No mass Gay Weddings, Please
As California begins to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples this week, let us hope that ceremonies more resemble that of the first performed in San Francisco this year, that of Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, a lesbian together well over half a century than the “wacky circus” atmosphere outside San Francisco City Hall as these two women celebrated their nuptials.
If advocates of gay marriage want to convince the American people they’re serious about extending the benefits of this ancient institution to same-sex couples, they’d do well to focus on couples like Martin and Lyon who understand the meaning of the institution instead of those who would use the recent California Supreme Court ruling as an excuse for a street festival or publicity stunt. I can’t seem to turn on a news channel or view my e-mail in-box without hearing about some public celebration of gay marriage.
With all eyes turned toward the Golden State as the ruling takes effect, it would behoove gay marriage advocates to show they understand the meaning of the institution. It’s too late to prevent the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center or the City of West Hollywood from making a mockery of the institution by their staged ceremonies for the press. At least it seems they’ve resisted the temptation to do marriages “en masse” as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had planned.
Indeed, I was delighted to hear that gay groups had actually discouraged such mass celebrations. That would make marriage seem more of a media stunt and less an acknowledgment of the life-long commitment that two individuals (heretofore of different genders) celebrate in the presence of their friends and family.
Marriage is not a media stunt.
To be sure, it is newsworthy that the Golden State now grants marriage license to same-sex couples. Given the national conversation on marriage — as well as the initiative slated for this fall’s ballot — gay marriage advocates should focus on images to which the average Californian can relate. San Francisco and West Hollywood street celebrations won’t help much outside these locales themselves. Indeed, they would likely make it more difficult to promote gay marriage.
But, an image of two women who have demonstrated over a period of fifty-six years what the commitment of marriage entails may help convince the American people that gay marriage is more than just an excuse to grant government benefits to two people who shack up. That’s why I’m heartened that Newsom ushered in the era of gay marriage in his city not with a mass wedding, but instead with a simple ceremony bringing together a couple whose lifelong relationship seems to have defined gay marriage.
It seems that, after four years, he finally gets it.
28 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I would put it this way….the fact that gay groups are openly admitting that they’re having to engage in propaganda tactics to make gay marriage look good for the camera is an indicator of a) how clueless they are and b) how screwed up most of the gays getting married are.
And honestly, the primary tactic of the amendment supporters is based precisely on that; say nothing, stand back, and let moron gay leftists hang themselves.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 17, 2008 @ 2:53 pm - June 17, 2008
Funny too how Newsome is so pro-marriage when his own went on the rocks. FYI - he used to be married to Kimberly Guilfoyle who is now a commentator/attorney advocate on Fox News. From what was reported, they went through a nasty divorce.
Now, even though I’m gay, I can honestly say that Kimberly is a gorgeous woman. Why Newsome decided to split from her is beyond me.
And for what it’s worth, Newsome doesn’t put any wiggle in my walk.
Just my $0.02 girls.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 17, 2008 @ 3:42 pm - June 17, 2008
All this telling gays what to do, what not to do really does reek of propaganda. Dont file any more lawsuits til AFTER the election! Dont have mass gay weddings… let them do what they want. If they value the institution it will show. But I think voters should be able to make their decision whether or not to support gay marriage based on the truth, not based on the dishonest face gays are presenting.
I wonder how many Californians would approve of gay marriage if they knew that gay activists have already and undoubtedly will continue to sue Religious organizations to force them to recognize their marriages. They have done this and won in the past.
Its for this reason that I have finally decided I am opposed to gay marriage. Religious freedom and the freedom of association (or not to associate) actually are protected by the constitution. The “right” to force other Americans to approve of your relationships is not.
Comment by American Elephant — June 17, 2008 @ 8:39 pm - June 17, 2008
That is one of the bigger problems I have with this legislation. In the name of diversity, equality and now a court decision - we have a new class of unprotected citizens - religious ones. And since they are bigots, they don’t deserve the right of free association that others do.
On the other hand, I hope the big hoopla dies down soon, and those couples who have really thought things through will go ahead and get married - like the rest of us do - among our friends and family - not out on the street in front of TV cameras.
Meanwhile, the pro traditional marriage crowd is out there drumming up votes. And all that TV footage will only help them.
Comment by Leah — June 17, 2008 @ 8:53 pm - June 17, 2008
I vaguely remember a story from Massachusetts about gays shutting down the Catholic adoption services because Catholics wouldnt adopt out to gay couples. The gay activists won, and if I remember correctly, the church is no longer running adoption services at all any more.
You cant even say you think homosexuality is a sin in Canada without being arrested for a hate crime. And that’s where I am convinced gay activists will take this in the states (they already are taking it there).
No, I’ve thought about this long and hard and I’m very serious. It is a choice betwen gay marriage and religious freedom. If gay marriages are recognized, gay activists will not allow both.
Comment by American Elephant — June 17, 2008 @ 9:01 pm - June 17, 2008
Bobbing on a mic probably didn’t help.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 18, 2008 @ 12:47 am - June 18, 2008
#2: “FYI - he used to be married to Kimberly Guilfoyle who is now a commentator/attorney advocate on Fox News. From what was reported, they went through a nasty divorce. Now, even though I’m gay, I can honestly say that Kimberly is a gorgeous woman. Why Newsome decided to split from her is beyond me.”
She divorced him because she finally figured out that he was in love with another man. Himself.
Comment by Sean A — June 18, 2008 @ 1:36 am - June 18, 2008
…that and she was humiliated by the way he flaunted his torrid affairs with Jim Beam, Jack Daniels, Johnny Walker Black and that tacky sailor he picked up down at the Wharf, Captain Morgan.
Comment by Sean A — June 18, 2008 @ 1:40 am - June 18, 2008
Sean: That’s pretty interesting.
And I agree with you about Kimberly.. I’m gay but that is one hot woman.. And she is intelligent.
Isn’t Neusome married to a new woman now?
Comment by Vince P — June 18, 2008 @ 7:41 am - June 18, 2008
When I read this I couldn’t figure out if it was Spanish with a small misspelling or a request for gays to eschew communion at their weddings.
Comment by heliotrope — June 18, 2008 @ 8:36 am - June 18, 2008
Went off without a hitch…
(sorry, it was there, so I took it).
Comment by sonicfrog — June 18, 2008 @ 11:59 am - June 18, 2008
#7-8: Sean, LMAO.
#9 - Vince, I think he’s still engaged to Jennifer Siebel. It’s not the same one he was whoring around with; that was his top aide’s wife, Ruby Rippey-Tourk.
Interestingly, Gavin’s professsed religion is Roman Catholic. Go figure.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 18, 2008 @ 1:29 pm - June 18, 2008
No doubt you appreciate the irony that this is the only one of the groups who actually have Constitutional protection.
At the risk of offending readers, I was on the fence about gay marriage until I was dragged to see Brokeback Mountain. That movie was the best argument against gay marriage I have yet seen, except perhaps for the reactions to it.
Comment by rightwingprof — June 18, 2008 @ 3:36 pm - June 18, 2008
#13 - No offense taken here, RWP. At least on my behalf.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 18, 2008 @ 3:38 pm - June 18, 2008
Marriage is not a media stunt.
Hmm, tell that to the many celebrity heterosexuals for whom itis precisely that.
Comment by Salton — June 18, 2008 @ 5:28 pm - June 18, 2008
How ’bout that 7 of 9 chick from Star Trek Voyeur? Or how about Kim Komando?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 18, 2008 @ 6:58 pm - June 18, 2008
Gay marriage is all about forcing us (straight Christians) to accept homosexuality as normal, or to just piss on our traditions. Period. The behavior of those who marry, who then run to other states to file for benefits/divorces just proves it. If marriage is about the private life of two people, then why the hell is it so “in your face”?
Comment by Smarty — June 18, 2008 @ 8:17 pm - June 18, 2008
[...] in a completely different post, he advocates the same platform on gay marriage that liberals do. So we can’t call everyone [...]
Pingback by » The Death of a Political Culture Extremism in Defense of Liberty — June 18, 2008 @ 8:29 pm - June 18, 2008
I’m afraid youre right, Smarty. The agenda is forcing society (not just Christians) to approve of homosexuality. And once gay marriage becomes law, if you still dare to disapprove of homosexuality, they will use gay marriage as weapon against you — as successful lawsuits in NJ, MA and Canada against religious organizations and individuals have shown.
Comment by American Elephant — June 18, 2008 @ 9:00 pm - June 18, 2008
smarty: I’m with you.
I think the activists at the heart of these court cases are motivated from the leftist impulse to attack the country and its foundations.. as leftists do on all fronts.
Comment by Vince P — June 18, 2008 @ 10:21 pm - June 18, 2008
Well, it seems that the circus has already began… Looks like Judy Tenuda is being licensed to wed
Comedienne Judy Tenuta Licensed to Marry Gay Fans
From the article:
This is a sure fire way to show everyone else how serious we take marriage… Oy vey
Comment by Colocelt — June 19, 2008 @ 1:12 pm - June 19, 2008
#21 - Judy Tenuta? Is she still around? I remember hearing her in the 1980s and even then I wasn’t impressed.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 19, 2008 @ 3:21 pm - June 19, 2008
Judy who?
And speaking of comediennes, would somebody please explain to me why Kathy Griffin exists?
Comment by rightwingprof — June 19, 2008 @ 3:43 pm - June 19, 2008
Judy Tenuda… petite flower, giver goddess… she was actually funny once upon a time.
Comment by American Elephant — June 19, 2008 @ 8:46 pm - June 19, 2008
#23 - Kathy Griffin is what you get when you have virtually no talent but a knack of getting in front of the camera. Sort of like Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX).
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — June 20, 2008 @ 11:17 am - June 20, 2008
[...] as San Francisco Mayor Newsom did last week, he begins with the wedding of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. He contends that [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Gay Marriage for Grownups — June 23, 2008 @ 2:18 pm - June 23, 2008
[...] hat tip: GayPatriotWest [...]
Pingback by GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE » Mass weddings show mass confusion — June 27, 2008 @ 2:21 am - June 27, 2008
Is Newsom the combination of “nuisance” and “gruesome”?
Bruce
Comment by Bruce — July 24, 2008 @ 4:31 pm - July 24, 2008