Wedding Bells May Ring Flat in CA
Ah yes, the dawning of Court-Mandated Same-Sex Marriages today in California. Looks like I’m not the only one who thinks there will be a negative reaction from mainstream Americans in the coming months.
Gay marriage is a reality in California this coming week, and it has apparently made a whole bunch of queer lawyers and activists nervous.
<….>
And that’s what has such powerful organizations as Lambda Legal, Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD, and the National Center For Lesbian Rights, among others, seeing serious trouble in the next few months. According to a position paper these groups jointly released last week, out-of-state gays and lesbians should not marry in California and then fly back home and sue the federal government or their state governments. The time is not right, the lawyers and activists say, and losses at the state or federal level will only get “bad rulings” that will “make it much more difficult for us to win marriage, and will certainly make it take much longer.”
<….>
That leads to the other reason the power gays may have released their six-paged warning titled “Make Change, Not Lawsuits”—we’re smack in the middle of a presidential election, and they don’t want a possible gay backlash to hurt Senator Barack Obama. Politics is never mentioned in the position paper, but gay marriage lawsuits popping up all over the country, activists may fear, tend to make certain folks in this nation nervous. When they become nervous, they get scared, and when they get scared, they vote for someone familiar…like Senator John McCain.
Or they may force Congress into passing a Federal Marriage Amendment.
Geez, if only the Gay Leftists would spend more time and money in talking with America rather than suing them — well, we would all get along much better.
In my homo opinion….
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
26 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You know what? These liberals are 100% RIGHT on this one. They want Obama so much, they will admit that the tires are coming off their bus. Is this what “hope” and “change” is all about?
What is the chance that all of the newly wed activists will take the docile route until the election is over?
Comment by heliotrope — June 16, 2008 @ 10:51 am - June 16, 2008
But unlike you, they’re not being principled, just politically expedient:
After the election? Sure, the time will be just fine then.
Comment by American Elephant — June 16, 2008 @ 2:49 pm - June 16, 2008
I’ll be happy when gay marriage is passed into law, versus a ball of lawsuits. I’m pro-gay marriage (as a straight guy, my rationale is that the Constitution guarantees us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and being in love with someone and wanting to marry them is perhaps the best example of that), but I don’t like legislation from the courts. And the blatant pandering of Obama is just disgusting. Like electing him is going to magically make everything better!
Time and effort is better spent in getting out the word and putting a human face to the gay marriage issue. Sure, it’s cool that gay celebrities get married, but unless you realize that odds are, you know someone who wants to get married and can’t because they’re gay - it becomes a personable issue.
I’d say that it’d be pretty high. They’d join the straight couples in being boring.
Comment by Nick — June 16, 2008 @ 3:20 pm - June 16, 2008
FMA has about as much a chance of getting through Congress as a balanced budget does annually. This issue may get partisans on both sides worked up and bring in the dough for their activist groups, but it ain’t going nowhere on the Federal level.
Comment by Average Gay Joe — June 16, 2008 @ 3:28 pm - June 16, 2008
I think that after gay people start to marry in California… nothing will happen. After a couple of days in the news, it will fade out with the next big story.
Comment by BrianP — June 16, 2008 @ 4:58 pm - June 16, 2008
#5 - Yeah, like when the female-to-male transgender gives birth to “her” child. (I refuse to call that person a “he” since they do not have the requisite sex organs in full working order.)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 16, 2008 @ 5:06 pm - June 16, 2008
When did government subsidy become part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Comment by American Elephant — June 16, 2008 @ 5:08 pm - June 16, 2008
She doesnt have the requisite sex organs in any order. She’s a woman with no male organs whatsoever who cut her breasts off. (Oregon law, however, recognizes her vagina and uterus as male)
Comment by American Elephant — June 16, 2008 @ 5:18 pm - June 16, 2008
Here’s my take. Marriage, in every real sense of the word, was always a religious thing. Once governments got involved and required marriage licenses and so forth, it ceased to be pure and took the control away from religions. “Marriage” should still be considered a religious thing and only done in a church, synagouge etc.
Anyone who wants to “join in union” outside of the church, should be allowed to do so. This goes for straight, gay, whatever. Then, if the couple separates, they go to court for a divorce or whatever you want to call it. For those “married” inside the church, they should have to return to the church if they want to separate. The government should have no say in the religious aspect and the churches should have no link with the civil aspect. Both should be deemed entirely separate things.
I believe this will solve the problem of whether or not marriage should be just for one man and one woman.
Comment by AirborneVet — June 16, 2008 @ 5:20 pm - June 16, 2008
How about a brother and a sister (both adults)? How about a group of people?
And in your opinion, does society have a right to encourage things it deems beneficial to it, or not? just curious.
Comment by American Elephant — June 16, 2008 @ 5:48 pm - June 16, 2008
#9
Except that you have to then tell a lot of secular folks that they aren’t married anymore. Unless, of course you don’t make it retroactive.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 17, 2008 @ 12:59 am - June 17, 2008
This is a “slippery slope” logical fallacy. They are seperate issues that should be debated on their own merits, if they have any.
Comment by Shaz — June 17, 2008 @ 1:07 am - June 17, 2008
It’s not a slope at all.
Why shouldn’t the rationale for same-sex couples be used for any group of persons or persons and animals?
Comment by Vince P — June 17, 2008 @ 1:26 am - June 17, 2008
#12 Actually it’s not a logical fallacy at all. Marriage can logically be limited to unrelated same sex couples if the purpose is to encourage the nuclear family. But there is no definition of marriage that includes same-sex couples that can logically be limited at all. But I was specifically asking Airborne.
Comment by American Elephant — June 17, 2008 @ 2:14 am - June 17, 2008
The irony of the adulterer Gavin Newsom presiding over a marriage of two man-hating lesbian separatists is lost on the MSM.
Comment by V the K — June 17, 2008 @ 6:45 am - June 17, 2008
That lesbian couple who’s been together for 55 years and is about to get “married”? I’ll give ‘em six months, tops.
You heard it here first, folks!
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — June 17, 2008 @ 9:53 am - June 17, 2008
OK, follow up for us Julie.
Comment by American Elephant — June 17, 2008 @ 11:45 am - June 17, 2008
No prob, AE! Will do.
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — June 17, 2008 @ 12:45 pm - June 17, 2008
Actually Obama being on the ballot probably gives the best chance to defeating these bans. If he is able to bring out a tide of younger, more liberal voters to the polls and overcome a depressed, conversative turn out…then we might seem them get defeated. That is based on the sole belief that Obama will expand the Democratic base cause kids love the celebrities.
Comment by darkeyedresolve — June 17, 2008 @ 1:25 pm - June 17, 2008
#8 - “Oregon law, however, recognizes her vagina and uterus as male.”
AE, how exactly is that possible? Would a penis and testicals then be considered female?
This makes no sense; and it probably figures that some socialist pushed this law through the legislature.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 17, 2008 @ 3:47 pm - June 17, 2008
Peter, it doesnt make sense to me either, all I know is that SHE is legally a male in Oregon. I believe you can legally change your gender in Oregon simply based on what gender you want to be, whether you have the requisite genetalia or not.
Its so f***ed up.
Gender identity disorder is still recognized as a mental disorder by the pschiatric association, despite having declassified homosexuality decades ago.
So if I think I’m President of the United States, will Oregon law recognize me as such?
FUBAR!
Comment by American Elephant — June 17, 2008 @ 8:53 pm - June 17, 2008
since they do not have the requisite sex organs in full working order
Huh? So if someone is impotent or has had a hysterectomy, he/she is no gender at all? You said “full working order”…!! (BTw, I don’t consider someone a “man” who can give birth, either, but it’s not because of the LACK of a penis, it’s because of the PRESENCE of ovaries and a uterus. A man who had his pecker removed due to cancer or whatnot is still a man, unlike in your definition, but a “man” who gives birth most certainly is not.
Why shouldn’t the rationale for same-sex couples be used for any group of persons or persons and animals?
Oh, please–the day an animal gives CONSENT to “marry” someone, applies for the license, and signs the legal documents, then come talk to me; otherwise, shut up. As for “groups”; marriage is still defined as TWO people.
And in your opinion, does society have a right to encourage things it deems beneficial to it, or not?
Many of us happen to believe that allowing two people who love each other to make a legal commitment to commit their lives to each other and take care of each other for life IS in society’s benefit.
Comment by Salton — June 18, 2008 @ 5:37 pm - June 18, 2008
Salton: Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.
Period.
Comment by Vince P — June 18, 2008 @ 7:58 pm - June 18, 2008
But why? There is a logical reason for limiting marriage to opposite sex couples if the purpose of marriage is to encourage the nuclear family. But if the marriage institution is to include a type of relationship — not individual exceptions — but an entire type of relationship that is incapable of making nuclear families, then by definition, encouraging the nuclear family can no longer be the purpose.
So gay-marriage proponents tell us that marriage should be about two people taking care of eachother. But if taking care of others is the purpose, not only is there no logical reason to restrict who can take care of whom, but larger groups of people would inherantly be better at taking care of one another than couples would.
Your TWO person limit is then completely arbitrary. restricting marriage to same-sex couples is not.
Great! Fabulous! but thats not the argument gays have been making by suing under the equal protection clause, and its not a decision that is up to “many of us” or a decision that is up to the courts. That is a decision that is up to the people.
Comment by American Elephant — June 18, 2008 @ 10:22 pm - June 18, 2008
I’m sorry, that should read “Your TWO person limit is then completely arbitrary. restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is not.”
Comment by American Elephant — June 18, 2008 @ 10:23 pm - June 18, 2008
#22 - “So if someone is impotent or has had a hysterectomy, he/she is no gender at all?”
Wrong, Saltie. I never said anything about a hysterectomy for women or a “chopadictomy” for men. The fact that the woman-to-man has a full complement of female sex organs should be enough to make her a woman, period.
And if you really want to get into specifics, anyone born with XX chromasomes is a woman; anyone born with XY is a male. Period. You can’t change nature to suit your needs.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 19, 2008 @ 11:07 am - June 19, 2008