Standing up for Marriage Equality

Monday, August 2, 2010

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Everyday we hear cries from our opponents that they just want marriage equality. Well, marriage equality is something we can all stand up for. It doesn't matter if you are gay, straight, black or white. Marriage is an equal right and let me tell you why.

The strategy our opponents take in this debate is to paint those of us who support marriage between a man and a woman as bigots, as haters, and those who support a policy of discrimination. This is not the case.

Of course there are extremists on our side as there are extremists on our opponents side. People who advocate for the killing of homosexuals or any hatred of anyone is an extremist and I don't stand with them and in this case I will speak for NOM when I say that they don't stand with them, either.

I believe both sides of this issue can and must stand against hate speech whether it comes from our side or their side. The problem with that is, our opponents often consider every word we utter to be hate speech. That's hyperbolic at best but has been a somewhat effective strategy within their circle of supporters. There's a lot of preaching to the choir going on over there.

A two-inch hole in the wheel
was punctured while in New Jersey
Unfortunately, our opponents have not had the courage to stand up and repudiate the kind of hatred we witnessed this summer in New Jersey, when one of their supporters punctured a tire on the NOM RV or in Albany when they intimidated a mother and her three small children or in Providence when they actually stormed the podium.

Angry homosexual activists
stormed the podium and screamed
in the face of our speakers.
The face of tolerance. 
Anyway, I would like to get back to the issue of marriage equality, which I support. The problem is our opponents have taken on a twisted and tainted idea of what marriage equality is.

Let me demonstrate what marriage equality exactly is all about.

Marriage equality means that everyone is subject to the same marriage laws as everyone else. Contrary to what our opponents believe, this is exactly the case in this country. There are four basic rules everyone must follow in order to get married.

The first rule, and there's really no specific order, but for the sake of listing them, rule number one says that you can't marry someone under the age of 18 without parental consent. So this basically means marry an adult.

Rule two says that you can only marry someone who is not already married. So this basically means no polygamy. Fair enough, right? I think so far everyone is in agreement. Do not marry children and do not marry people who are already married.

Moving onto rule number three. Again, we will have basically universal agreement here. Do not marry someone in your immediate family. So, in other words, no incestual marriages.

These three rules exist for the sake of society and the health of the family. Rule number four, which says that you must marry someone of the opposite sex also exists for the very same reasons!

Anyone who follows these basic rules can get married and that is the kind of marriage equality that I believe in. It is equal application of the law regardless of race, color, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Everyone has to follow the same rules, pay the same application fees, wait the same waiting periods and then get married.  That is marriage equality!

An application for a marriage license from Hawaii.
So now I would like to examine an application to marry from the State of Hawaii.

I am using Hawaii here simply because it is the first one I came across and I'm certain it is basically identical to the application for a marriage license you come across in other states.

So if you look at the application, you will see a place on the form that determines the eligibility of the couple to marry with respect to the rules I laid out above. The couple must demonstrate they are adults, that they have different parents, that they are single (may need to show proof of the dissolution of previous marriage) and that there is one man and one woman.

These are the factors at play for the issuance of a marriage license!  What that means is that anyone who mets these basic eligibity requirements can get the marriage license. Notice, you don't see any questions on the application about sexual orientation. You don't see any questions on the form that could in anyway provide the clerk with the information about he or she would need to discriminate against gays or lesbians.

How can you discriminate against someone because they are gay or lesbian when you don't know because you never asked and they never had to inform you of which way they swing?

Former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey
Don't think it can happen? Here's a picture of a gay man who was able to follow the rules and who did marry in accordance with the laws that are equally applied to everyone.

His name is Jim McGreevey, the former governor of New Jersey and he is a homosexual.

His sexual infidelity eventually led to divorce as sexual infidelity leads to many divorces across the Nation but the fact remains that this homosexual man was permitted to marry because he followed the same laws everyone else follows every day.

Marriage equality.

This is where the deception of our opponents becomes clear. They use bumper-sticker slogans to paint a picture that people like myself and organizations like the National Organization for Marriage want to stop gays and lesbians from marrying altogether!

Yes, effective propaganda tool but completely untrue and outright deceptive. People like myself who believe in marriage between a man and a woman do not hold grudges against gays or lesbians personally. Contrary to their beliefs, it isn't all about them afterall. It's about the meaning and of marriage and the purpose of marriage.

The problem is our opponents are mixing up their personal purposes for getting married with the actual purpose of marriage. Their purposes for getting married are about commitment to their partner, about love for their partner, etc. Noble.

Unfortunately, commitment and love are not the purposes of marriage itself. Sure, people get married because they love each other but it's not the purpose of marriage The purpose of marriage is about bringing the two sexes together to create a family and bring about the next generation.

People misuse things all the time. Take knives for example. The purpose of a knife is to cut food, not to kill people. Yet, people use knives all the time to stab people. The purpose of a knife and a person's purpose for using the knife are often completely separate.

Take a look at the slogan used by those who support the second amendment: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." The reasons people use guns do not always match up to the reasons guns exist.

This is something two people of the same sex are incapable of doing no matter how you look at it. So I'd like to emphasize that the effort to protect marriage between a man and a woman is not about hatred of gays or lesbians, it's not about discrimination or trying to stop gays and lesbians from marrying altogether. It's about preserving the meaning of marriage as the central core bedrock of our society.

It is our opponents who are working to change things, to redefine things. As one of our opponents recently said in Madison "We are redefining marriage"... my question is this: If you are redefining marriage, then that must mean that you are taking something old and creating something new.

Then that means the goal is not just removing discriminatory practices from marriage as our opponents would have you believe.

Let us thank the millions in this country who have their moral compasses properly calibrated who are standing up against this radical redefinition of our cultural (and religious) beliefs and liberties.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Louis wrote: Unfortunately, our opponents have not had the courage to stand up and repudiate the kind of hatred we witnessed this summer in New Jersey, when one of their supporters punctured a tire on the NOM RV or in Albany when they intimidated a mother and her three small children or in Providence when they actually stormed the podium.

Point the first: You and your NOM friends have no evidence that anyone punctured that tire; I have had a side blowout for no apparent reason. No, you have suppositions and hyperbole. Nothing more, nothing less.

Point the second: MANY of us have said we disagreed with the behavior of the folks in Providence -- which you tried to use against GLBT people and their allies. Of course, you deleted my comments to that effect during the two times you banned me.

Point the third: what intimidation of a mother and three small children? Do you mean the woman who was breast-feeding, in public, with her back to your speaker?

Good grief, Louis.

Your remarks about marriage equality are disingenuous -- and you know that. "Every gay man has the right to marry a woman" and "Every lesbian has the right to marry a man" is NOT marriage equality. You are saying that gay men and lesbians do not have the right to marry the person they love.

My husband and I are "traditionally married" and both of us support our GLBT friends' rights to marry the person they love. We are not harmed/affected/impacted in the slightest.

As for your traditions argument, in another thread I pointed out (with evidence) that "traditional marriage" in Western civilization has changed significantly over time.

BTW, I don't care about your religious beliefs; you are welcome to hold them. However, when your religious beliefs step on MY religious beliefs, we have a problem. Your church flexing its political and financial muscle to insert its values into law is a violation of the First Amendment for a variety of reasons -- not the least of which is that it prevents my church from being able to practice its own doctrine. Why? Because my church was performing legally binding weddings of same-sex couples.

I am kind of amused that you argued in a previous thread that a legal marriage license does not mean someone is married -- and then you pick one from a state where same-sex marriage is not legal to make your "point." Why didn't you pick a marriage license form from Massachusetts? Or Iowa?

Oh, wait ... those forms prove that same-sex couples can and do get married. My bad.

Bless your heart, Louis.

Fiona64

Anonymous said...

PS to Louis:

You wrote: Unfortunately, commitment and love are not the purposes of marriage itself. Sure, people get married because they love each other but it's not the purpose of marriage The purpose of marriage is about bringing the two sexes together to create a family and bring about the next generation.

Well, Louis, this begs the question: Why are you not out campaigning to prevent the infertile, post-fertile and childfree from marrying? My husband and I chose not to have children; should our marriage be judicially annulled, as you and your friends from NOM want to do to my GLBT friends? Please don't say "Well, you could change your minds," because I've had a surgical sterilization.

So, inquiring minds want to know: are you going after those who can't (or don't wish to) procreate?

Bless your heart, Louis.

Fiona64

zortnac said...

"Marriage equality means that everyone is subject to the same marriage laws as everyone else."

This is the reasoning that defended anti-miscegenation laws, and the same reasoning that could defend literacy tests.

Equality doesn't exist because an unjust law is applied to everyone, and when such a law very clearly benefits one class of people while disadvantaging others that could not be more clear.

Bob Barnes said...

Louis, please provide proof of how your tire got punctured. You keep claiming that "an opponent" did this, please tell us how you know? If you cannot provide any proof then we are left to suspect that your logic is of the careless, "blame who you want to" kind.

Teddy said...

All you did was lay out the technicalities of being eligible for marriage. You completely ignored why GLBTQ people, along with straight people of all walks of life, want to marry: LOVE. The reason former governor McGreevy's marriage failed is because he didn't love his wife the way that a married man should. And through no fault of his own, may I add; he's gay. You can go on and on about your prerequisites for marriage, but if you ignore why this is such a big issue to us, namely being denied protections because we love people of the same gender as opposed to the opposite, you do the institution of marriage a disservice.

As for the purpose of marriage, I'm just going to be blunt and say quite simply that you're wrong. Yes, I want to raise children when I marry the man I love, but marriage goes beyond simple procreation. Trust me, people procreate without being married all the time. If that was the reason behind marriages and their purpose, unwed people wouldn't have children. And even when I do have children, I will raise them the same as any straight couple would. It doesn't matter that my child or children will have two fathers because we will teach them to the best of our abilities how to be good people and good citizens.

I looked at the Iowa marriage certificate application. There is no gendered language, so your "universal" rules are obviously not universal.

Also, stop talking about your tires, Albany, and Providence. Your points in those cases are completely moot. No one knows who slashed your tires (could've been self-inflicted, come to think of it). The woman in Albany was going to breastfeed in public, meaning she would have had no more privacy had the people not been silently standing there. As for Providence, the stage wasn't guarded, most people would hardly call that storming the stage. If you want us to show the tolerance you think you deserve (which is really silence from us), stop attacking the validity of our families and marriages. The conservative agenda seeks to suppress the logic we are trying to say, and after hearing these attacks on us for years we get angry. It's human nature.

And one last point: the way you speak when you talk of being Catholic makes it sound like all Catholics are anti-gay. They're not, and my family (and many in my hometown) are proof of that. The Catholic Church has striven to rid itself of blind faith; you're allowed to question and examine why the Church thinks how it does. You might want to try that on before speak for all Catholics and the Church itself.

lesliefur1 said...

Louis, I am saddened to see straight couples, that are married, standing up for gays and lesbians to be allowed to get married. Make no mistake I do not hate gays and lesbians, the ones that I know I care for very much, but we also both know where we stand. I believe it is a sin, but I know that God loves them very much. But I will not stand by while they destroy the sanctity of marriage. I support this cause and applaud your efforts. May God Bless You!
Bob, The tire was punctured, do you really want us to believe that it was just random???

Anonymous said...

"
The first rule, and there's really no specific order, but for the sake of listing them, rule number one says that you can't marry someone under the age of 18 without parental consent. So this basically means marry an adult.

Rule two says that you can only marry someone who is not already married. So this basically means no polygamy. Fair enough, right? I think so far everyone is in agreement. Do not marry children and do not marry people who are already married.

Moving onto rule number three. Again, we will have basically universal agreement here. Do not marry someone in your immediate family. So, in other words, no incestual marriages.

These three rules exist for the sake of society and the health of the family. Rule number four, which says that you must marry someone of the opposite sex also exists for the very same reasons!

Anyone who follows these basic rules can get married and that is the kind of marriage equality that I believe in. It is equal application of the law regardless of race, color, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Everyone has to follow the same rules, pay the same application fees, wait the same waiting periods and then get married. That is marriage equality!"

Did you guys miss this part when "reading" the article?

The best part is how you want to change marriage for only one group of people. But then that's not equality is it?

Shayde said...

No matter how many times you and others say it, Louis, the primary reason for marriage is NOT procreation. Until people who marry are required to procreate, and people who procreate are required to marry, your statement won't be anything approaching accurate.

Being free to marry someone you don't love and to whom you're not attracted is not "marriage equality." Aside from harming the gay/lesbian person who's pretending to be something other than him/herself, what do such marriages do to the straight partners who marry a gay/lesbian? What does such a marriage do to the children who might result from it?

Vienna said...

Sometimes, Louis, you are dippier than other times... and this time, you are dippier than most.

Jim McGreevy's marriage fell apart because he was a gay man married to a straight woman. How on EARTH do you see this as falling on the side of showing how marriage SHOULD be, if we want to protect the institution of marriage? Do you seriously believe that marriages that fall apart and end in messy, public breakup and divorce because the couple is incompatible are better for the institution of marriage than ones where the couple is a great match, love each other deeply and want, more than anything else, to be together? Seriously?

The first three rules of marriage that you mention, marry an adult (and I would make that consenting adult), marry someone who is not married already, and don't marry a close relative make sense on many societal levels. These protect people from harm. That is the point of law in our society. However, there is no harm in two same sex partners marrying, as has been proven in study after study, so the last point, marry someone of the opposite sex, is merely gender discrimination.

We have never claimed that you want to stop gays and lesbians from marrying someone of the opposite sex, but it is such a silly proposition that there is no need to do so. You are trying to manufacture some sort of conflict there, but since it is just nonsense, there is really no point in addressing it. Suffice it to say that if gay marriage were the ONLY legal marriage, YOU would not get married, would you?

AND you come back to procreation. An argument not worth discussing, since it has nothing to do with the legal definition of marriage. Not to mention that it has been effectively dismissed time and time again on the grounds of infertility and age and preference not to have children on your side, and the many other ways of having children, with medical assistance, adoption, and so on used on both sides.

So no, your attempt to twist equality around to mean exactly the opposite of what it DOES mean doesn't work. Give it up and just stick with "we want to ban same sex marriage because we object for religious reasons to homosexuality." At least it is honest.

Anonymous said...

I find it HILARIOUS that all you can mention constantly is 3 incidents which have all been laughed at now by the general public (see YouTube)because people aren't falling for your stupid propaganda except a handful of your sheeple

Anonymous said...

Lesliefur1 wrote: Louis, I am saddened to see straight couples, that are married, standing up for gays and lesbians to be allowed to get married. Make no mistake I do not hate gays and lesbians, the ones that I know I care for very much, but we also both know where we stand. I believe it is a sin, but I know that God loves them very much. But I will not stand by while they destroy the sanctity of marriage.

Well, then, I guess we are even, Leslie. I am saddened to see ANYONE go around working to deny equal protection under the law to tax-paying citizens because they find them personally distasteful/icky. Why is it that a convicted felon on death row should be allowed to marry (notice, Louis, that said felon will not be able to procreate as there are no conjugal visits in prison), but a law-abiding same-sex couple cannot? Because YOUR church says no? Well, guess what? We are a secular nation of civil laws, not a theocracy.

I'm pretty sure that bugs (some of) you ... but I'm okay with it.

Fiona64

Amen....Marriage IS one man/one woman. If we ever allow homosexuality to prevail, and the family unit, as defined by God, to be compromised then it won't be long until we will also see our nation destroyed.

Shayde said...

Let's see. We all, gay or straight, have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. You are misrepresenting this as "marriage equality," saying that as long as our rights are equal, nobody has a valid reason to complain.

Let's take this a little further. Let's legalize same-sex marriage as well. When that's legal (which I'm sure it will be in the next few years), everyone, gay or straight, will have the right to marry a same-sex partner.

Everybody gains a right, and nobody is discriminated against. It's a win-win! I'm amazed nobody thought of this before now.

Oh. Wait.

ChrisM said...

Louis,

You are clearly not married and have no idea what it means. You have completely removed any emotional element from marriage and devalued it to merely a contractual arrangement. Why not return to marriages arranged at birth by parents (another "traditional" marriage still observed in parts of our world).

The whole point is committing to a loving relationship with a person you love. I can only wish that someday you find he capacity to love.

Now that's two things you talk about that you know nothing about. LGBTQ people and marriage.

Steve P. said...

The Iowa Supreme Court hit the nail on the head. For a gay person, the right to only marry someone of the opposite sex is no right at all. Imagine a society in which only marriages between people of the same sex are recognized. Is that a right that a heterosexual person could exercise? Can you honestly say that under such laws, straight people would be equal under the law? Come on. You ask for civility and respect but continue to ignore logic when making your case. The example of a closeted man marrying a woman is not proof that marriage laws don't discriminate against gays. How twisted and, frankly, shameful that you would even attempt such a foolish argument!

mantronikk said...

Jesus said,
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." These words of Jesus Christ are quoted in Matthew 19;4-6. These words of God eliminate fornication,polygamy, homosexual "marriage," divorce(except in the case of infidelity), and any other redefinition of marriage.
Also, interracial marriage ISN'T forbidden by the Word of God; Numbers 12:1-8.
So those who want to redefine marriage are acting against the definition of marriage given to humanity by God. What part of "...let not man separate..." doesn't the glbt community and their supporters understand?

Anonymous said...

Please feel free to provide proof that marriage equality activists slashed your tire. Otherwise we're free to insinuate that Maggie Gallagher was one of Charles Manson's girls and Brian Brown served in the Hitler Youth with the Joe 'The Pope' Ratzinger.

Jude said...

Louis - I'm sorry you declined the opportunity to talk to me when I approached you face to face in Madison. Marriage equality. But that is not what Maggie and Brian are saying. They keep repeating that there is something special about the union of one man and one woman. You are the ones advocating for special rights, not people who support gay marriage.

Look at your supporters on this page. Their arguments are that it is against God and it is disgusting. Both are lies. No one knows what God thinks, if there is a God or whose God is real.

If people think gay sex is disgusting, don't have gay sex.

How often do we have to keep pointing out what equality and fairness really means?

Tell Brian and Maggie that I have emailed NOM, to three different email addresses and I will be calling soon. I invite them to a live debate, civil, with people on both sides of this issue.

Stop the attacks and the culture war. And the bit with the tires, the supposed bullying of a nursing mom and angry activists is just trying to make something out of nothing.

You are taking away people's rights. Gee, they are angry. Who could have seen that coming?

Straight mom, 55 years old, married 33 years. Same sex marriage will strengthen all families.

We are all praying for God to truly visit your hearts.

Taylor said...

Mantronikk, what are your feelings on inter-faith marriages. The Bible also says that you shouldn't marry a non-believer.

2 Corinthians 6:14-15: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (KJV)

Which would mean that Maggie Gallagher...who is married to a non-Christian, didn't listen to GOD. And that the recently married Chelsea Clinton...who married a Jew...didn't listen to God.

There are thousands upon thousands of inter-faith marriages in this country and throughout the world. Yet I don't see or hear those of you who love to quote the Bible saying anything about them. WHY? Maybe because you know someone who's in an inter-faith marriage? Maybe because YOU yourself are in an inter-faith marriage?

HYPOCRITE!

Until you stop...being a cafeteria Christian...and start going by EVERYTHING the Bible says. Your Biblical quotes are nothing more than empty words. If you're going to live by the WORD, then you have to live by ALL of the WORD, not just the verses that please you. I would expect nothing less from you than a protest against Maggie Gallagher and her inter-faith marriage. After all, the BIBLE says......

But, I won't hold my breath.

Louis - the next time you see Maggie Gallagher Srivastav ask her why she doesn't use her married name. And please quote to her 2 Corinthians 6:14-15. I'd love to know what her reaction is.

It seems fairly clear to me that she wants Gods rules to apply to everyone, but herself.

Thankfully, for Maggie, she was able to get married because we don't live in a country whose laws are based on the Bible. Or else she may have been forbidden to marry the person that she loves. And wouldn't that have been a shame?

Timothy Kincaid said...

Don't you love Louis' idea of "equal"? Let's apply it some more.

I support the rights for everyone to belong to my religion. See equality. We can ban the wearing of yarmulkes for everyone. And everybody is equal if we are all forced to attend church on Sunday and say the mass in Latin. Woo hoo religious freedom.

And we can apply this race as well. Everyone can have the equal right to marry someone of their own race. See, it isn't discrimination if the rules apply to everyone.

And how about we decide that everyone must have the same job as their great-great grandparents. That would be cool. OK, so some people would be slaves, but it's all fair if we make the rules apply to everyone.

Oh, and we can all equally be entitled to vote only for Republicans. We can be equally allowed to read one newssource.

Heck, Henry Ford was a pioneer of Louis' equality when he said that his customers "could buy a car in any color they like, so long as they like black."

Yah bogus equality. It's so fun. You get to oppose real freedom and still pretend that you like equality.

Kidding aside, Louis needs to learn his history.

We've heard this argument before about marriage equality. This exact same reasoning was used to ban interracial marriage. Everyone was banned from marrying someone of another race, so it was equal treatment under the law.

In 20 years, Louis' argument will sound exactly like that argument sounds today.

Teri said...

God created man and woman for 3 purposes be fruitful, and multiply (be one in the flesh and have children and raise a family, replenish the earth (make a nation) and subdue it (take control of; tame the land, sea and air and all that is in them. There is no basis for any one person to believe that marriage is based on love because marriages starting with creation were arranged; God planned to create Eve for Adam so in truth He arranged their marriage and then Adam and Eve went on to arrange their children's marriages and love had no part in it except for God gave man and woman love for one another in their arranged marriages. So any one who thinks that love is the primary basis for marriage is delusional because that would mean God had to cause Adam to love Eve and Eve to love Adam and God is not a God who makes or forces anyone to do anything so therefore Adam and Eve joined in one flesh, man and woman because God created man and woman for each other and since there was not a 3rd or 4th person created after Eve there is no basis for choosing the same sex over the opposite so God's plan and will for marriage, procreation and dominion over the Earth was based on the will of God not man’s or woman’s desire for love.

Nowhere is love mentioned when God created man and woman

Genesis 1:26 - 31 KJV
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
.
neither was it at the end of Genesis 2
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, '
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

I once was one who chose the same sex over the opposite because it was easier than being with someone of the opposite sex because I'd been hurt so many times and it seemed like it was a solution to being hurt by men but it took years of hurt after my experience to realize God will not tolerate anyone who does or doesn’t profess to be a Christian to live in sexual sin. I lived outside God's will for so long after accepting him when I was a teen until God had enough and placed me where I am now with no family or friends, no one but the man I married after moving here and then He taught me what His true purpose and plan for marriage was then and is now, to be an image of Christ and the church.
Jesus is the second Adam and we are as sinful Eve or His bride that He loves, the only marriage that is truly build on love.

I'm passionate about marriage being only between ONE man and ONE woman.

Jennifer said...

married wife of a male here, mother of four, completely supportive of equal rights for all American citizens. The separation of church and state has always been and remains a crucial element in any true democracy. You all have the right to claim Christanity justifies your bigotry and animus you clearly hold against gay people. I am a woman of deep faith here and have yet to read in my Bible, any scripture which clearly attacks marriage of same sex partners. Jesus taught me to love, not to hate, Louis, Leslie seem to have lost that message. You can claim you love them all you like, but denying people rights is the purest form of hatred one can exact on a minority population. What occurs between other people and their god and savior is their business alone. I will deal with my own salvation and that of my own family. To keep the church out of state affairs entirely guarantees a society with total religious freedom. Once these concepts are intertwined, suddenly, heretics start being burned in the public square, see Spanish Inquisition and Puritans, no thanks.

You all can claim this is about marriage sanctity all day long, every day of the week, and it is abundantly clear, that it is strong animus towards gay people to anyone with even half a brain, so let's just get honest. We haven't the right to take away your right to free speech or to hate gays, and you all should not be afforded the right to deny other Americans rights simply because you find what you think they do revolting. I think bigots are revolting actually, yet I'd not attempt to block YOUR rights.

Anonymous said...

Mantronnik said "Jesus said blahblahblah" and then asked what part of that the GLBT community and their supporters did not understand.

The United States is a secular nation of civil law. What part of that do the theocrats not understand?

Bless your heart, Mantronnik.

Fiona64

Anonymous said...

Teri wrote: There is no basis for any one person to believe that marriage is based on love

What a really sad commentary. I pity your husband, since your marriage is not based on love.

Fiona64

Timothy Kincaid said...

Ta-Nahisi Coates spoke today of comparisons of anti-gay marriage laws to miscegenation. Actually, he found a stronger comparison:

A more compelling analogy would be a law barring blacks, not from marrying other whites, but effectively from marrying anyone at all. In fact we have just such an analogy. In the antebellum South, the marriages of the vast majority of African-Americans, much like gays today, held no legal standing. Slavery is obviously, itself, a problem--but abolitionists often, and accurately, noted that among its most heinous features was its utter disrespect for the families of the enslaved. Likewise, systemic homophobia is, itself, a problem--but among its most heinous features is its utter disrespect for the families formed by gays and lesbians. Of course African-Americans, gay and straight, in 1810 lacked many other rights that gays, of all colors, today enjoy. Thus, to state the obvious, being born gay is not the same as being born a slave. But the fact is that in 1810, the vast majority of African-Americans--much like the vast majority of gays in 2010--lacked the ability to legally marry.


http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/08/race-and-gay-marriage-in-perspective/60837/

Anonymous said...

O hai guys, can I be a butt pirates too?

JT said...

Teri, you were never a lesbian, nor even bisexual. You were a heterosexual who fell into believing that love with the same sex had to be easier than the opposite sex. You never felt attracted to women, you made yourself choose them. That's not being a lesbian. It's like the men and women in prison who choose to have sex with another man or woman, just so they feel love. It's not real.

As for quoting the bible, nice for those who consider themselves to be religious or even Christian, but it doesn't apply to those who are atheists or just don't follow any one religion. I personally don't follow any organized religion anymore. I kinda got turned off when I was told by a priest that I'd never be pleasing to God because I'd been to prison. Guess the one who died with Christ that Christ said would be with God that night was lied to by Christ, but then wait, Christ wouldn't lie so the priest must have been mistaken, eh?

One more bit of wisdom, aimed at Louis. Jim McGreevey's marriage didn't fail because of sexual infidelity. It failed because it was based on a lie and any marriage based on a lie will ultimately fail when the truth comes out.

Timothy Kincaid said...

JT,

Unlike anti-gays, I believe in letting people tell their own story. Even Teri.

It just doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with anyone else but Teri. I'm not a woman who was hurt by men (or vice versa) so while Teri's story is fine for her, only a raging fool (or someone with malice in their heart) would try to plan policy around Teri's experience.

Let's not give Teri too much of a bad time. She's got it tough as it is. She's alienated her family or friends and the one guy she has tells her what to believe. And all of this on top of being emotionally scarred from choosing men who were abusive towards her. Let's be loving and compassionate for this poor confused friendless emotionally messed up girl. It sounds like she needs some love.

Breaking News: Prop 8 Ruling Tomorrow! said...

Get some sleep and lay off the junk food, Louis. Tomorrow will be a busy day for you after Judge Walker announces his ruling on CA's Prop 8.

Try not to get dizzy creating all your spin once Marriage Equality is upheld and your views are ruled unconstitutional by a GOP Judge who was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Activist Judges, indeed.

Time for NOM to move on to something that actually benefits society.

Anonymous said...

If you're going to prevent the redefiniton of marriage
by the gay lobby, you will have to fight fire with fire
when you go to court.
You may agree that:
People should marry someone of the opposite sex.
People should marry someone who isn't already married.
People should not marry a blood relative.
People should not marry more than one spouse.
Actually you may have to argue that if marriage is a right
(which it isn't, because you need to apply for a license.); But,
you will have to argue, that if marriage can be refefined to
allow people of the same sex to marry, you can also allow, blood
relatives to marry, people to marry multiple partners, etc.
It is the only way to beat the arguement of the gay lobby
that they have a right, and marriage can be redefined to allow
same sex people to marry.
The rights of others who were being prevented to marry were
also being violated and must now be allowed.

Post a Comment

 
 
 

November 2010

Support Marriage

Sign Our Petition