Reader MV passed along Sarah Palin’s Facebook post which, in a normal world, would generate a bit of buzz among those concerned about the improving state of affairs for gay and lesbian Americans. The accomplished former Governor of Alaska writes that her daughter:
Bristol makes such an important point in this post! Being in favor of the traditional definition of marriage doesn’t mean a person hates gay people or is expected to shy away from candidly answering what their opinion is on something like marriage. Since when has our nation been anything but an exceptional nation that prides itself on the right of expressing personal opinion under the First Amendment and continuing to build our culture on a melting pot of diversity. Need we remind people that leaders like Barack Obama and Joe Biden held the exact same position as Bristol does in favor of traditional marriage just a few short months ago, yet were never called “haters” of anyone.
In the post Palin cited, her daughter addressed the question whether she would “mind dancing with a gay dance partner“:
Frankly, I found the question silly. Of course, I’d most like to dance with Mark again, but that’s up to the producers! If I can’t dance with Mark, I’d love to dance with a gay partner, a straight partner, or anything in between.
I’m not looking for romance at Dancing With The Stars, but I do want to do as well as I can, make as many friends as I can, and maybe – just maybe – walk away with the mirror ball trophy.
But the media can’t seem to figure this out. In their simplistic minds, the fact that I’m a Christian, that I believe in God’s plan for marriage, means that I must hate gays and must hate to even be in their presence. Well, they were right about one thing: there was hate in that media room, but the hate was theirs, not mine.
Read the whole thing. Bristol Palin gets at a simple truth that we all need understand if we want to have a civil conversation on gay marriage: those who oppose gay marriage don’t hate gay people; they just believe that the institution is marriage is defined by the monogamous union of individuals of different sexes.
Not to play the role of unsolicited grammarian too heavily, but you may wish to rework that phrase.
Im prety gud at figring out whut ppl on the internets r tryng 2 say, but even i m flummoxed at tims…
Had this conversation with a co-worker yesterday when she kept insisting that Chick-Fil-A “hates gay people”.
I asked her to demonstrate where ANY Chick-Fil-A executive has stated that they “hate gay people”.
She finally relented.
To claim people who support traditional marriage “hate gay people” makes a much sense as saying people who support pro-choice hate babies …even tho I’m pro-life 😉
I also described for her my experiences within the conservative community and how I’ve found it to be far and away more tolerant than the “it gets better” bullying assholes on the gay left.
Have yet to have conservatives treat me with as much disrespect as I routinely get from progressives.
Question: If marriage is a basic human right, how do you justify banning polygamy?
Thanks, RSG, for catching that. Since fixed.
Do welcome such unsolicited help, particularly when I write a post in haste while visiting friends!
13:59? Anyone else?
Okay, fine. Opposing gay marriage doesn’t (necessarily) mean you hate gay people. Regardless, there are dozens of things that opposing gay marriage does say about you, and none of them are complimentary. Shall we go with ignorant? Shall we go with insecure? Shall we go with fundamentally un-American? All of these things are true of people who oppose gay marriage, and despite your protests, hatred remains a significant motivator.
You know, I think we’re going about this the wrong way entirely.
Think about it: Marriage is, indeed, a religious pact.
So, let’s define it as such and remove it from all the laws as any special rights-endowed group. If we recognize civil marriage as being partnerships, then we can go for the separation of church and state clause and be legally joined.
My main beef with the whole thing is that we get no tax or other benefits from the government because we are just partners, 28 years notwithstanding.
Certainly you shall.
And then you’ll wet your pants when it’s pointed out that, by your own rules, you and your Obama Party are ignorant, insecure, and fundamentally un-American.
Not to mention that you’re so insecure and ignorant that you have to take the fundamentally un-American step of using government to punish freedom of speech.
Try again, pansy boy. You and your fellow piss-pants like Richard Rush talk real big and all, but you seem to be absolutely terrified of walking up to your Obama Party base like Farrakhan and calling them names, or staging your “kiss-in” and protests in this restaurant, or calling out your Obama Party for supporting and endorsing such behavior. Indeed, your only response is to use governmental power to openly discriminate against religious belief and speech that you don’t like.
You’re a fascist totalitarian bigot, Levi. Moreover, you’re like your socialist forbears — a lying hypocritical coward.
#3 V the K, great point that I make all the time. I’m gay and I like the idea of being able to legally marry my partner, but if gay marriage is legalized because to NOT do so is discrimination, then how do we justify discrimination against bisexuals who’d need a minimum of 4 people in a marriage to satisfy everyones God-given sexual desires, or how do we justify banning incestuous marriages if the 2 parties are consenting adults who really love each other? This is all about marrying the person you love, right? If we change the definition of traditional marriage, where does the slippery slope end? I’d love for someone to give me a reasonable, intelligent answer to that so I can be more comfortable with the idea of legalizing gay marriage. I really really would. Haven’t heard or read one yet.
All socialists are lying, hypocritical, cowardly piss-pants. Good stuff.
Bristol Palin is a c*nt. And, yes, she is a homophobe. It doesn’t matter what she says or does, she is, and will always be, a homophobe.
If you vote for Obama, it says about you that you are ignorant, insecure, and fundamentally un-American. Just because I say so.
Also, isn’t it a bit hypocritical for a leftist to accuse someone of being un-American? The left has been trampling on the U.S. Constitution for almost a century (if not longer).
Changing the language of marriage laws so that the genders involved don’t matter is easily done. The rest of the marriage laws that concern age and the number of people and how they’re related would all remain intact. They wouldn’t be dispelled over night, and no precedent for their repeal would be established.
Your fears are baseless, and this argument was crafted by gay marriage opponents because it associates gay people with pedophiles and allows peoples’ imaginations to run wild. There’s absolutely no risk of any of that happening. Laws don’t work that way. When women were given the right to vote, were kids given the right to vote? When black people in this country began being counted as five fifths of a person, did white people begin counting as seven fifths? Interracial marriage is a historical example that we could use to test your hypothesis. When interracial marriage became law of the land, did siblings start marrying each other? Did bisexuals earn the right to… 4-way marry….?
You know, just because someone proposes a change to something, doesn’t mean the entire system of government needs be thrown out or reorganized. Your sideshow of horrors would be prevented by a number of government mechanisms, and the culture would prevent any legitimization or justification of incest and pedophilia… just as it has for centuries. Really now, how do you think this slippery slope scenarios is supposed to play out? I mean specifically – gay marriage is legalized and all of a sudden everyone starts looking at pedophiles with a bit more compassion? Do you think that a teenager is going to see a married gay couple and have sex with his sister at the next opportunity? I promise you, the wording of the law will be a little more sophisticated than, “EVERYONE CAN MARRY ANYTHING OR WHATEVER AS LONG AS LOVE!!!”
The reasonable, intelligent answer to your question, I’m afraid, is that you’ve bought into a completely fallacious bit of transparent propaganda designed to put the words ‘gay,’ ‘marriage’, ‘incest,’ ‘pedophilia,’ ‘polygamy,’ and ‘ beastiality’ into the same sentence, as much as possible, for lack of a better argument, and because it scares people. You should just discard it and try to forget that something so unreasonable ever held sway over you.
Ah, you see, Levi, you’re not talking law; you’re talking court cases where you’re screaming “EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO MARRY ANYTHING OR WHATEVER AS LONG AS LOVE!!!”
So just admit that you DON’T have the “right” to marry whatever you “love” and we’ll have some progress.
Now how about taking up that challenge? Pansy boy too afraid to hold a “kiss-in” in his Obama-endorsed Nation of Islam restaurant?
Sorry, it doesn’t work when you’re talking about a politician. I disagree with Obama about most things and I’d say he displays those qualities frequently, but you certainly couldn’t pin me down well enough to start making these kinds of judgment calls. You can’t even do that about most singular political issues – but you sure as hell can when it comes to gay marriage!
The opposition to gay marriage in this country is rooted in the religious conservatives who are too stupid to understand that mixing religion and state matters is a bad idea. This country (America) was founded on this principle, and thus far we’ve had a pretty good run maintaining that separation. Therefore, when someone starts prattering endlessly about traditional marriage and what it means to them and what it means to their religion and that this is so important to them that it must be ensconced in the laws that govern all of us, they are being un-American. You’re also being un-conservative, too, if you pay any attention to what conservatives say about living and letting live, about government interference in peoples’ private lives…
Some post, by the way. I mean what a contribution.
The opposition to gay marriage in this country is rooted in the religious conservatives who are too stupid to understand that mixing religion and state matters is a bad idea. This country (America) was founded on this principle, and thus far we’ve had a pretty good run maintaining that separation.
Actually, Levi, the only people who are screaming that the state needs to discriminate on the basis of religion are you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters.
So pansy boy, looks like you’re the one being “un-American” here. But that’s typical; lying pansy boys like you always project onto others their problems.
Now how about answering that challenge, pansy boy? Not man enough to walk up to Louis Farrakhan or hold a “kiss-in” in his restaurant, pansy?
It doesn’t. And, to treat everyone equally, it shouldn’t. But then it’s not really marriage, and not something that the marriage-equality whiners should be advocating for. That’s where the victimization mentality as it relates to social policy kicks in. Despite the fact that most same-gender oriented people don’t fit neatly into the boxes that heterosexual society has traditionally–and, I would argue, no longer does either–the same-gender marriage steamroller presses ahead with a desire for something that doesn’t even meet the needs of the people it was most designed for, much less themselves.
And you likely won’t. It doesn’t fit into the narrative—not for people like Evan Wolfson, or the left’s favorite house-conservative, Andrew Sullivan. And the narrative is what is important, not actual facts. It’s the same reason you won’t hear the words “kind”, “benevolent”, or “charitable” said about Mitt Romney from the left (or any ‘rich’ person for that matter).
Know what, Cinesnatch?
You’re an Obama supporter, which means you endorse and support calling Mitt Romney a felon, a criminal, and a murderer.
And both you and your pansy boy Levi seem to have all sorts of excuses for why you won’t hold a “kiss-in” in Louis Farrakhan’s restaurant.
That translates to two things:
1) You have no sense of or respect for decency
2) The only thing that will make you curb your behavior is the threat of having the sh*t beaten out of you.
So the lesson you’re making clear to the rest of America is this; either they sit still and let you and your pansy boy Levi sh*t all over them, ban their businesses, have their property vandalized, and namecall and harass them……or they have to deal with you like the Nation of Islam does.
ND30’s posts have something in common with Dan Savage.
“It gets better.”
Says you. You made an assertion, which some people will disagree with and represented it as objective truth. That’s exactly what I did, although I was being facetious.
Then why is the government involved in marriage at all? As far I can tell, the institution of marriage started to disintegrate as soon as the government got involved.
God, you are boring. How exactly did I present my assertion as ‘objective truth’ and not as an opinion? Do you care to play silly games where you follow me around asking me if what I say is my opinion or the objective truth? God, you are boring.
It is what it is – the bottom line is that all these small government conservatives are stumbling all over themselves to have the government interfere in strangers’ lives in an extremely intrusive way.
The institution of marriage began to ‘disintegrate’ when women started gaining equality in society. Marriage used to be a property arrangement that women were forced into and never allowed to leave. Women have earned the right to work, the right to divorce, the right to vote, etc. I’d rather have those things than the institution of marriage as it existed in the eighteenth century.
Awwww Did LEvi’s mommy let him near a computer again?
Simple fact is LEvi doesn’t want ‘the laws changed’ He wants them changed as he sees fit, without regard to due process or the will of the people. In Levi’s world, it doesn’t matter the consequences of actions, as long as he’s satisfied.
Levi just wants his mommy to pay his internet bill so he can downloard pictures and display his hatred and ignorance to as broad an audience as possible. He doesn’t care if it keeps his mom from buying new clothes or havinbg fun of her own. He just wants his basement room to have access to http://www.hotunder18boys.com.
Oh, and Disney XD.
He still can’t back up his lies that the founding fathers didn’t want an armed populace after all.
Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.
Show us one that isn’t.
It’ll be a challenge, because after all, the fundamental basis of socialism is *using the government, which ought to protect individuals’ rights, to violate their rights by stealing from them*. So it naturally attracts thieves and hypocrites; theft and hypocrisy being woven deeply into the thing’s fabric.
The socialists’ natural (or preferred) relationship to the prudent/honest/productive person is that of the “Buffalo Bill” villain to his victim at the bottom of the pit, in _Silence of the Lambs_. “It rubs the lotion on its skin, or it gets the hose again!”
P.S., Cinesnatch: you can show us that proverbial non-lying, non-hypocritical, non-cowardly socialist AFTER you yourself (1) get your apology posted *in* the Breitbart R.I.P. thread for your disgraceful indecency there, (2) stage the gay kiss-in *at the Nation of Islam’s* restaurant.
Levi, I believe that you just called me knowledgeable, secure, and fundamentally American. (Since I am a gay marriage supporter of 2 decades’ standing.) By your own standards, then, you should be listening to everything I say. Everything.
Yup.
And as for peckerhead’s assertion that this is just a minor little tweak to marriage law… let’s look at some progressive history.
50 yrs ago — Progressives said we needed just a little change in our divorce laws to make it easier for unhappy people to get out of marriage even where there wasn’t any abuse or infidelity. It will help a lot of people, they said. And it won’t hurt anyone.
40 yrs ago – Progressives said we needed just a little tweak to our welfare laws. Just to help out people in need, they said. Society will be better off, they said.
20 yrs ago – Progressives pushed through some changes in our mortgage laws; just to help people get homes, they said. It will be good for society if more people own homes they said.
Every time progressives went against custom, tradition, and common sense, the results have been a disaster. Not immediately, the problems take some years to manifest. But the result is invariable disastrous.
Levi,
You want the government out of your bedroom?
Then why do you go to the government to get into your bedroom?
You want the government to create gay marriage.
You want the government to keep the number at two in marriage.
You want the government to keep the rules concerning marriage age.
You want the government to keep the distance between kinship in marriage.
You say this @ #12:
Well, how about this?
So what do you stand on as your reasoned and obvious authority? Why, your fear and loathing of religions, naturally. To wit:
So, your circular argument is complete and I ask you again: Do you want the government out of your bedroom?
By the way, Levi, why is gay marriage more complete, more fulfilling, more whatever than a civil union? What percent of hetero couples are common law married?
And just for clarification, what marks a Christian as “conservative” and then what marks that Christian as too stupid to understand basic ideas?
Let me guess. Any Christian who opposes gay marriage is conservative and too stupid to understand basic ideas.
What are the markers for enlightenment? Let me guess. Enlightened people define the parameters of “social justice” which they use the government to enforce and they rely on common sense which is untainted by any religious ethic. That is to say, enlightened people are moral relativists who rely on their inner compass to solve the puzzles posed by situational ethics and, having solved, they move on to the next bump in their road. Sort of like this:
Your “wisdom of Soloman” approach to knotty problems in the public square is duly noted. The only question remaining is how does your Soloman get his job?
ND30 said:
My excuse for not holding a “kiss-in” at Louis Farrakhan’s restaurant is simple, Dan: It’s a chore staging a “kiss-in” in my bedroom, at this point, let alone a dining establishment thousands of miles away from me during a brutal part of the summer heat. That being said, if Levi invites me to join him on a trip to Chicago to make out by The Salaam, believe me, I will gladly take him up on it. I love Truth or Dare. Takes me back to high school.
Oh no worries, Snatchy; you can go protest food sellers for the Nation of Islam right at home.
In fact, didn’t you know that LA is the location of the headquarters for the Western Region of the Nation of Islam? Here’s the address.
In fact, I’ll up the ante. Why don’t you and your fellow gay-sex marriage supporters go picket them and stage kiss-ins out front like you did Mormon churches and Chick-Fil-A? In fact, why don’t you go vandalize their building like you and your fellow bigots did to Chick-Fil-A? After all, your fellow gay and lesbian bigots like Joe Jervis and Dan Savage will support you like they did the Chick-Fil-A vandal.
Come on. Why won’t you and your pansy boy Levi go pull the same type of stunts that you do on Christians and Mormons?
Call on me! Call on me! call on me!
Why don’t you ask Mitt Romney why he covers up his support of same-sex marriage.
Sorry, I interrupted. Helio had his hand up first. Derp.
Which means you and the gay and lesbian community have been lying all along about him, Cinesnatch.
And which also makes your and the gay and lesbian community’s frenzied claims that he wants to put all gays in death camps even more incomprehensible.
So now that that particular non-sequitor has been dealt with, back to the obvious. You bragged about how you and your fellow Obamabots would treat a Nation of Islam food seller and building exactly the way that you would a Chick-Fil-A, but that it was too far to travel.
Now you don’t have that excuse, and you’re spinning.
Makes it pretty obvious that Snatchy is a coward who only picks on people who won’t punch back, doesn’t it?
(Lowers hand.)
CS, Vincent after the election, maybe you and I can arrange a conference call with Louie F
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6CXMwuPbYM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Oh, I’m sorry. Considering all the time you’ve spent calling religious people “superstitious morons” or whatever (among other things), I just assumed you were so full of yourself that you believed whatever you said to be the objective, indisputable truth. You sure present much of what you say that way (including in this instance).
Levi, please inform us just what great sage of the human race came down from the mountaintop and declared that opponents of gay marriage MUST be ignorant, insecure, and unAmerican.
Oh good, it’s heliotrope back to defend one of the stupidest arguments ever presented!
I’m not inviting the government into my bedroom, I’m inviting the government to remove the Christians who are peeping into my windows. The invaders here are the Christians, not the government.
There are justifications for all these prohibitions. There’s not a single justification for preventing gays from marrying that isn’t couched in the parsing of religious scripture that is inherently invalid. Legalizing gay marriage doesn’t mean all other forms of marriage become legal, nor does it mean that any precedent is set that could result in other forms of marriage being legal. That’s not the way that laws work, and I can’t believe I have to keep explaining this to someone who can seemingly operate a computer.
You know, first cousins can marry in something like half the states in this country. Isn’t this more of a slippery slope to brother and sister marriage than gay marriage would be? And it’s already legal. Can you explain why sibling marriage remains illegal in all 50 states while first cousin marriage is fine in half of them? Why is gay marriage more of a slippery slope towards sibling marriage than cousin marriage?
I would also point out that enough time has gone by in the states that have legalized gay marriage, and the issue has been nationally debated for long enough, that we should expect to see some kind of change in these laws by now if your little theory holds true. You can’t just say that gay marriage will lead to sibling marriage and child marriage for years and years when real world data is coming in – Massachusetts has been marrying gay people for almost a decade, and I haven’t heard a thing about any of these other forms of marriage being legalized. The countries that recognize gay marriage haven’t had the problems you’ve described, either. It would seem to be that these real-world examples completely disprove your delusional, unfounded hypothesis, wouldn’t you agree?
Changing the number of spouses involved would require a complete reworking of inheritance law, property law, divorce law, child custody law, insurance law, power of attorney laws, the tax code, etc. The government, the economy, and culture in this country have developed around a two person marriage, and to change it at this point is simply not possible. No one is being discriminated against by this provision, and no one is being prevented from enjoying whatever kind of multiple partner lifestyles they wish to pursue – but we’re built to handle two person marriages and that’s it.
Changing the genders involved requires nothing of nobody. Maybe you’d have to reprint some forms, I guess?
More like my basic sense of fairness. There’s no reason why I should be able to marry my girlfriend and enjoy the financial and social benefits that marriage brings while my lesbian friend can’t. It’s not fair. I’m given an advantage and others are put at a disadvantage on the basis of gender, which isn’t fair. No one has presented anything that even resembles a justification. You try, of course, by rattling off a list of bizarre sexual taboos that everyone is already averse to and stating that all those things are inevitable if gays are allowed to marry, but that’s not a real argument. Anyone can say that X will inevitably lead to Y, that doesn’t mean it’s true.
Again – the government isn’t the problem. Nosy holy-rollers are the problem, and you people need to keep to yourselves.
I get that the writing is on the wall with this issue, but you’re really going to drag it out and try negotiating for words? Just let it go dude. What else in the marriage vocabulary do you need to reserve? Can two gay people be engaged to each other? Can two gay people go on a honeymoon together?
I’ll do you one better – how about the government stops recognizing marriage altogether and only recognizes civil unions? That works for me.
That’s more or less how I’d put it. Opposition to gay marriage is completely irrational and demonstrates how little someone knows about the history of freedom. Humanity isn’t at its best when its ostracizing and excluding people for trivialities, and if you live in this country and can’t recognize that the fundamental motivator against gay marriage are the same feelings of insecurity, mean-spiritedness, and ignorance that motivated slavery and Jim Crow laws, than you’re hopeless.
All anyone has is their inner compass, and I’ve known enough people to know that all of ours are mostly tuned the same way. I know you think you’d love to have some external, permanent, objective moral lawgiver, but sorry, that doesn’t exist, and if it did, his perfect moral code would not be represented by that rag you call a holy book. Morality is an evolved characteristics of primates, mammals, and many other creatures because it helps us survive and reproduce. This elaborate society we’ve created has spawned a few ethical dilemmas that we have to figure out on our own regardless of whether or not you’d prefer to have God just give you the answer. Gay marriage, however, is not an ethical dilemma because it’s so easy. The inner compass, the golden rule, do unto others. You wouldn’t want anyone telling you that you can’t marry the person you love, so why would you do it to them?
Nicely done, Heliotrope; you maneuvered the relativist into completely contradicting himself.
Because, Levi, you just went over a whole laundry list of examples for why people shouldn’t be allowed to marry the person they love. Remember?
And you previously tried to disavow the “everyone should be able to marry whatever they love” argument that you’re making now.
So basically, you’re a liar, Levi. Heliotrope has easily and blithely manipulated you into pointing out that your previous promises are nothing but lies. Probably because he is an educated, intelligent, and tolerant individual, and you are nothing more than a tantrum-throwing bigot.
And do you know what else, Levi? We have documented proof that you and your fellow liars are already screaming for and demanding plural marriage, claiming that laws against it are “unconstitutional”.
So not only do we have your documented duplicity here, we have direct proof that you are lying when you state that you are not going to push for plural marriage.
And last, but certainly not least: notice how Levi the pansy boy runs away from and cries over the challenge issued him to apply his hatred of religious belief equally.
Demonstrating once again that Levi is really nothing more than an anti-Christian bigot.
Oh, and one more thing, anti-Christian bigot Levi?
Turns out your attempts to use the law to harass and punish Christians for public expressions of their beliefs are First Amendment violations.
So you’re an un-American, unpatriotic bigot.
And any gay or lesbian person who would support you is the same — a fascist bigot who opposes the most fundamental rights American citizens have.
Once again, Levi is the one who brings the most intelligently thoughtful insight to the issues here at GP.
Please translate into English.
I believe this is what is commonly known as a solipsistic proto-neologism among the pseudo sophisticate advocates of self actualization and postulators of alternate reality. To the less “aware” it is called psychobabble.
Don’t worry, Richard Rush; everyone here knows that you’re a coward and hypocrite too.
And of course, Heliotrope, we already know that Richard Rush is himself a coward, hypocrite, and bigot too.
Until the government gets completely involved, and then it will be the invader.
Thank you for your truly progressive attitude. But the gay marriage pimps simply won’t hear of it.
“Opposition to gay marriage dos not mean hatred of gay people”.
Actually, yes it does. In America, this statement means that you believe there are a different class of people who aren’t deserving of the same rights and privileges you have that have been provided by law.
@45, so, then Kevin, opposition to plural marriage by SSM supporters like Levi and (presumably) you means you’re full of hatred of Muslims, fundamentalist Mormons, and anyone else who engages in the practice. It means you believe they’re “a different class of people who aren’t deserving of the same rights and privileges” as you. BIGOT!!!!!!!!! FASCIST!!!!!! NAZI!!!!!!!! “POLYPHOBE”!!!!!! ISLAMOPHOBE!!!!!!!!! “MORMONPHOBE”!!!!!!
Ah yes, the Christians.
No mention of the Nation of Islam or anything else.
Just the Christians.
Bigot.
REI is taking a position in support of marriage equality—an issue that is important to the co-op as an inclusive organization and a welcoming place to work and do business. A referendum on this issue will come before Washington State voters in November after passage through the Washington State Legislature earlier this year; marriage equality is also gaining momentum nationally. Why is this important to the co-op? Let me begin my answer with a personal perspective. A few weeks ago, my husband Warren and I celebrated our 34th wedding anniversary. We’ve been on a journey through life together since our first date on my 18th birthday, raising our two children, changing jobs, moving to various places, and witnessing the challenges and joys of our relationship and those of our parents, three of them through end-of-life.
For heterosexual couples, it is very easy to take for granted the legal and societal benefits of marriage—health care benefits, retirement benefits, insurance, death benefits, healthcare decisions, child-rearing and custody, and many more, not to mention the meaning of the commitment of marriage that was so vivid to us as we introduced each other as husband or wife for the first time. As executrix of my mother’s estate, the legal benefits of marriage in estate and health issues became even clearer to me over the past year. Marriage equality is important to the co-op because the benefits, legal clarity and societal understanding that Warren and I have enjoyed these past 34 years should be available to any two people who want to express their love and make a permanent commitment to each other that is so clearly provided for in the legal definition of marriage.
Why would this work better for you, Levi, than having “marriage” for heterosexuals and “civil unions with exactly the same 1,001 rights as marriage” for homosexuals?
Yes, that’s “Separate But Equal” — and so f*cking what?
It’s like pulling teeth getting a “Marriage Equality” sloganist to articulate exactly WHY a Separate But Equal solution would be unfeasible in the context of legal recognition for same-sex couples.
And, yes, I’m well aware that “Colored Only” drinking fountains and schools were often objectively inferior to “White Only” drinking fountains and schools.
But racial segregation involved the “sharing” — or, rather, the unequal division — of tangible materiel (like drinking fountains), real estate (like schools), and zero-sum fiscal resources (like education budgets).
The “zero sum” problem is absolutely inapplicable to the Marriage Vs. Civil Unions question, because such spousal rights as “presumption of inheritance in the absence of a will” are NOT FINITE TANGIBLES — you can’t run out of them. So Civil Unions are “second-class treatment” only to the extent that a particular C.U. law is inadequately written. But a well-constructed C.U. law can be fully Equal (albeit Separate).
One other thing: The “equal sign” that HRC uses as its logo originally derived from the image of parallel lines. Not converging lines — parallel lines, which by definition are fully separate from each other and never meet.
The inventor of the “equal sign” is not anonymous — Welsh mathematician Robert Recorde devised this shorthand symbol and specifically explained:
Because it’s stupid. Should the government indulge a bunch of petulant children who think that a certain word belongs to them? There’s no reason to call it something other than marriage otherwise.
And how would that work, anyway? Would gay people be allowed to say things like, “I’m getting married,” “I got married,” “I married my husband last year?” Do you think people would stop calling it marriage? Also, what other words would you like to put in a claim for? Could gays divorce or would you need something special? Could the gays call it a wedding? Would husband and wife be off-limits, only for straight people? What a stupid, stupid, childish thing.
Let’s see, Levi is screaming and crying and pissing himself that the government needs to regulate words.
So you’re the stupid, childish one here, Levi brat.
Also, why do you keep running away, coward? Don’t you and your fellow disgusting pigs have the balls to go protest at the Nation of Islam? How about picketing a black church in the District?
You’re nothing more than a racist, anti-Christian bigot, Levi.