seemed to be distancing yourself from The Advocate on the issue — although I’m not sure if you aren’t still doing that.
However, I think you miss the boat in your definition of marriage. Not to put too fine a point on it, but most of us passionate gay-marriage advocates are careful to draw a distinction between religious and civil marriage, which you neglect. (P.S. What’s wrong with wanting the same legal protections as everyone else?)
BTW, I for one have managed to use both Biblical and love-based arguments for gay marriage, although I must admit that I am agonistic and don’t put much stock in the former. (However, I wouldn’t foist my position on churches, either.)
#8, marriage doesn’t guarantee those either. Just ask Anna Nicole Smith.
I have, for a long time, asked advocates of gay marriage to identify one single right that satisfies these three conditions:
a) You have no other remedy besides marriage.
b) Marriage guarantees the right, and
c) It’s the government’s place to give it to you in the first place.
In all the years of gay marriage debate, I’ve yet to ever hear of a “right” that satisfies all three of these conditions.
Of course, I’m off the deep end about gay marriage, my own opinion being so far out of any mainstream (both the opposers and advocates). But that’s a whole ‘nother post altogether…
Mal-
Like Michael, I would argue that while YOU might be doing that, that is not how most Americans perceive the issue nor how the gay groups rhetoric communicate the issue to America.
I am distancing myself from the Advocate in that they merely restated the obvious in order to find a reason to Bush-bash.
-Bruce
I think thats a mis-characterization of my point. It’s not about taking care of “me”. Its about taking care of my family. That is why heterosexuals get married, to start a family. I am just saying we are not any different. There is no talk of “rights” in what I said. Do note that I spoke of assuming responsibility, not being granted a “right”.
And believe it or not, I actually agree with how you define marriage. But. Our government surely does not define it that way. And thats a good thing. Why would I want to turn over administration of a sacrament to the government? Thats the role of the Church, not state.
However, your argument that marriage is not a civil “right” is full of some very large holes. There were of course at one time laws against inter-racial marriages. Did those couples have no “right” to get married?
It also at one time was illegal for Chinese immigrants to get married, and for Chinese women to even be allowed in the country. This in order to control the number of American citizens that were Chinese. Did they also have no “right” to get married?
You also say:
Bruce I could have imagined that the day would come where your solution to the issue of gay marriage would be to sit around together holding hands and singing kumbya, but here we are.
I don’t know where you get your information, but the discussion has always included those elements. However, President Bush, and large elements of the GOP do not believe we are capable of those things in the first place. And you have little hope of changing their minds unless in a one-to-one discussion. It’s not going to happen during an episode of “The Capitol Gang”. Really Bruce many of them don’t even believe that gay people exist in the first place. They think we are just sick or immoral or perverted straight people gone bad. They do not even acknowledge the identity. It’s a lifestyle, remember? They can’t grant us the idea of being capable of falling in love until they are willing to accept our humanity first.
So you cannot have the discussion about “love” until that basic assumption is made. It can’t be explained, it has to be demonstrated. Thats why the majority of those straight people who favor gay marriage personally know people who are gay or lesbian. And the majority of those against gay marriage don’t. I don’t mind educating people on the issue who are actually willing to listen to a different point of view, even if they don’t end up changing their minds, but most of these people are not.
And Bruce, you are free of course to do any kind of commentary on your blog that you wish. And I can take the heat. But this is the second time that you have used a public entry to more or less just take a cheap shot at me. Surely you could find other things of interest.
Unless everything I write is so incredibly compelling that you must respond to it. As far as I know, the only person who thinks that is MattinMichigan; even I don’t think I’m that interesting. But as I said, this is your blog, and if you want to turn it into the “Gryphmon is the moonbat anti-Christ” blog you are welcome to do so and you have my best wishes.
Cheers!
#10 — It’s a bit like trying to find a Constitutional Right that’s been lost due to the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping program.
My own solution to the SSM dilemma is also one that nobody likes, but most people I talk to think they could live with: Get Government out of the marriage business entirely.
A gay man opposing marriage equality for gay people. Oh I’ve heard it all now!
Are you so desperate to gain acceptance from right wing homophobic nutters that you are willing to shed your common sense and indulge in a spot of self loathing??!
You should be helping gay rights groups expose the bigotry of these people, not cozy up to them!
As an out and proud gay man, I find such views bizarre and unbelievable.
I side with politicians and activists who actually support equality for gay people and surprise, surprise these people tend to come from the liberal end of the spectrum.
Wise up Bruce!
P.S. If you really believe that most gay bashings occur in places like San Francisco I suggest you have a word with the mother of Matthew Sheppard about what happens to gay people out in ” the heartland”
#13. V, baby! You’ve stolen my ideas! First you rip off my captions, now this! 😉
That’s exactly what my position is, and you can probably attest to the lack of support from either side for that proposition, eh?
#14. Adam: Have you considered that other people have other ideas besides yours? That might help to keep you from being so incredulous. C’mon, you’re a “liberal” guy, aren’t you? Have you tried understanding, or do you just attack those who disagree with you?
“so desperate to gain acceptance”,
“right wing homophobic nutters”,
“shed your common sense”,
“self loathing”
Sounds pretty bigoted to me. Kind of leaves very little chance that anybody who disagrees with you has a valid point at all, huh?
Tell me: how do you engage in intelligent debate from that perspective?
#10 – I submit that only your conditions (a) and (b) are valid in this discussion (gay marriage equality).
The goverment does SO MUCH that is illegitimate or that it should not be in the business of doing, that your condition (c) effectively encompasses everything and thereby voids the entire discussion.
IF government is going to be in the business of distributing fundamentally illegitimate or non-governmental “rights” and benefits – and, realistically, it is in that business and won’t stop in our lifetimes – then government should at least distribute them without regard to race, ethnicity or national origin, religion, gender (insofar as feasible), or sexual orientation.
V the K says:
Yup, I think thats the way to go too. And actually, I”ve always thought that in a sense that is the traditional Catholic opinion too. They simply do not accept that a marriage has taken place unless performed by a Roman Catholic priest. And there is no such thing as divorce either. (Annulment is not the same).
Thats why I think their stance on the gay marriage debate is somewhat heretical. They are essentially saying that a state marriage is also a Catholic marriage, which is cross-grains to their traditional teachings.
#15 – I know – Adam claims to be “out and proud”, yet is so chock full of stereotypes from the gay plantation that he can’t say anything relevant to the discussion.
It’s too bad, for Adam and all of us, that the “politicians and activists who actually support equality for gay people” he is so fond of, in fact, DO NOT support gay equality.
Repeat: Adam, those politicians you like so much “the liberal end of the spectrum” OPPOSE, repeat OPPOSE, gay equality!
Wise up Adam!
Clinton gave us DOMA (the FMA prototype), and did nothing about sodomy laws during his watch. Kerry actively supports all those State anti-gay-marriage amendments!
Adam, flee the plantation!!!
#16: Cal, so you’re okay with the hypocricy? Saying the government is doing something abhorrent and therefore should extend these acts that run contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and limited government to more people in the name of equality sounds counterproductive to me. I say, let’s see what we can do about getting the government to protect the rights it’s there for in the first place. Then we can go back and double-check that we’re all being treated fairly. Extending the mistake of government-verified, government-endorsed, government-sanctioned private and personal relationships to more people is going the wrong way.
know a lot of gay people who want a convenant with God.
This is a bit of a red herring in the whole debate.
#1 for me what makes my marriage my marriage is the religious aspect of it-I made promises before God to my husband, and I intend to keep those promises.
#2 the government has no role in recognizing that aspect of my marriage. Convieniently for me, the government does recognize that, but if tomorrow the government refused to recognize marriages, it wouldn’t make me less married before God, or negate my duty to keep the promises I made.
That said, I think the reality of this debate is what the government’s purpose is, in recognizing marriage, and where gay marriage fits.
I do agree to a degree with GP that often the arguments for marriage are of the “me, me, me” variety, but some of those arguments still have a lot of merit. I don’t think it is fair that a gay couple has to jump through several extra hoops to get the things I get for just jumpint through a couple of hoops. I think there is a strong case for some type of civil unions, maybe marriage (mostly because by the time you get to civil unions, the reality is that the issue is turned into a name game, with very little difference between marriage and civil unions).
I do think the government has a vested interest in maintianing stable family relationships, and making sure as many children grow up in stable homes as possible, because the reality is that the kids statistically do best have two parents. Where gay marriage fits in all this is the question, which is one reason that while I am not exactly opposed to gay marriage, I am not sure tinkering with major institutions without debating all the ins and outs and ramifications is a good idea.
So I sort of lean towards the take it slow approach-make the case for civil unions, work the debate, make a clear case, and then as civil unions become the norm consider a move towards marriage.
Well, it didn’t take long for an “Adam” to come out of the woodwork (#14). His attitude is typically fascist, isn’t it? If you oppose “the gays” on an issue, or have a different perspective — you are branded as homophobic and self-loathing. How childish.
If that logic were true, then as an opponent of abortion-on-demand, I suppose that makes me a woman-hater?
I think Jesse Jackson is a profiteering buffoon… am I now a racist?
Good heavens, “Adam”, think for yourself for once in your gay life.
Another good post, Bruce! Thanks for bringing some clarification to an issue that’s often fraught with half truths, political opportunism, crass self-interest and pandering without bounds –and that’s just from the GayLeft.
Patrick –get a life, will ya? You post outrageous comments and then take issue when people hold you accountable. Come on. I haven’t had to be this close to whining, self-absorbed, me-me-me behavior since I was in the hospital nursery and I was next to the bald kid in bassinet #3.
Wait… where were you born?
Again, good post, Bruce. You nailed another one to the bull’s eye.
whoa, whoa, whoa Patrick: “I’ve always thought that in a sense that is the traditional Catholic opinion too” (I used the “whoa” ’cause you’re such a fan of Brokeback Mtn)
This from the anti-religion bigot? No, that’s not even close to what the Catholic Church holds or teaches. So hang on to your attempt at instruction unless it’s on what the GayLeft feels or needs… it’s a much better fit for ya, guy.
I’ve come to the conclusion that my comments in the last two paragraphs in my post # 12 were out of line, and that I was being a jackass. Especially considering the number of cheap shots I’ve made in the past toward Bruce etc. myself. So I do apologize. At least I didn’t insult his dog. I hope.
Apology accepted –at least by me–Patrick. And BTW, good job on alerting readers here on how to respond to those ungrateful peance-niks over at Christian Peacemaker Team. Thanks.
Guess what folks, real marriage is not “all about me.”
Out of context this makes sense. In context, the history of marriage is given short shrift.
“Moonbats” is OK, but RWNS isn’t?
🙂 (How do you folks get the smiley faces?)
Agape.
I suggest you have a word with the mother of Matthew Sheppard about what happens to gay people out in ” the heartland”
Those of us who had enough common sense not to leave a bar with a couple of crackheads in hopes of scoring a three-way tend to do okay.
There is not a church, synagogue or mosgue that will be forced to recognize gay marriage. Gay Marriage has been legal for years in MASS and all the churchs are doing just fine thank you. It is a false claim by the far right. Gay americans should not be forced to go to a lawyer and pay for the rights that automatically convey to straight couples. Do not mix the religious with the secular. Once again – it has NOTHING to do with religion. It has everything to do with our government treating everyone equally.
Wow, Buckeye. You sure have read a lot of bumper stickers!
Thanks V – always appreciate insightful comments like that – at least you did not disagree with my premise – it is not religious – it is strictly civil – something even you can get behind!
God bless,
BB
Once again – it has NOTHING to do with religion. It has everything to do with our government treating everyone equally.
Unfortunately, our government DOESN’T treat everyone equally.
For instance, it won’t let NAMBLA members marry their five-year-old lovers.
It won’t let polygamists marry past their first wife.
It won’t let bestialists marry their favorite cow.
It won’t let anyone who’s closer than cousins marry each other.
In short, “all you need is love” is a catchy song hook, but it’s lousy grounds for establishing legal relationships. States have historically been far more stringent, as is their right, and I see no reason for the judiciary to attempt to change that in a misguided attempt to impose “equality”.
If we want gay marriage, we need to convince the American public that it is both reasonable and necessary. But right now, we have gay rights groups and activists who lurch in a schizophrenic fashion between calling anyone who opposes gay marriage horrific names, but promoting as “pro-gay”and “gay supportive”, and pushing enormous sums to, Democratic candidates who blatantly espouse legalizing said opposition on religious grounds.
I’m sure there is much more to be said in my “re-re-clarification”… but I figured this was a good start to get the moonbats a’jumpin!
What fallacious bullshit. You think that if someone disagrees with you that makes them automatically “jumpin'” and extremist?
What are you, 12 yrs old?
Marriage is NOT the sole province of religion, yet this entire entry makes the opposite assertion as axiom.
ndt
5 year old kids, cows, dogs, zebras, elephants, spiders as well as currently married men or women, cannot enter into a legal civil contract to marry – nor should they be allowed to be enter that civil contract – so that knocks out most of your thesis – unless you want to redefine who can sign and execute a legal civil contract – do you?
I agree that we need to convince the American public that this is a issue of the govt (not churchs) treating loving couples (legally capable of entering a contract) the same across America.
Drop the NAMBLA , COWS, Mormon mulitple marrying types – it does not move your point forward – leave that to Rev. Fred Phelps – but you knew that didn’t you?
BB
#10: I think the marital privilege i.e. the right not to be compelled to testify against one’s spouse fits all three of your conditions. Only marriage confers the right, marriage guarantees the right, and, since it is within the domain of the legal system set up and run by government, it is the government’s place to give it to you.
After being with my lover for 19 years, I do belive that God really does’t have a problem with us being together. Really, how much more do you think I would love my lover, via marriage.
I keep reading about the reasons for Gays wanting marriage, money, rights and all the rest of the BS. In New York you rarely find couples that are together more then a couple of years, if that long, and this is what you would call a marriage.
“It is all about a covenant between God, you and your spouse.”
Sez you. I doubt many married atheist couples believe some mythical sky pixie has anything whatsoever to do with their marriages. The fact is a religious ceremony is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be considered legally married.
I’m awfully close to being on the same page as “just me” and Calarato.
For a number of reasons, I support same-sex marriage. One of the reasons is deeply personal. My sister and her partner, who deeply love each other, have been faithful to each other for nearly 30 years. They had to pay an attorney over a thousand dollars to get some of the basic rights and privileges that were automatically bestowed on my parents when they said “I do”. I think that’s wrong. Likewise, for the four gay men I know best. Two have been together 40 years, the other two for 35 years.
But, at least in my lifetime, I don’t expect same-sex marriage to be legalized beyond, perhaps, a small handful of states. In many respects that’s the fault of gay activists who strongly pushed for it before society is ready to accept it. It would have been far better, and probably more successful, to urge states to legalize civil unions.
Had that happened, once people realized gay unions aren’t a threat to “traditional marriage”, it’s likely society’s tolerance would have ultimately evolved into acceptance of same-sex marriage. Now it’s hard to imagine all those state amendments being repealed any time soon.
(More in a minute; have an emergency.)
(#37 CONTINUED)
BTW, the one “right” my sister and her partner want more than anything (as do the four gay men I mentioned) is something the best attorney can’t get them, no matter how many documents are drafted and filed. And that’s legitimacy. Is it wrong to want Mrs. and Mrs. or Mr. and Mr. to have the same dignity and respect as Mr. and Mrs.?
But on to a different comment: I take strong exception, Bruce, to your suggestion that marriage must always be a religious institution. Who says so?
Under current law in all fifty states, once a civil license is issued the only requirement is that an authorized authority conduct and certify the marriage ceremony. Having the ceremony conducted and the union blessed in a church, temple or mosque is an option not a requirement.
My niece, a Lutheran, and her fiance, a Catholic, were married in a garden ceremony at his parents’ home by a judge, who happens to be a Jew. They are just as married, and they and their children are as much a family, as they would be had they been married in the cathedral in a ceremony conducted by the archbishop and every parish priest in the diocese. And I resent your suggestion, intended or unintended, that they are somehow not really married.
#33, buckeye: Okay, so you think you can shoot down the argument by calling it silly. But it’s pretty intellectually lazy. If your argument is that because gay folks love each other that they should have these same “rights”, then I’d like you to argue why those same rights shouldn’t be extended to willing, of-age, and in love cousins, or second (or third or fourth…) spouses. If you really do have the courage of your argument (that it’s a civil right that nobody should be denied), then you should have no problem defending your position when it comes to something you don’t agree about. Do you?
#34, Ian: Great point. I’d not thought of that one. However, I’d have to say that I don’t necessarily agree that it satisfies the 3rd condition. Although the government does confer this right, that doesn’t mean it’s the government’s place to give it. I don’t believe spouses (nor anybody else) should be allowed to not testify (as long as it doesn’t violate their own 5th Amendment rights). So I still don’t include that as a “right” in this case. Good argument, though. Hadn’t heard that one brought up.
GP, do you really think that green card marriages or people who marry based on the bank account of their spouse-to-be are really interested in love or in what God wants?
If straight people know what marriage is all about, then why is the divorce rate at 50%?
“Like Michael, I would argue that while YOU might be doing that, that is not how most Americans perceive the issue nor how the gay groups rhetoric communicate the issue to America. ”
The Pew poll released a few days ago showed a big drop in opposition to gay marriage, so the rhetoric may be having some kind of an effect.
I don’t go along with most of what gay groups say, but I think that many gay conservatives are automatically going to take the most negative view of these groups and their message, even moreso than straight people would.
They had to pay an attorney over a thousand dollars to get some of the basic rights and privileges that were automatically bestowed on my parents when they said “I do”.
Yes, and I had to pay a couple of attorneys a couple of thousand dollars to get the same parental rights some people get just by copulating. I’ve also bought every house I’ve ever owned entirely my own, while most people I know got help from their parents. For that matter, I worked and scholarshipped my way through college, while some people’s parents paid their entire way. Life doesn’t treat everyone equally. Cry me a river.
#15 — Yeah, unfortunately, just simply removing government from the equation won’t work. For a lot of activists, the thrill in getting SSM is precisely to stick it to Christians and other people of faith. As we have seen from some of the comments, there is a lot of anti-religious hatred among people who champion SSM.
On the other side, there are those who could make a very good case that there is a societal interest in promoting traditional marriage, and would argue that government should offer incentives to encourage couples to stay together.
Basically, when heterosexuals redefined marriage through easy no-fault divorce and the acceptance of serial unions and infidelities, they made it into something that was just about a grab-bag of social conveniences. I think that if marriage was still tied to a legal requirement of lifelong commitment and monogamy, we wouldn’t be having this debate.
V the K you hit on one of the worst things that I think happened to marriage, and that is the no fault divorce statutes. Making divorce as easy to get as paying an attorney a few hundred bucks to file the papers cheapened marriage. I remember when I was in college a friend of mine was getting married to a guy she hadn’t known long, and while talking about the wedding she was planning she quipped “yeah, and if it doesn’t work out, we can always get a divorce.” I remember thinking that marriage isn’t going to last long, if she is already contemplating getting a divorce (and it lasted just over a year). When I married my husband it was with the intention of staying married.
I would actually like to see a world where marriage is harder to get, and a move away from no fault, but that isn’t going to happen.
If straight people know what marriage is all about, then why is the divorce rate at 50%?
If I remember right this stat isn’t actually right-50% of all first time marriages do not end in divorce-it is one of those statistical twists. The reality is that divorce rates are still higher than would be preferred, but the other interesting tidbit is that they are also going down (read the second link).
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm
http://www.divorcereform.org/nyt05.html
The divorce rate is at 50% mainly because of people who go through 5 or more serialized “marriages.” The rate of couples who actually stay together is, I believe, north of 70%. The 50% figure is just a bumper-sticker factoid the anti-marriage crowd likes to throw out.
#43 — To continue your point, it’s human nature to value things less the cheaper and easier they are to get. We would hold marriage in much higher regard if it were more difficult to get into and out of. I think one of the reasons I appreciate the blessings of fatherhood as much as I do is because of all the extra effort I had to put in to attain it.
GP, when you post a re-re-re-clarification stance, I would be interested if you think that gay relationships, such as the one you and many others here (long-time partnered, committed, and some with children, etc.), are worthy as being married if they choose. Much of your argument has to do with your perceived notions of how other gay people, especially the left, are fighting for marriage equality. In other words, there are many straight people who get married, without thinking of it being a covenant of God, or get married for convenience and/or money, or enter marriage where one or both have absolutely no intention of being faithful, etc., but you aren’t advocating that marriage should be abolished altogether.
I understand your arguments that many are going through the marriage equality fight in the wrong way, and that’s fine. But what is your personal opinion? If you found the right guy, would you want the right to marry him if you choose, or do you simply feel you should not have the right?
I’ve seen a few comment here that Bush supports civil unions. I seriously question that. My recollection is that once during the 2004 campaign Bush said he would consider civil unions (not exactly support). And since his reelection, he has stated twice during the SOTUs his support of the FMA. Has anyone here heard anything else since the campaign on his views of civil unions and/or when he will propose a bill to Congress and/or at least suggest that states should support his view of adopting civil unions? Heck, I haven’t even heard that Bush changed his mind and supports the removal of anti-sodomy laws.
Also, I don’t necessarily believe that gays who don’t support gay marriage are self-loathing. In fact, some here have made good arguments. And even many of the ones who haven’t I don’t believe are self-loathing. But when I see a comment from someone who clearly likens committed same-sex relationships more so to relationships with houseplants, than opposite-sex relationships, I’m afraid it looks like self-loathing to me.
“Although the government does confer this right, that doesn’t mean it’s the government’s place to give it.”
I’m not sure who else could legitimately confer the marital right. If you’re arguing that the govenment shouldn’t confer additional rights on those who get married, then it is impossible for ANY right to meet your third condition.
“I have never once, during the entire gay marriage debate, heard anyone say they favor it due to wanting a covenant with God and their partner.. or frankly because of love.”
That’s funny…I don’t remember anyone asking me. So let me say it now, loudly and clearly. I came out so I could marry for love, and I did so AS A CHRISTIAN. Evidently other people commenting on this thread did, too. I’m sick and tired of a few liberal atheists being cited as standard-bearers for everything that goes on in what is so often euphemistically called “the community.”
Do I give a royal rip what Joe and Jane Q. Thumbsuck want to call same-sex unions? Not in the least. A good many of them probably wouldn’t like what I would call THEIR marriages, either. Nor do I need Mommy and Daddy Government to validate me by bestowing the blessing of the word “marriage” on my relationship. All I want from the Nanny State is for it to leave me and my loved-ones the hell alone.
Just who is this “anyone” you claim you’ve never heard say they care about covenanting with God and their partner? Maybe your confusion arises from the fact that folks who feel thus (like me) think that the State should know its place and keep to it.
Validating people’s feelings and officially approving of certain religious convictions is, very frankly, not the government’s job.
The blogger’s idea would be relevant, if not for the fact that marriage in the United States is not a religious insitution. You need never step into a church or say a word to a preist or pastor to get married in America. The government recognizes civil marriage AND ONLY civil marriage. And delving a little deeper here, when one looks at the history of marriage, marriage only became an official sacrament of the church in 1530 at the Council Of Trent. Now, does the government recognize other church sacraments? Does it recognize baptisms? Does it recognize communion? The answer is simply, no. There also is no categorizing of marriage based upon which religion the couple espouses to. A couple’s choice of where he or she gets married, be it in a church, a synagouge or in las vegas ala an elivs impersonator, matters not to the government. But it does matter considerably if you are going to argue that marriage is religious property. Marriage lost its exclusivity to the church the moment the government got involved in it. For simply, in the United States, the church has absolutely no control over who can or can not get married, only the government does.
And now off the subject… Talk about some god damn, appeasing mother fuckers. I’m just going to call the writer of this blog Neville Chamberlain from now on, shortened to Nelly. What the hell is wrong with you, Nelly?! Taking our opponents side? Why don’t we all just say, “Yes! we live a life of sin and deserve no governmental recognition of our relationships! Yippee!!” Talk about some fuckin’ shit. That is bull shit and you know it. And if you don’t know it… get a little more fuckin’ self-observant Nelly, as it should be very apparent to everyone who is gay. People who are straight can be forgiven for thinking that gay people don’t deserve equality in the law. But gay people themselves who think that, there is no forgiving them. That is just being a weak minded, dimwitted idiot! So stop being such a pacifist, Nelly. Terrorism isn’t the only thing worth fighting.
#26 – Gene, Gene, Gene –
You are free to use RWNS all you want. Your choice.
You just aren’t free to determine whether I take you seriously. If you use RWNS, I probably won’t take you seriously.
There is no hypocrisy involved in me (or anyone else) then calling the Lefty moonbats “moonbats”. You are free to not take me seriously, if I do that. You are free to tell me so.
I can’t speak for others who use “moonbat”, but when I use it, I use it with cause. E.g., for Michael Moore, or for some of the more severe ranters in this forum.
But, perhaps you can’t take me seriously if I should do it. That’s your freedom. I am free to use terms that would result in your not taking me seriously, if I want to.
Words/actions have consequences. Anyone can do whatever they want, IF they simply are prepared to take the consequences honestly.
Here’s an example of dishonesty. If you warned me that my using “moonbat” would make you take me less seriously, and I chose to use it anyway, and then you naturally took me less seriously, and then I whined at you or played Victim (for your naturally taking me less seriously)… That would be dishonest.
Then I don’t believe you’ve been listening. Long before there was a movement for legal recognition of same-sex marriage, there was a movement for religious recognition of these marriages. As a result of that movement, thousands of congregations across the country have peformed and recognized marriages between same-sex couples, on an equal footing with marriages between opposite sex couples. Gay people in many demoninations have labored with their co-religionists for this recognition precisely because they saw their marriages as a religious covenant.
Which leads to an interesting question: Why should some of the marriages performed by the Quaker meeting in D.C. (for example) be treated differently by the state than other marriages performed by the same meeting?
In any case, as others have pointed out, civil marriage in this country is independent of religious marriage. We don’t allow religious objections to prevent other marriages — the Catholic church isn’t given a law that denies people the ability to remarry, and Orthodox rabbis aren’t given a law that prevents interfaith marriage.
If you die, your spouse has a legal right to collect a survivor’s benefit from Social Security. The only way to have such a right is through marriage.
Further, if you and another person own a piece of land jointly, one of you can sell his interest without approval from the other. In many states, if two spouses own land jointly, one spouse cannot transfer his/her interest without approval from the other. Again, this form of land ownership is available only to people who are married. (If you and your unmarried co-owner contracted for this right, and then you sold your interest without approval, your co-owner could seek damages from you, but he could not have the transfer set aside as invalid. Spouses with this right could do so).
These are just two examples.
5 year old kids, cows, dogs, zebras, elephants, spiders as well as currently married men or women, cannot enter into a legal civil contract to marry – nor should they be allowed to be enter that civil contract – so that knocks out most of your thesis – unless you want to redefine who can sign and execute a legal civil contract – do you?
Exactly my point. The government does not treat everyone individually.
Meanwhile, as to Anonymous, who I think exemplifies the hatemongering gay left that is doing its best to ensure that gays NEVER receive benefits:
What the hell is wrong with you, Nelly?! Taking our opponents side? Why don’t we all just say, “Yes! we live a life of sin and deserve no governmental recognition of our relationships! Yippee!!”
Reread the post. GP never said that gays deserve no governmental recognition. What he said was that it was clearly obvious that most gay activists were going after marriage out of selfishness, greed, and jealousy. That should be patently obvious from the numerous arguments made on this board by liberals that tear down heterosexuals by citing their divorce rates.
That’s about the most bogus nonsense I’ve seen here yet.
Jonboy, “If you die, your spouse has a legal right to collect a survivor’s benefit from Social Security.” Sorry, it’s neither a right nor a legitimate policy option and it needs to be reformed by Congress. Congress granted survivor benefits for the SocSce program –as well as lots of other grab-on privileges which are killing SocSec for me, my kids, and even for my parents in their later years.
Try again?
On the contracted agreement between same sex spouses or any other set of adults regarding the disposition of property interests… wrong on that one too. Here in Michgian you can contract to deny the unilateral decision by your partner to sell off, modify substantially or foreclose financial benefit in a property interest.
Like I wrote earlier, the 1000+ “rights” that SSM proponents argue do NOT exist for them, about 30 of the key “rights” can be completed with spouses in agreement. The balance are nothing more than puff intended to mislead the public on the unique legal attributes of marriage.
I wonder about a very basic assumption informing Bruce’s central claim: namely, that the needs of the individual are somehow opposed to the needs of society as a whole. You can see this in his complaint that for “American Gay communities,” marriage is all about “Me, me, me, me, me.” BTW, Bruce has a habit of making blanket statements about the selfishness of Gay people that the facts simply can’t support: One would suspect him of Alan Keyes-style homophobia (“Hedonists!”) if one took a few of these remarks out of context. Since the three preeminent supporters of same-sex marriage in America — Andrew Sullivan, Jon Rauch and Evan Wolfson — have made extensive arguments about the social benefits of same-sex marriage, his claim here doesn’t hold water.
But even if it did, so what? In a society that values individuals and individual liberty, government must defer to the wishes of the individual as long as those wishes do not impinge upon others’ legitimate rights. That’s why government can’t tell you what to eat, or in what city you should live, what occupation you must pursue, or what websites you’re not permitted to visit.
So far, I have seen no evidence that legal recognition of same-sex marriage would either pick my pocket or twist my arm (to apply the Jeffersonian standard). Granted, Stanley Kurtz has stated that same-sex marriage would delegitimize opposite-sex marriage, and destabilize the family unit — but the evidence he has presented from the Netherlands and Norway flatly contradicts his claim. (Nor have I seen any evidence that same-sex marriage could lead to group marriage: Frankly, no one seems to know how legal recognition of polygamy could work, while same-sex marriage would function for all legal purposes as an opposite-sex marriage would.)
Most individuals who wish to enter into an opposite-sex marriage state that they’re doing so for their own happiness. I see no reason for individuals who wish to enter into a legally recognized same-sex marriage not to give the same reason.
If marriage is a religious institution for you, so be it. For many others, (and I include myself in that number) marriage is about the protection of a relationship and a family under the law, period. Quite frankly, I feel that your position borders on the dogma spouted by the theocrats who would institute a western version of sharia if they could. In your view, anyone who isn’t in a god-centered marriage really isn’t married at all, and so is relegated to the second class status of civil partnership. I don’t believe access to equality in this country has ever been formally predicated upon espousing a particular religious faith or any faith at all. In any event, your argument about the intrusion of courts into religious matters is confusing. No one proposes that a faith would be required to bless a union with which it disagrees. The gay marriage debate is about equality before the state, not the church. Nothing being sought would interfere with a religion’s freedom to limit marriage according to a particular belief system.
52: NDT and whoever posted the original Santorum-esque comment, you obviously haven’t figured out the concept of “informed consent,” let alone “individual liberty,” if you honestly believe that a 5-year-old kid or a zebra is analogous to a mature adult human (or vice versa).
As for “currently married men and women,” they’ve already entered into a marriage contract. They are free to enter a new marriage contract with someone else, but before they do, they have to break the old contract. That’s called divorce. Exclusive monogamy is a key structural-functional component of civil marriage.
But under a legal code in which men and women have equal rights and responsibilities, gender doesn’t play a functional role in opposite-sex marriage: Husband and wife have the same rights and responsibilities. A bride is not required by law to take the husband’s name any more than the husband is required to take hers (in some opposite-sex marriages just as in many same-sex marriages, the spouses take each other’s name); she’s allowed to own property in her own name just as the husband can, and she can seek divorce for the same reasons and on the same terms.
53: That’s about the most bogus nonsense I’ve seen here yet.
It is neither bogus nor nonsense, rightwingprof — though depending on how you interpret the historical evidence you may or may not agree. Augustine and Innocent III discussed marriage as sacramental, but didn’t go much further into the matter. The Council of Trent, however, officially placed marriage among the Sacraments, and established the marriage rites.
NDT and whoever posted the original Santorum-esque comment, you obviously haven’t figured out the concept of “informed consent,” let alone “individual liberty,” if you honestly believe that a 5-year-old kid or a zebra is analogous to a mature adult human (or vice versa).
But you see, Tim, “informed consent” is a discriminatory factor.
My whole point in making the argument was to point out that government can and does discriminate, which the people shrieking “equality” fail to recognize or realize, and that one should think twice before making tears in the legal fabric that allows it to do so.
But it also brings up a second point, which I must confess to wanting to do, which is that gay activists tend to have a “get a grip” problem. Instead of shrieking, if someone makes a remark like I did, the response should be, “Yes, that is true; however, no one is insisting that gay rights requires that we remove the consenting adult protections for sex, and if they are, they are dead wrong.”
Of course, it’s much easier to respond in a hateful and bashing fashion, which is why you made your statement.
But under a legal code in which men and women have equal rights and responsibilities, gender doesn’t play a functional role in opposite-sex marriage: Husband and wife have the same rights and responsibilities.
But the problem is, Tim, they don’t have equal rights and responsibilities. Women are a protected minority, men are not. Women have the power of life and death over their children, as protected by law, and men may not interfere.
Cal, poopsie, relax. I take you seriously. I really do. I even changed the link from RWNS.
But Bruce used the Moonbats in the blog posting.
When you’re next in Palm Springs, let’s do lunch. (Invite open to all of you.)
Agape.
It is both. Marriage was considered a sacrament in the church long before the Great Schism — which is why it is a sacrament to the Orthodox. It was also a sacrament before the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, since marriage is a sacrament in the Assyrian Church. In fact, marriage is a sacrament in every one of the ancient churces. You are confusing Rome’s obsession with offically codifying doctrine with doctrine.
“But the problem is, Tim, they don’t have equal rights and responsibilities. ”
Which is a problem that needs to be fixed, as in repaired, rather than fixed in law for all time. The law used to rcognize a father’s authority over his children, as a way of correcting the inordinate power a mother had because they were under her control in the home. The law has basically abolished those protections. That is is the state of the law now, but that doesn’t make it some kind of moral norm. The law requires men to register for the draft as a duty of citizenship, but not women – that needs to change. Equal responsibilities go with equal rights.
Back on topic, the point has been made that the religious ramifications of marriage matter not at all in a question of law. Period.
The point has also been made that the Church did not recognize marriage as a sacrament until very late. That is simply a matter of fact. For centuries the Church didn’t think any aspect of lay life was very holy at all. Even in Scripture Jesus says that there is no marraige in the kingdom of heaven and Paul says that in these end times peole should rerain from amarriage if they can. His language against marriage is not that much less disapproving than against homosexuality. So that’s what the Church has thought on the matter for a very long time. I know some Protestants see things differently, in a rather more Judaic way, and that is typical of Protestants. Fair play. But that doesn’t make it normative for Christians.
The point has not been made that hetro marriage for love is at least as subversive of traditional mariage as divorce is. Traditional marriage was all about legtimating children and ensuring inheritance, and obviously on a deeper level on securing the father’s resources to augment the mother’s. This was why physical infidelity on the woman’s part was so heinous (where the man’s was not); because it undermined the credibility of the paternity of children and therby the father’s interest in providing for those particular children. Love for your wife was quite secondary. In fact there were times when the Church taught that love for one’s wife was really just a form of fornication, because it distracted from one’s love for God and took one;’s mind off higher things. (How fucked up is that?). You didn’t marry for love; you took a mistress for love. If you couldn’t afford that, you just waited until Carneval or Mayday to play.
The point has also not been made that legitimacy in society or approval don’t matter at all. I don’t want approval from people I don’t approve of, and that covers a lot of people. I want my rights, whatever they happen to be, to stand on their own beyond the approval or disapproval or power of anyone ot vote up or down. That’s all.
You’re free to argue that survivor benefits for spouses are not sound policy (although it’s an abuse of the language to call it “illegitimate”), but there is no denying that spouses have a legal right to survivor benefits. It is not an inalienable human right, but it is a right granted by law. And it is only available through marriage.
I’m not an expert on Michigan law, so I can’t dispute what you say. But in most states, such a contractual agreement would not be effective. If one partner sold his or her interest in the property to a person without notice of the agreement, the purchaser would be a bona fide purchaser for value. The non-selling partner might sue his or her (presumably) ex-partner for damages, but the law would not set aside the sale. Whereas if the same was true of two spouses, the law would set aside the sale.
You can argue about what is or is not a “right” and about whether the government should or should not give married people certain privileges, but it is indisputable that marriage changes, all in one blow, the legal status of two people in relation to each other. The legal relationship between spouses is given primacy before almost every other relationship in our society. No set of private agreements can fully replicate the status that marriage brings about.
And I still haven’t seen an answer to one question: Why should some of the marriages performed and blessed by a particular congregation receive recognition when others do not? Is the government now in the business of dictating doctrine to religious congregations? Are Baptist marriages more worthy of legal recognition than Quaker marriages?
Gee, I had no idea I was supposed to go through life all bitter and miserable because the bureaucracy won’t issue me a permission slip to have a relationship with someone of the same genital group.
Anyone who claims not to have heard love cited as a reason for gays wanting to marry either has not been paying attention or is lying.
I am in love with a man, and he loves me, and we want to be married. What we are seeking from the state is civil recognition of our marriage (and equal justice under the law, which if you are going to decry as selfish you might as well call for burning the country down) — I repeat, civil marriage, not a covenant which is not the state’s business. As a matter of fact, my partner is religious and I am not, but our love is the real thing. To write as if marriage is the rightful monopoly of religion is to contradict the clear facts of the civil law.
As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967)
Excuse me, but we do not live in a theocracy, and it is simply a fact, like it or not, that the marriage over which we have been fighting politically is civil marriage, not what churches or synagogues or mosques do and do not choose to recognize as marriages in their faith. No one is seeking to force religious institutions to conduct or to religiously recognize any particular marriage. That is a red herring and you surely know it. The notion that only religious marriages are legitimate is, in the civil sphere, monstrous. To delegitimize all the legal marriages that involved no church but only a trip to city hall — talk about a radical proposal!
I am glad Gryph called you on the absurd distortion you made of his quoted remark when you called it selfish. Wanting to protect your family is selfish? You damn well do not think so. Kindly stop, step back, and have a good dispassionate look at your posturing. Two people seeking to bind themselves legally in marriage are committing an inherently conservative act.
And straight people (not all or most, perhaps, but many) have been marrying for economic reasons for centuries. Give us a break already with these phony arguments.
I see your point, but that’s not true. Rome recognizes all Christian marriages as sacramental. This is why if a couple convert to Catholicism, they are not asked to be remarried in the Church, and their divorce would be forbidden.
And I know people who cheat on their income taxes. Your statement is relevant to those who abuse marriage, not marriage itself.
You know that not one person has suggested that love and happiness are impossible in the absence of civil marriage. (Just like no one ever suggested that sodomy laws made it impossible to be happy, or that the existence of discrimination makes it impossible to be happy).
But when two people have made the decision to commit their lives to each other, civil marriage is the surest path by which they can bind themselves together legally and financially. And it gives them rights and obligations with regard to each other (and each other’s property and money) that can not all be replicated in any other way. If you don’t want that, that’s fine — I’m not certain I want it for myself. But to suggest that it’s fine and dandy that other people be denied that because it doesn’t matter to you — well, that’s what I’d call selfish.
Good points Jonboy and Richard. I’d also add that those who feel they don’t need marriage, a piece of paper, or whatever, to legitimize their relationship would not be forced to once gay marriage is legal.
FEEELING! WHOA WHOA WHOA FEELINGS!
(It’s so gratifying when a remark gets right under someone’s skin.)
V the K, in case you are assuming it was me, nah, it doesn’t get under my skin. I just feel it is amusing though. Thanks for the laugh. 🙂
I was married for 16 years. I left him because I was tired of being in a relationship where I was controlled and demeaned every day to the point of losing my identity.
Yes, me, me me. I have committed the crime of actually caring about myself and I know that my upcoming divorce will ruin the sanctity of marriage. I apologize profusely and if you call your right wing friends in the White House and make divorce illegal, I promise to let myself be abused just for you because separating was better for my welfare only, not his.
And, gosh darn it’s selfish of gay couples to want to adopt the children that most straight couples don’t so why don’t you just take those children away so they can rot in foster care and when they turn 18, well, they’ll be blessed enough where they can be on their own. After all, no parent is better than a gay one, right?
Again, selfishness, GP. Selfishness. It’s caring about a child having a home rather than protecting the sanctity of parenthood.
And finally, well, I’m a bi woman who is in love with another woman so you better tie my tubes so I cannot be selfish enough to have another child.
Hey, I’m selfish enough to actually LOVE someone I have no right to love. I might as well just kill myself because being bisexual is selfish since I am endangering the sanctity of love.
Oh, that’s right, you’re not saying I’m selfish for loving. I’m selfish to actually want to act on those feelings.
You’ve made me see the light and I will get my wicked, sinful, SELFISH rear end to Exodus immediately!
And as a matter of fact, how lucky for the universe that my experience with marriage has completely turned me against it because I will never have a chance in hell to get married even if I wanted to!
-The divorce rate is at 50% mainly because of people who go through 5 or more serialized “marriages.” –
Then why have some people claimed that straight people care so much more about marriage and are so much more committed to marriage than gay people?
It seems like the assumption is that gays don’t care about marrying for love, they have selfish motives, and we should give straight people the benefit of the doubt any time they get married.
The problem is, A Human Being, when you actually TRY to promote adoption by gay couples as an alternative to abortion, as I have, leftist gays come out of the woodwork to berate you.
Why? Because gays’ primary concern when it comes to children is aborting them. Anyone who suggests that gays NOT support selfish and irresponsible behavior, such as abortion represents, is blasted.
In short, cry me a river. Why don’t you and yours who allegedly care so much about children stop killing them in utero first?
Oh, and by the way, Jonboy, Richard, Pat: compare these remarks:
You know that not one person has suggested that love and happiness are impossible in the absence of civil marriage.
But behold:
Hey, I’m selfish enough to actually LOVE someone I have no right to love.
Therefore, people like A Human Being ARE out there saying that they can’t love in the absence of civil marriage.
The American public is not stupid; they realize that gays are lying to them when one sees this sort of juxtaposition. This leaves us with a choice; purge the selfish and be truthful, or continue to tell the American public one thing while our actions make clear another.
What is your choice?
Bruce, you ara a moron. Legal marriage has nothing to do with religious marriage. Many Quakers define marriage as including same-sex unions, but the state still doesn’t allow Quaker same-sex couples to marry, even though their Quaker meeting will. And the state does allow divorced Catholics to remarry, even though the Church won’t. This religion argument of yours is just stupid. As for your ridiculous assertions about love, they are so baseless as to merit no response.
NDT, gotta wonder why you don’t just promote gay adoptions and leave it at that.
You may want to consign your uterus to the government, but that doesn’t mean every woman should.
Don’t assume that all groups act as a single organism just because the Republicans do.
Therefore, people like A Human Being ARE out there saying that they can’t love in the absence of civil marriage.
The debate has gotten a bit absurd. People seem to be arguing 1.) the government can’t tell me who I can and can’t love and at the same time 2.) my love is invalid without a receipt from the government.
You have no right to adopt, or raise a child. AFAIC, liberals should not be allowed to raise children, especially boys.
interesting…
me personally whatever marriage may have meant it does no longer, on God…god may be in the vows but it does not make it part of the marriage, I have a friend with no religious affiliation, who married to a friend with a religious affiliation, she was completely indiffferent to be married in the church
i had a widowed neighbor, who on his deathbed I believe re-married for financial/tax reasons
as i see it marriage is about one simple thing a stabilizing factor in the community and frankly i am more for marriage if it gets its participants to think of more than themselves and stop acting a fool, i am inclined to believe that gay marriage will do just that
basis for this unscientific belief – control group: years of living in stable married communities vs years of living in DC’s Dupont Circle and the Bay Area, observational there just seems to be less emphasis on monogamy and more on getting as much booty as possible in DC and the Bay Area
teh earlier poster w/o doing the research, Bruce is probably correct on the gay bashing, M. Shephard stands out because it is heinous. But think about it, in order for gay bashing to occur there must be a body of gays. Statistically, that is likely to be in your larger cities, which so happen to be blue. Example close to home, I grew up in on the East Coast in a reasonably liberal burb, which suffered its share of crossburnings. But you go out to the western end of the state and the crossburning were few, yet that is where a good number of the crossburners lived. It may seem odd but to burn you are not going to burn a cross on the lawn of a fellow burner, you got to go to where b/w marry and date to make a point.
I see Bruce still has a bit of his reporter genes.
NDT, 1) I didn’t refer to A Human Being’s comments, and 2) I don’t think she was trying to make the point that you were inferring from her post.
Bruce you make some really good points and suggestions for the non-heterosexual community however, your perspective of marriage within the confines of legislated codification is over simplified for the complexity of the issue. One must take into account there are two forms of marriage entwined as one in the American psyche and those are one, religious marriage and two, civil marriage.
You make some excellent points about religious marriage however what the non-heterosexual community is rightfully demanding is civil marriage. The First Amendment’s guarantee for an individual to practice one’s religion freely exempts any and all religious beliefs systems from recognizing same gender marriage; however; it does not exempt any U.S. governmental entity from
recognizing same gender marriage due to one, Freedom of Religion and conversely requires government entities to recognize same gender marriage because of two, the guarantee of Equal Protection Under the Law.
I include Freedom of religion because where one Church does not recognize same gender marriage another Church will. So the government cannot say one Church’s belief is superior to another via recognizing one Church’s definition of marriage and not another’s.
One might argue this is a democracy and the people’s will should be imposed, however a synonym for democracy is “Mob Rule”. We claim to live in a civilized democracy were the majority has the right to rule but only in respect to the minority and it can be argued the majority of xtians do not respect the non-heterosexual community
My personal belief is that the government should not be in the marriage business from the start. The government must either recognize all marriages were all parties are consenting adults or it should not recognize any marriages.
I know thieves. So?
The former is unacceptable; the latter is ideal.
RWP – the point went more to GP point about marriage being among man, woman, and God. God, for some people, does not enter the equation.
Response to post #31
Operating on the definition that marriage is a civil contract. In order to enter into a contract the parties have to be consenting adults (I know it is over simplified)
“For instance, it won’t let NAMBLA members marry their five-year-old lovers.” Children by definition are not consenting adults.
“It won’t let polygamists marry past their first wife.” No defense for this one.
“It won’t let bestiality marry their favorite cow.” Bovine are not consenting adults.
“It won’t let anyone who’s closer than cousins marry each other. “No defense for this one.
“…I see no reason for the judiciary to attempt to change that in a misguided attempt to impose “equality”. The reason the judiciary is involved is because the legislative branches of government are not on their own volition applying the concept of equal protection under the law to all it’s citizenry.
We claim to live in a civilized democracy were the majority has the right to rule but only in respect to the minority and it can be argued the majority of xtians do not respect the non-heterosexual community.
Unfortunately, as leftists refuse to realize, the majority not only has the right to rule, but can amend the fundamental document that defines what rights are allowed to minorities.
Since gays have aligned themselves with the anti-religious hatemongering leftists who insist on purging all forms of religion, who engage in constant hate speech against religion, and who blast the religious as ignorant and superstitious fools who should be excluded from government, it’s no surprise that people equate gay marriage with an attack on religion and act accordingly.
Once again, the gay community’s hate blinds it to intelligent decisions.
Children by definition are not consenting adults.
Of course they are consenting adults. Why else can they agree to and have carried out medical procedures, such as having abortions, without parental approval or notification?
Bovine are not consenting adults.
Um, animal-rights groups say they have the same rights as humans. Since the wishes of a minority must always be granted, denying cattle the same rights as humans is fundamentally wrong.
You see the point here?
Therefore, people like A Human Being ARE out there saying that they can’t love in the absence of civil marriage
Wrong. What I am saying NDT, is not just in reference to gay marriage and adoption but upon where all of it comes from your buddies like Alan Keyes who actually said that his daughter was selfish for being a lesbian and that it was just about lust, not love.
That’s the real argument isn’t it? I don’t care that I can’t get married again if I don’t have another relationship with a guy. I can love without being married. I just know that you believe that gay or bi people are selfish:
1. We could change if we really wanted to because it’s a choice after all. Either get with the heterosexuality program or lose the right to love anyone.
2. We’re being selfish in following our hearts instead of embarrassing our families because I know you feel that way.
Oh and by the way, I’m all for adoption. I’m just not for what you would want which is taking away all kids from gay couples so a more deserving heterosexual couple can have them and of course, making every gay and lesbian person get sterilized so they can’t go around the system by committing the crime of having their own kids. Oh wait, one of the laws they’re trying to pass is that if anyone (not the couple) in someone’s family is gay, that’s enough for the family to be undeserving and undesirable.
Bears repeating (with a hat tip to Anonymous on #49)…
“The blogger’s idea would be relevant, if not for the fact that marriage in the United States is not a religious institution. You need never step into a church or say a word to a priest or pastor to get married in America. The government recognizes civil marriage AND ONLY civil marriage. And delving a little deeper here, when one looks at the history of marriage, marriage only became an official sacrament of the church in 1530 at the Council Of Trent. Now, does the government recognize other church sacraments? Does it recognize baptisms? Does it recognize communion? The answer is simply, no. There also is no categorizing of marriage based upon which religion the couple espouses to. A couple’s choice of where he or she gets married, be it in a church, a synagogue or in Las Vegas ala an Elvis impersonator, matters not to the government. But it does matter considerably if you are going to argue that marriage is religious property. Marriage lost its exclusivity to the church the moment the government got involved in it. For simply, in the United States, the church has absolutely no control over who can or can not get married, only the government does.
And now off the subject… Talk about some god damn, appeasing mother fuckers. I’m just going to call the writer of this blog Neville Chamberlain from now on, shortened to Nelly. What the hell is wrong with you, Nelly?! Taking our opponents side? Why don’t we all just say, “Yes! we live a life of sin and deserve no governmental recognition of our relationships! Yippee!!” Talk about some fuckin’ shit. That is bull shit and you know it. And if you don’t know it… get a little more fuckin’ self-observant Nelly, as it should be very apparent to everyone who is gay. People who are straight can be forgiven for thinking that gay people don’t deserve equality in the law. But gay people themselves who think that, there is no forgiving them. That is just being a weak minded, dimwitted idiot! So stop being such a pacifist, Nelly. Terrorism isn’t the only thing worth fighting.”
Comment by Anonymous — March 24, 2006 @ 11:31 am – March 24, 2006
——-
Kudos again Anonymous, but — while the Neville Chamberlain-to-Nelly imagery was certainly appropriate to GayPatriot, GayPatriotWest and their fans such as VtheK (with his hatchet out on the memory of Matt Sheppard above) or NDT (the avowed bi-sexual above who was comparing gay marriage to bestiality, NAMBLA, and worse), I think the better parallel would be the Vichy French, for this sad crowd do happily collaborate with the homophobes all in the name of partisan goose-stepping, leading us back to the time long-past when one observer here described them so beautifully as “collaborateuras”. Which, of course, they were — and well before they were ever also known as Gay Chickenhawks.
Kudos, kudos, kudos,
QueerPatriot
Uh Oh…NDT’s at it again. Get a load of the great argumentarian in #88 above. What a simp.
In #87, our professor of animal husbandry, Mr. NDT, writes:
“Since gays have aligned themselves with the anti-religious hatemongering leftists who insist on purging all forms of religion, who engage in constant hate speech against religion, and who blast the religious as ignorant and superstitious fools who should be excluded from government, it’s no surprise that people equate gay marriage with an attack on religion and act accordingly.”
Any of you boys have any doubts now about the gay-ness of someone who could write that?
Only the ones who a) haven’t seen me with my partner and b) are still under the mistaken impression that sexual orientation determines anything other than what gender of person to which you’re attracted. 🙂
Let’s be realistic, QP; you wouldn’t acknowledge that I was gay even if my significant other and I were to f*ck right in front of your faces. The reason you cast doubt on my sexuality is as a reinforcement for your beliefs that gays are incapable of being anything other than antireligious, liberal, Democratic syncophants.
A good example is your use of “bisexual” as a perjorative. I find it interesting that you shriek “bisexual! BISEXUAL!” merely because I acknowledged that I have been attracted to women without acting on it; I hardly think you deem the vast number of gay men and women in this world who have had sex with the opposite gender and even produced children, which requires not only attraction to, but also acting on it, to be “bisexual”.
Clearly, then, there is something other than actual sexual behavior and attraction that causes someone to be “bisexual” in your worldview or, for that matter, “gay”. Therefore, in your mind, I cannot possibly be gay, as I blogged previously, because I disagree with you.
In short, sexual orientation has nothing to do with actual attraction or behavior in your world, but with absolute conformity to a standard worldview. For instance, despite A Human Being’s obvious bisexuality in every sense of the term, I don’t note you berating her as you do me or casting doubts on the sincerity of her sexuality, simply because she toes the party line.
What you need is an excuse to discriminate and tear down others, QP. I have a feeling it has to do with your self-loathing and disgust over being required to endorse homophobia as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”; you can’t speak out against this without losing your “gay” status, so you take it out on others, especially those who clearly DID call it homophobia, like myself.
People like GP and I are not traitors to gay rights. But what we are traitors to is the gay community, which is a collection of slavish folk like yourself who think nothing of endorsing and supporting homophobes while flinging vitriol at those who choose to do otherwise.
1. We could change if we really wanted to because it’s a choice after all. Either get with the heterosexuality program or lose the right to love anyone.
Well, A Human Being, since you were married for 16 years, are we to assume that during that time you never once had sex with your husband?
Making foolish arguments like “it’s not a choice” is made even more irrelevant when people like you state it.
When you decide to be rational and ask me what I actually believe rather than inferring it, we’ll talk. But I’m not wasting the effort on attempting to reason with you when clearly all you want is for me to reinforce your prejudices about what conservative gays do and don’t believe.
Response to post #87
“Unfortunately, as leftists refuse to realize, the majority not only has the right to rule,” I don’t know if that is a true statement or not I have not seen anything that supports that assertion; Is it an overstatement for purely dramatic effect? But I do belief they do realize the majority“…can amend the fundamental document that defines what rights are allowed to minorities.”
“Since gays have aligned themselves with the anti-religious hatemongering leftists who insist on purging all forms of religion, who engage in constant hate speech against religion, and who blast the religious as ignorant and superstitious fools who should be excluded from government, it’s no surprise that people equate gay marriage with an attack on religion and act accordingly.”
I will say that is an overstatement but I do recognize the legitimacy and truth behind the statement. But please concede the religious right is just as guilty of hatemongering and is as insistent on purging all forms of non-heterosexuality, who engage in constant hate speech against non-heterosexuals and who blast the non-heterosexuals as selfish, hedonistic predators who should be exclude from civil society and it’s no surprise that many non-heterosexuals equate conservative christian political activity as a crusade against the non-heterosexual community.
Once again, the religion’s self righteousness and hate blinds itself to intelligent decisions.
Response to post #91
I do not agree with NDT but he does make a good point; Though the point he is making is one that goes beyond same gender marriage and more to the ideals of the progress mind set and it is a very logical point. His error however is his assumption that all people that are for same gender marriage are on the far left such as members of A.L.F. or E.L.F. But even then I do think he is overstating their positions; but I am not him so I will not speak for him.
I’ll admit I have not read all 94 posts, so if this is redundant, hopefully it is worth repeating. One of the things that is seldom discussed is that the vast majority of religious marriage services also incorporate a civil action. The religious celebrant is generally duly authorized by the local governing body to validate a civil marriage license.
The ceremonial aspects are perfunctory as most states don’t require it. Sanctioned witnesses attest to the consent of the parties and the executed certificate is registered with local authorities. Without the civil aspects, none of the so called legal protections or financial benefits attach just based on a religious service which serves in effect as nothing more than a public pledge and blessing.
Although not clearly present for the sake of expediency, the separation between church and state is clearly there. A civil certificate is not required by the religious authority nor is the religious sanction required by the civil authority. The religious service brings forth the emotional aspects where as registration yields the financial/legal aspects. In the end when you strip away the pomp and circumstance and take God out of the equation, marriage is a civil contract sanctioned by the states under their police powers. So what’s love got to do with it?
And there we have another one.
Unhinged. Just unhinged. The “immigration protesters” wave Mexcian flags protesting for the right to live here in the United States illegally and suck welfare benefits from the United States (how idiotic is that), and the wackjob San Francisco board of supervisors waste taxpayer funds coming up with a resolution condeming Christian teenagers. Completely unhinged.
When you decide to be rational and ask me what I actually believe rather than inferring it, we’ll talk.
Fair enough. I admit, I’m new to this message board and had no idea you were bisexual as well. Some of the statements you made (that seemed like you were comparing gay people to NAMBLA members) brought me to the assumption that you were someone who hates gay people.
I understand that you are bisexual in your sexual preference and to the right in your beliefs. One does not preclude the other and I accept that they’re two different things.
As for sex, I wanted it for the closeness more than the actual act so yes, to be close to him, I had sex with my husband. But you see, for the past five years, he withheld sexual intimacy, not even a kiss, completely. He did it as a way to punish me for not being the person he couldn’t train me to be.
Perhaps bisexual is the wrong word then. Perhaps I don’t care about the gender, just the person and whatever package they happen to have.
I just wanted to make myself clear. Being nasty to you because you’re not a certain type of gay person would have been the same as when members of my family argue with me because even though I’m Jewish like they are, I don’t automatically think that Israel is always correct in their actions.
Just one more thing NDT and GP. I’ll be willing to admit that not every gay person would get married for the right reasons if you admit that not every straight person should either and split the difference.
Response to post #98
“And there we have another one.”
Another what?
So, we have two camps whipped into a frenzy of emotion over what is basically a symbolic issue. I think the political class enjoys these theatrics. While everyone is distracted with these hot button emotional issues, the political class sells us out with massive deficit spending, out-of-control entitlement expansions, and wide open borders. And as long as they keep you all distracted with these emotion-driven social issues… that really ought not be in government’s purview anyway — they can get away with it.
“For instance, it won’t let NAMBLA members marry their five-year-old lovers.” Children by definition are not consenting adults.
I just want to point out though, that what constitutes “consenting adults” is a legal definition. NAMBLA has advocated for lowering age of consent laws, and there are some people (not NAMBLA members, but definitely with screws loose) who have advocated the consent age be as low as 12. I happen to have a 12 year old, she has barely hit puberty, I don’t think she is ready to make decisions regarding sex, marriage, and her future.
But I do think, when debating the issue of pedophilia, and the tweenage/teenage years, that age of consent is a legal construct, and one that can be changed (although I suspect there are enough sane people among both parties that this wouldn’t happen).
So I don’t think arguing the pedophilia route is totally out of question, but I think most people see adults having sex with children and teens as ojectionable, but then 30 years ago, who thought we would be debating homosexual marriage and civil unions.
Bestiality arguments, PETA aside, I think are will probably remain over the top, and unlikely.
gaypatriot says I personally oppose intruding on the religious institution of marriage via court mandates or legislation. One of the main reasons, aside from intruding on religion, is that I have never once, during the entire gay marriage debate, heard anyone say they favor it due to wanting a covenant with God and their partner.. or frankly because of love.
I believe you’ll find that atheists get married too, and take their marriages very seriously. So give up this smoke screen of marriage being a religious institution. Since marriage already is a secular institution, and it is exactly the secular institution that gays want, we don’t need a new name like “civil union” for what gays want. And that covenant-with-god thing you were talking about, we should call them by a different name, oh, how about “covenant with god”. And we could say that the government should stay out of covenants with god. Churches that want to perform covenants with god for gays could do it, and those that don’t want to could refuse.
And if you haven’t heard of gays wanting marriage because of love, well, there’s nothing I can do for you there, because you just haven’t been paying attention.
Fair enough. I admit, I’m new to this message board and had no idea you were bisexual as well. Some of the statements you made (that seemed like you were comparing gay people to NAMBLA members) brought me to the assumption that you were someone who hates gay people.
Not “hates”; just “severely annoyed with the actions of some gay people”.
And the point of those statements is simply that, whether we like it or not, we will get lumped in with some of those people or arguments. The key then is to a) confront the issue head on, b) ask ourselves if our actions in some respect are making the problem worse, and c) craft and implement a solution.
I understand that you are bisexual in your sexual preference and to the right in your beliefs. One does not preclude the other and I accept that they’re two different things.
Actually, I have had attractions to certain women; however, on a general basis, I have no interest in women and am focused primarily on men. I’ve never had sex with a woman, only with men.
From an academic standpoint, I suppose that, if the reward was high enough, I could make a stab at being heterosexual; however, I do not by any means think that doing so would create a healthy, satisfying, enduring relationship for me or the woman with whom I was involved. On a deeper moral level, I think I would be doing the institution of marriage more of a disservice by making it an instrument by which I would receive a reward, rather than as a legal and sacred bond between two people.
Really, I liked the way you phrased it:
Perhaps bisexual is the wrong word then. Perhaps I don’t care about the gender, just the person and whatever package they happen to have.
Just one more thing NDT and GP. I’ll be willing to admit that not every gay person would get married for the right reasons if you admit that not every straight person should either and split the difference.
Absolutely, 100% agree.
So give up this smoke screen of marriage being a religious institution. Since marriage already is a secular institution, and it is exactly the secular institution that gays want, we don’t need a new name like “civil union” for what gays want.
Tell that to the Democratic Party whose feet you are kissing.
Thirty, dear, I enjoy tweaking you about your claims to bi-sexuality — it sits in such sharp contrast to how you otherwise represent yourself here. But, let’s get at least one thing straight – the above arguments are not about bi-sexuality, for that (as far as I can tell) is a fairly normal condition for a substantial segment of any population. These arguments are about how a person like you can parade about this site as a fully-blown gay man (npi), who cares deeply about the cause of gay people and is interested in the security and happiness of other gay people (going so far, many times, to describe yourself as something of a local gay activist in Dallas). But advancement of the lives of gay people is not your primary cause: you actually don’t seem to really give a shit about the lives of other gay people (if they’re not Republican). Your cause is a partisan one, nothing more. You’re a Republican, whose devotion to that party and to George W. Bush has endured even after Bush and Party tried to write anti-gay discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, and even after we posted for you here all party votes on marriage and civil unions ever taken in the U.S. (showing clearly the Democrats leading the way in EVERY SINGLE CASE). There is nothing that will tear you from your partisanship. So you get on this site and use any argument that you think will either advance that partisan cause or provide cover for your support of it as a gay man. I hope, for your sake, that you are indeed the person you’ve described many times here: a bi-sexual who has found happiness with a male husband (your word, dear, months ago). And I hope you’re truly happy living this life even in full recognition of your second-class status among those you admire politically. If you can live with that, happy trails. Others of us have lived most of our lives unencumbered by any doubts about our sexuality, our right to equality in all respects, and with no doubts about where our best hopes for marriage parity lie. We’ve lived through several life stages and endured the inequities in each and now say “Enough. We’re going to fight for what should be ours as Americans”. Driven by our love for our loved one (contrary to GPW’s silly assertion that “it’s all about the financial benefits”), we’ve played by the current rules of jumping through legal hoops to assure their future financial security. We’ve bought houses in one name and then gifted half to our partner to make sure both are on equal footing; we’ve drawn up elaborate wills to protect assets; we always have to do 5-6 things in every process to assure ourselves of what heterosexuals come by naturally. This is not “American” and some of us gay people are fighting to change that while others are fighting against that change.
Dear Queer Patriot:
Please find your nearest grammar and review the chapter on paragraphs.
Thank you.
This post is silly.
But it reinforced my mystification at the argument that gay marriage is a “civil right.”
This is a joke, right? Marriage of opposite-sex couples is a civil right, because state statutes have made it a civil right. Now, given that opposite-sex marriage is a civil right, what is your proposed “rational basis” for the state denying the right of same-sex couples to marry? I’m sure that you recognize the question: it is the “equal protection” question, and, with “rational basis” I am using the lowest form of scrutiny.
Be specific: what is your proposed “rational basis” for allowing a state to deny marriage to same-sex couples to the same extent that it allows marriage for opposite-sex couples?
Regarding comment # 49 The blogger’s idea would be relevant, if not for the fact that marriage in the United States is not a religious insitution.
In point of fact, the blogger’s post might be relevant except for the fact that he ignores the fact that at least one establishment of religion approves of same-sex marriage. The Unitarian Universalists. And I’d be surprised if the Metropolitan Community Church would not come out in favor of same-sex marriage. And my Church of the Gay Jesus certainly is in favor of same-sex marriage. The poster appears to be only interested in kow-towing to conservative establishments of religion such as the RCCi (Roman Catholic Church, Inc, with reference to the commenter’s reference to the Council of Trent) and one might seriously wonder why the poster believes as he does.
#81 ralph — March 25, 2006 @ 12:54 pm – March 25, 2006
Bruce is probably correct on the gay bashing, M. Shephard stands out because it is heinous.
It is highly unlikely that you would have ever heard of Matthew Shephard except for the fact that some gay activists wanted to use his murder to try to get “sexual orientation” added to the then-existing federal hate crimes law. The gay activists failed, of course, largely because the conservative christians were up in arms about the proposed addition. No surprise.
I am put to wonder whether the purpose of SSM is to raise the relationship standards in the gay subculture, or bring down the relationship standards in the broader culture.
But advancement of the lives of gay people is not your primary cause: you actually don’t seem to really give a shit about the lives of other gay people (if they’re not Republican).
Funny, I don’t think either Dallas’s or Fort Worth’s nondiscrimination ordinances say “Republicans and conservatives only”.
Oh, and in case you looked….the campaigns I helped in Dallas of Ed Oakley, Laura Miller, and Monica Barros-Greene are those of, even though the races are officially non-partisan, Democrats. Indeed, Laura Miller is married to Steve Wolens, who was one of the most liberal Democrats in the Texas Legislature.
Oh, and Lupe Garcia, a good friend of mine and who I helped to become Dallas County’s first Hispanic and lesbian sheriff? Democrat.
Party affiliation matters not, if I think a person has good common sense and will tell me the truth about what they’re thinking. These people all did.
Others of us have lived most of our lives unencumbered by any doubts about our sexuality, our right to equality in all respects, and with no doubts about where our best hopes for marriage parity lie. We’ve lived through several life stages and endured the inequities in each and now say “Enough. We’re going to fight for what should be ours as Americans”. Driven by our love for our loved one (contrary to GPW’s silly assertion that “it’s all about the financial benefits”), we’ve played by the current rules of jumping through legal hoops to assure their future financial security. We’ve bought houses in one name and then gifted half to our partner to make sure both are on equal footing; we’ve drawn up elaborate wills to protect assets; we always have to do 5-6 things in every process to assure ourselves of what heterosexuals come by naturally. This is not “American” and some of us gay people are fighting to change that while others are fighting against that change.
A lovely speech.
Except you’re not.
Otherwise, you wouldn’t be prancing around chanting “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” to state and Federal efforts to do the opposite. Nor would you be suctioning tens of millions of dollars to give to the campaigns of these homophobes and spending mere pennies in comparison to block the initiatives that said homophobes are praising and supporting.
Since you think anyone who opposes gay marriage is a homophobic bigot, QP, say it. Say Harry Reid is a homophobe. Say John Kerry is a homophobe. Say Nancy Pelosi is a homophobe. Say Hillary Clinton is a homophobe. Say Howard Dean is a homophobe. Say Bill Clinton is a homophobe.
THEN we might believe you support change, instead of pandering to homophobes based on political affiliation.
This is a joke, right? Marriage of opposite-sex couples is a civil right, because state statutes have made it a civil right. Now, given that opposite-sex marriage is a civil right, what is your proposed “rational basis” for the state denying the right of same-sex couples to marry?
Hmm….the fact that the Supreme Court in several instances has pointed out that marriage and other “public acts”, such as adoption, do NOT qualify for equal-protection status.
You see, Raj, the amusing and ironic thing is that the inept liberal justices who wanted so badly to pander in the Lawrence v. Texas decision created this mess themselves. To satisfy frothing gay-rights activists such as yourselves, they loudly proclaimed that the state has no right to regulate morality. Unfortunately, what that did was open the door for legalization of polygamy, pedophilia, and other forms of “morality” legislation to be overturned. To get around that, they split matters into “private”and “public”, declaring that “private” was protected, “public” was not.
And now, thanks to that gyration and others created by their refusal to hear gay adoption cases and rejection of polygamist arguments, there is an excellent body of case law that says only marriage between two consenting adults of the opposite gender enjoys equal protection.
Now, Raj, if you and your fellows had been content to repeal laws legislatively, this wouldn’t be an issue. But you had to go running to Mommy Ginsberg to get an exception, and as you should well know, exceptions to the law create problems.
You know what? Being gay does not make me any less of an American. Bottom line. This is a country that very foolishly prides itself as “The Land of the Free.” If this really were a “free” nation, this same-sex marriage debate would not even be the issue that it currently is. George Bush should be bending over backwards to unite this country. That is part of what being the Commander In Chief is all about. Bush has done nothing but divide this country into an “us versus them” category. By threatening to write discrimination into our constitution, he has added fuel to a culture war that had no business existing in the first place. But does he understand or respect that fact? Obviously not. He has bastardized everything this country should stand for. Who is he to decide my right to marry the wonderful man I’ve spent the last fourteen years of my life with? For this glorified bigot, or any other misinformed individual, to suggest I’m a homosexual for anything other than love is an insult.
I know gay men and women who have been in committed relationships for close to fifty years. That’s about five years longer than my own parents have been married. What does that say about all these people who make the absurd claim that homosexual unions are “Godless” or not based on love?
If straight people really did hold the monopoly on what marriage is all about, then my own sister would still be together with her second husband. Incidentally, they divorced only two months after tying the knot. You see and read about this happening everywhere across this nation, and yet Capitol Hill still wants to preach about the so-called “sanctity of marriage” and prevent fellow Americans-(who just happen to be gay)-from enjoying the same God-given rights they currently have and take for granted. How totally blind do you have to be to not recognize how wrong that is? This is the year 2006. We should be progressing as a society. But, instead, there are those of us who insist on keeping things locked within a strict 1950’s mentality. This clearly has to stop. We’re all grown-ups here and, until we can learn to quit keeping each other down over petty differences, we’re not going to see a positive change.
Rightwingprof wrote (and quoted):
So, in your ideal world, if two people were married and one of them died without a will, his or her property should pass to his or her parents? (Or children, if there are any). And the spouse would have no legal claim to that property, because the state would not recognize the marriage? Of the person was in an accident and medical decisions needed to be made, and no healthcare power-of-attorney had been executed, it would be the parents and not the spouse who would be given the right to make medical decisions? The state recognizes marriages because there is a desire in our culture to provide aid and support to those couples who choose to dedicate their lives to each other. Stripping away the privileges, rights, and obligations that the law grants to or imposes on married people strikes me as being seriously anti-family.
North Dallas Thirty wrote
All the gay and lesbian (and bi and queer and trans) people I know are as religious as the heterosexual people I know. Which is to say, they range from a very religious to not at all. At any gay pride parade, one of the largest groups will be marchers affiliated with various churches, and in my experience they receive some of the loudest cheers from the crowd. There is no anti-religious left in this country (not in any mainstream way). However, there are many people, both religious and secular, who do not believe that the religious views of some people should dictate the law of the nation, and who are willing to challenge those on the religious right who use their pulpits to preach hatred. And you still ignore the fact that the movement for marriage equality in this nation was from the beginning a movement of religious gay and lesbian people, who have labored for decades within their congregations to establish that their relationships are no different than the relationships of opposite-sex couples.
North Dallas Thirty continued:
I’m speechless at the idea that a person who claims to care about the rights of gay people (or of any people) could seriously argue that the state should have the power to tell me and another consenting adult what we may do with our bodies in private.
And then North Dallas Thirty wrote:
Well, this clinches it. You’re obviously insane.
111: Being gay does not make me any less of an American. Bottom line.
Which I suspect was originally the point of this blog, Brian. But there are a good many people, Republican and Democrat, who view the words “Gay American,” or even “Gay Patriot,” as inherently self-contradictory. (You may even have encountered a few of them in this thread.) But don’t give up on our basic American values — individualism, limited government, equal treatment under the law — just because we haven’t lived up to them yet.
And Richard — right on!
I’m surprised that NDT and others happily fund tax breaks, fiscal rights and legal shortcuts for others, while supporting the argument that they themselves are undeserving of the same tax breaks, fiscal rights and legal shortcuts.
I think that’s where most people get the idea that a homo who doesn’t support same-sex marriage (it’s not GAY marriage) is self-loathing.
#114
And then North Dallas Thirty wrote:
AFAIC, liberals should not be allowed to raise children, especially boys.
Well, this clinches it. You’re obviously insane
Jonboy, Rightwingprof wrote that piece of trash.
GoB, actually the “self-loathing”hammer is just a shortcut for GayLefties to intimidate and trash gay conservatives… it has nothing to do with a rational point of view. The same way you use “chickenhawk” while remaining decidedly anti-military, anti-Bush… it’s your thing, GoB.
Like your fellow idiots earlier who contend that only the GayLeft can determine whether a person is truly “gay enough” to warrant the gay appellation… what a bunch of hate-filled, insecure gay men that leaves you with –and intolerant, too. But at least it allows you to do that collective tsk-ing, elbows akimbo, and hips all asway.
Pat, thanks for pointing out my error.
Apologies to NTD for attributing the most insane comment to him (or her). If I could edit the earlier comment, I would.
Well, this clinches it. You’re obviously insane.
No, I said that, and I’m hardly insane. I’m just sick of watching liberals raise wussified, panty-waisted gun-fearing girls with dicks instead of men. I’m inclined to believe atheists shouldn’t be allowed to raise children, either.
Check the opinion in Loving vs Virginia, the case that struck down miscegentation laws. The Court held that marriage is a fundamental civil right. If I remember correctly, that decision was handed down in the mid-1960s, so it’s not like it’s a radically new idea.
Who is he to decide my right to marry the wonderful man I’ve spent the last fourteen years of my life with? For this glorified bigot, or any other misinformed individual, to suggest I’m a homosexual for anything other than love is an insult.
Strong words, Brian, but let’s see how much you MEAN them.
Since you think anyone who opposes gay marriage is a homophobic bigot, say it. Say Harry Reid is a homophobe. Say John Kerry is a homophobe. Say Nancy Pelosi is a homophobe. Say Hillary Clinton is a homophobe. Say Howard Dean is a homophobe. Say Bill Clinton is a homophobe.
Or start spinning about how this and this are “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, because that’s what HRC, NGLTF, Stonewall, and all the other “gay-rights” groups are doing as they spend their millions on them.
I’m speechless at the idea that a person who claims to care about the rights of gay people (or of any people) could seriously argue that the state should have the power to tell me and another consenting adult what we may do with our bodies in private.
(shrug) Do you oppose polygamy? Do you oppose incest? Do you oppose prostitution or pornography?
You know, I’m speechless that someone like you who is so insistent that the government stay out of private conduct hasn’t railed against age-of-consent, child sex, and other similar laws in which the government tells us what we may do with our bodies in private.
The issue here is that most gays, being congenitally unable to stop their use of hate speech and rhetoric are powerless to have these sort of things repealed legislatively; thus, instead of moderating their tone, they go running to the courts, hoping that unelected liberal justices will write exceptions into the law for them.
Of course, the issue stepped around is that, because Lawrence was such a poorly-written decision, an entire body of case law has sprung up in which the court basically had to pluck things out of thin air and create convoluted differentiations between “private” and “public” to keep it from legalizing polygamy and child sex — and in the process, creating precedent AGAINST gay adoption and marriage. Brilliant, huh?
Had the gay community been mature enough to work through the legislative process, as had already been done in the majority of states, to repeal sodomy laws, this wouldn’t be an issue. But given the choice between short-term hatemongering and long-term sense, the gay community chooses hatemongering, every time.
And you still ignore the fact that the movement for marriage equality in this nation was from the beginning a movement of religious gay and lesbian people, who have labored for decades within their congregations to establish that their relationships are no different than the relationships of opposite-sex couples.
So it’s an attempt to impose THEIR religious views through law.
Besides, Jonboy, gays and lesbians have no trouble supporting people imposing their religious views as law — as long as those people are Democrats. Indeed, they gave them tens of millions of dollars to promote their homophobic views and endorse laws stripping you of rights — and spent comparative pennies fighting them.
So in short, at least I had the balls to call homophobes such. You and yours don’t support marriage equality; you support Democrats.
Michigan Matt, you’re so transparent. You said:
GoB, actually the “self-loathing”hammer is just a shortcut for GayLefties
No, Matt, you’re the one shortcutting here. Why don’t you tell me why you don’t expect the same treatment under the law as straight people do? Why are you satisfied that you’re less?
Are you going to answer any questions or are you going to keep avoiding?
And? I’d love to hear your definition of ‘self-loathing homosexual’, since you seem to know what it is.
LOL….listen to you, God of Biscuits.
You see, we all know that you don’t have any trouble with being a second-class citizen; in fact, you think people who publicly say that you should be are pro-gay and gay-supportive. Heck, you say the same thing even when they support the FMA.
And it seems you didn’t raise a whisper when HRC and others gave tens of millions more of gay dollars to help these Dems promote that you should be satisfied with less, at the expense of fighting initiatives to permanently keep you with less.
What you have trouble with people being is non-Democrats. That’s why gay leftists like yourself fawn over homophobes and attack people who point out the fact that they are.
GoB, to answer your questions on point: I don’t consider myself nor my partner, nor our two sons, nor our family, nor my relationship with my partner to be anything less than anything a str8 couple has… sorry, I don’t buy into the victimhood game of the GayLeft like you have. I took the time to correctly construct the same protective provisions into my life… why can’t you? Why can’t other gays? Why MUST it be a question of gay marriage or nothing else, for you?
I’ve answered your questions on point. You’re the one who’s raised pointless, rhetorical, baiting questions like “Would someone please tell me why were in Iraq?” etc. So let’s keep the record str8; it’s the only thing that might ever be str8 in your book.
But guess what?
I’m still trying to figure out why you want to allow convicted sex predators to live next door to elementary schools, playgrounds, libraries, day care centers and nurseries? Why do you think it’s improper to restrict their choice in housing? Why do you speak with such passion against an obvious societal good? It’s almost an irrational passion.
Go ahead, GoB… make my day. Answer the question.
Oh, Matt, so you and your partner just got married and paid the license fee? and under the law, you are equal to straight people who form partnerships like yours? really?
Wow, are you massachusetts-matt now?
You are SUCH an asshole with the whole sexual predator thing. You keep dogging me on it when you were the one that failed to read properly.
Do you think that someone who was forced to register as a sex offender whose crime was, say, beastiality, is any more or less of a threat to children than a child molestor?
What if the government decides that being convicted of sodomy (even between consenting adults) is enough to force you to register as a sex offender?
If you were convicted for something like that, you’d lose YOUR kids, and you’d be forced to move if you owned a house too close to a school, and you’d have to register as a sex offender in any community to which you DID move, all because you gave your domestic partner a hummer and got caught doing it.
Does that make your day, Michigan Matt? For the 13th time?
GoB “Do you think that someone who was forced to register as a sex offender whose crime was, say, beastiality, is any more or less of a threat to children than a child molestor?”
Are you serious? LOL.
This from the same guy who thinks that illegal immigrants aren’t illegal if they’ve entered the country fraudulently, with illegal documentation, or forged papers.
That’s rich, GoB. Pure liberal BS –“nothing is illegal if it makes ME feel good”… you’re rich, GoB.
Nice site I found … Plan on coming back later to spend a little time there.