GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

Wedding Bells May Ring Flat in CA

June 16, 2008 by GayPatriot

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)

Filed Under: Post 9-11 America

Comments

  1. heliotrope says

    June 16, 2008 at 10:51 am - June 16, 2008

    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?

  2. American Elephant says

    June 16, 2008 at 2:49 pm - June 16, 2008

    But unlike you, they’re not being principled, just politically expedient:

    The time is not right, the lawyers and activists say,

    After the election? Sure, the time will be just fine then.

  3. Nick says

    June 16, 2008 at 3:20 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.

    What is the chance that all of the newly wed activists will take the docile route until the election is over?

    I’d say that it’d be pretty high. They’d join the straight couples in being boring.

  4. Average Gay Joe says

    June 16, 2008 at 3:28 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.

  5. BrianP says

    June 16, 2008 at 4:58 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.

  6. Peter Hughes says

    June 16, 2008 at 5:06 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.

  7. American Elephant says

    June 16, 2008 at 5:08 pm - June 16, 2008

    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

    When did government subsidy become part of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

  8. American Elephant says

    June 16, 2008 at 5:18 pm - June 16, 2008

    since they do not have the requisite sex organs in full working order

    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)

  9. AirborneVet says

    June 16, 2008 at 5:20 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.

  10. American Elephant says

    June 16, 2008 at 5:48 pm - June 16, 2008

    Anyone who wants to “join in union” outside of the church, should be allowed to do so. This goes for straight, gay, whatever.

    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.

  11. ThatGayConservative says

    June 17, 2008 at 12:59 am - June 17, 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.

  12. Shaz says

    June 17, 2008 at 1:07 am - June 17, 2008

    How about a brother and a sister (both adults)? How about a group of people?

    This is a “slippery slope” logical fallacy. They are seperate issues that should be debated on their own merits, if they have any.

  13. Vince P says

    June 17, 2008 at 1:26 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?

  14. American Elephant says

    June 17, 2008 at 2:14 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.

  15. V the K says

    June 17, 2008 at 6:45 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.

  16. Julie the Jarhead says

    June 17, 2008 at 9:53 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!

  17. American Elephant says

    June 17, 2008 at 11:45 am - June 17, 2008

    OK, follow up for us Julie.

  18. Julie the Jarhead says

    June 17, 2008 at 12:45 pm - June 17, 2008

    No prob, AE! Will do.

  19. darkeyedresolve says

    June 17, 2008 at 1:25 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.

  20. Peter Hughes says

    June 17, 2008 at 3:47 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.

  21. American Elephant says

    June 17, 2008 at 8:53 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!

  22. Salton says

    June 18, 2008 at 5:37 pm - June 18, 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.

  23. Vince P says

    June 18, 2008 at 7:58 pm - June 18, 2008

    Salton: Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.

    Period.

  24. American Elephant says

    June 18, 2008 at 10:22 pm - June 18, 2008

    As for “groups”; marriage is still defined as TWO people.

    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.

    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.

    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.

  25. American Elephant says

    June 18, 2008 at 10:23 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.”

  26. Peter Hughes says

    June 19, 2008 at 11:07 am - June 19, 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.

Categories

Archives