So now I am writing from western Iowa. We have basically arrived in Sioux City, but I don't know off hand what highway it is. I know that we were on the 80W.
We are going to Sioux City because we are holding a rally there on Tuesday to stand up for geniune marriage between a man and a woman. I say geniune, and I've made this point before, because a piece of paper doesn't make you married. A piece of paper gives you access to a series of benefits afforded to married couples but it doesn't make you married.
It's a sign held by one of our opponents today in Des Moines (we held a good rally there earlier today at th State Capital) was holding a sign that said she was married to her parner for 9 months and was thanking the State of Iowa for that.
These people are not married.
Marriage is between a man and a woman and taking something and molding it into the shape of marriage and then giving it the name of marriage doesn't make it marriage! It is merely a mockery of marriage and that is what these so-called "same-sex marriages" amount to.
Now this couple may very well be wonderful people. They may be great people individually and according to some, they may even make a cute couple. It's not about that. I am not attacking them individually or personally but I am attacking the misunderstanding these women share about marriage. And that misunderstanding, that fallacy, is that marriage is only about love and commitment.
Today's rally was quite good. It wasn't our largest turnout but that could be understood taking into consideration the heat. It was really hot. I drank two bottles of water within that hour rally and I hardly ever drink water at all. We actually had to set up our stage area closer to trees because everyone wanted to stand or sit in the shade. So ten minutes before we were supposed to start, Brian came over to us and asked us to relocate everything.
So we rushed and packed everything up and carried it down another flight of stairs and set the whole stage, speakers, sound equipment right there by the water fountain in front of the State Capital.We were ultimately able to start on time but that just demonstrates how hot it actually was today. As you can see, our 150+ supporters gathered in the shade to escape the hot glaring sunshine.
Our stalkers over at the NOM Tour Tracker love to downplay the turnout we have at our rallies. The last thing they want is for the public to see a strong turnout of Americans who support marriage between a man and a woman only.
That is why they have been constantly claiming that our turnouts have been very low. Now this picture shows about fifty people but it is taken from within the crowd. A conservative estimate would be 150 yet the stalkers from Califrornia claim we had less than 90. They do this so that they can (and they have) claim that the counter-protesters who show up to interfere with the rally "outnumber" our supporters.
Now I don't remember the last time I used the word "outnumber". Really, it isn't a very common word but our stalkers from California have got the word "outnumber" or a variation of it 5 times on their homepage. For them, it is imperative that they paint a picture that those who support marriage between a man and a woman are a minority, that we're on the wrong side history.
Honestly speaking, I didn't see them walking around our crowd counting heads so perhaps their estimate is the number of people they were able to count from a particular angle but as you can see in photo, that crowd was pretty deep.
You've got to give credit to Brian for dealing with these people who want to have the same conversation everyday.
Everytime they have approached him he has been more than willing to take 10+ minutes and grant them exclusive interview after exclusive interview when we all know they leave the rally and hold a pow wow to decide how they can plaster the interview on their website and use it against Brian.
So overall, we had another successful rally in Des Moines and signed up more supporters. Each stop we make we sign up more and more all in our effort to sign up 2 million Americans from across the Nation who support marriage between a man and a woman only.Once we've reached that goal (we've got 750k now), we'll have the political power and foundation to effect the change we want to see in places like Iowa and to prevent changes we want to avoid in places like California in 2012 when the homosexual activists are planning to go after the Golden State again.
UPDATE: (00:20 August 2, 2010)
A recently posted article from KCCI News out of Des Moines says the rally "drew more than 100 people to the Iowa State Capitol to voice support for traditional marriage." Here is the full story.
Posts
57 comments:
The protesters held a separate rally where 200 odd people showed up , people no longer want to play into your bigotted hands after those stupid propaganda videos etc etc
"These people are not married."
Louis, you could have written "These people should not be married" or "I don't like the fact that these people are married" but instead, you just wrote something that is simply not true. These women ARE married. Louis Marinelli may not like it, but they are married. "Married" means legally married. These women are legally married. Not sure how else to say it. You may wish the world were flat but writing "The world is flat" doesn't make it so. I guess I shouldn't be surprised - NOM rarely lets facts or logic get in the way of saying whatever the heck they want.
Marriage is something higher than the word of men. Like you said: Writing "the world is flat" doesn't make it so. Writing up a marriage certificate doesn't make it marriage.
Man didn't create marriage and wasn't empowered to change it. Any changes to it therefore, are invalid. Same-sex 'marriages' while 'marriage' by name are not authentic.
First, your count is off. Yes, you took a picture from within the crowd only showing about 2/3 of them... but we took pictures from a distance, and counted the whole crowd carefully. 86.
Second, your definition of who is married is off. The lovely couple you picture IS married. They have a marriage license to prove it. For all your puffery to the opposite, nothing changes the fact that they are happily married, and have been for 9 months. Get over it.
Third, you ARE on the wrong side of history. The fact that protesters have outnumbered you on just about every stop on your tour means only that more people actually care about what we have to say, but the truth of the matter is, equality is coming. Slowly but surely, marriage equality is happening, and there is nothing that will stop it, as it is both morally and legally the right thing to do. Someday we will look back and shake our heads at the people who wanted to deny same sex couples their rights, the same way we now look back at those who denied women the vote and those who denied slaves their freedom.
"Man didn't create marriage and wasn't empowered to change it."
OK... so why don't we still marry like they used to do it? A woman is sold by her father to the highest bidder, who she doesn't meet until the wedding. Then she joins his household, and possibly his other wives, and produces children till it kills her.
We shouldn't have changed those rules, should we?
Taking a weed from the ground and putting into a vase and watering it and calling it a rose doesn't make it a rose.
Likewise, taking two people of the same sex and allowing them to go through the process of getting married doesn't mean they are married.
"Writing up a marriage certificate doesn't make it marriage. "
Well, then... I guess that is it. If the marriage certificate, which is what we are asking for, does not change what YOU define as marriage, and I am sure we can all agree to that, then you can just pack up and go home! If the marriage certificate is meaningless, what difference could it possibly make to YOU if I have one?
So thanks for throwing in the towel Louis!
"Likewise, taking two people of the same sex and allowing them to go through the process of getting married doesn't mean they are married."
And again... if that is the case, your work here is done. If letting people get married does not mean they are married to you, fine. But if the process is that trivial, why should you care?
Off you go now... have a safe trip home!
What the government legislates today... the next generation believes to be acceptable and a normal aspect of society. I can take care of myself. It's the next generation that I'm concerned about.
The next generation of childen not even born yet. Will the be born in a country that embraces homosexuality and mocks marriage?
Such disrespect for marriage will be normal for them because they won't know any better and anyone who tells them differently will be considered a bigot. Yes, people who believe in marriage between a man and a woman due to their religious beliefs, for example, will be considered haters and bigots.
Is that freedom of religion?
When our mystery guests have the 'courage' to identify themselves, I'll continue to discuss this with them.
"Likewise, taking two people of the same sex and allowing them to go through the process of getting married doesn't mean they are married."
Yes it does, Get over yourself. They are Married, whether you like it or not. Why don't you get a life that doesn't involve destroying the lives of innocent American people. What that couple does is none of your business. Marriage is a personal choice, not a public decision. You have no say so in the matter. You have no say in how they live their personal lives. You do not own them, you don't pay their bills, you don't put food on their table or cloths on their back, or provide for their family. You & other Equality Opponents have no say so in the matter.
Now onto this little insulting & quite offensive comment: "I am not attacking them individually or personally but I am attacking the misunderstanding these women share about marriage. And that misunderstanding, that fallacy, is that marriage is only about love and commitment."
Excuse me? Do you know them personally? They've been together for 15 years & Legally Married for 9 moths.(That is a fact that you cannot and will not change) But basically you said that they do not love each other and are not committed to each other (which, unless you know them personally you cannot make those judgements). Shame on you.
I am amused by how threatened you are by progress. Your viewpoint is quickly becoming the minority worldwide and you are already trying to find the argument and position that you think will deflate the progress and equality that is now imminent. The problem however is that those women are legally married. Their government recognizes it. Their communities recognize it. Their families recognize it. That you do not is completely irrelevant. Your opinion has no bearing on the recognition of their love and commitment to each other as officially formalized by a marriage certificate. You can't do anything about the love. The commitment. The acts of love and commitment. Or the marriage. That that is so scary to you says everything about your (deficient) psychological development and nothing about their legal and lawful union.
Louis why don't you go get a better education? Homosexuality is legal in all 50 states and D.C. The government has already legislated that being LGBT is a normal aspect of society. You just don't wont to accept it. Get over it.
Yes, you will still have freedom of religion. Another person's opinions of your religion does not restrict your opportunity to practice your religion. Moreover, the same-sex marriage movement has never sought to bring same-sex marriage into religious institutions; they merely want equal rights under the law of man.
"The next generation of childen not even born yet. Will the be born in a country that embraces homosexuality and mocks marriage? "
Yes.
And no.
Yes they will be born in a country that embraces homosexuality. They are being born in that very same country today.
No they will not be born in a country that mocks marriage. YOU are the only one mocking marriage by saying things like these two lovely women are not married.
Oh, for heavens sake. Numbers 4,5,7,8, 13 if you post it and THIS one are me, Vienna Hagen. Feel better?
Hmmm... if you are all about disclosure, how about disclosing donor lists as required by law?
I don't have any financial donors. I pay for my operations out of pocket. Remember, simply working with NOM doesn't make me NOM. I understand you were talking about them with your sarcastic question but I am not an employee of the National Organization for Marriage.
"Man didn't create marriage and wasn't empowered to change it."
Well, Louis, who did creat marriage? Where in the Bible (verse and chapter please) does it state catagorically that 'marriage is the union of one man and one woman'?
My understanding is that Man has changed the definition of marriage many times in the past.
Are you saying that it's Ok in today's world that a women is to be considered the 'property' of her husband, the children the chattels of the man - to be sold into slavery if he so desires?
Oh Louis, that argument is so non-sensical, that I cannot believe you guys are still pushing it. Marriage HAS changed, many, many times - over the years. If you REALLY want to stick to 'biblical' marriage (although nowhere in the Book does it actually define marriage in the terms you now think of it), then that means that slavery is OK, that women have no say in the union, and that any man can arrange a marriage for his children, no matter what their opinion is.
Honeslty, I cant see anyone in today's Western societies agreeing with that. You really need to come up with some better arguments if you are going to convince anyone who is not from the far right christian movement Louis - and those folks are not in the majority in your country I believe.
Greg in Oz
Ok Louis. You said you want to talk with someone who doesn't post anonymously. Here ya go. Someone who posts under the same name they use in their daily life. A name I use for my business. The same name I'll use in my obituary when I die from pancreatic cancer in the months ahead.
Tell me something, Louis. You're taking your definition of marriage from the Bible, either Genesis 2:24 or Mark 10:7, right? Is that why you're saying it's not man's definition? So here's one question for you: Do you think that, prior to this being understood as coming from God, man got married or were they just living together?
Answer me this second question, Louis. Do you believe in Jesus Christ?
I'll be waiting for your answers.
So, Louis, do you or do you not represent NOM's feelings on marriage?
Are you saying that love and commitment aren't enough for a marriage? What more is needed? Two people who love each other, want to take care of each other through thick and thin, who are committed to each other can't be married (in your view), but a man and woman can meet in Vegas one day, get married that night, and still be considered a marriage. Where is the logic in that? And are you going to tell all the opposite sex couples who are married strictly for love and commitment that they aren't married?
Louis, I've noticed that your blog postings always report two to three times the actual attendance.
Is it that you cannot count or cannot tell the truth. NOM posted a picture - which can be viewed in large size - and which makes it pretty easy to count the attendees. They are ALL there.
I challenge you, Louis, go count the heads in the picture - the one that includes ALL of your attendees. I got 86.
Greg, it's not in there and you know Louis will side step this... but as we know, whether it's in the Bible or not is not the issue, we live under civil law where religious-free marriages have been available since this nation was born. In fact, civil marriages have been going on in Europe since the 1500s. The whole "changing the definition of marriage" argument is not an argument at all, it's nothing more than a "Bumper sticker" slogan, that doesn't hold up to any argument. But it's mindlessly repeated, as if it magically become true.
We are truly witnessing history here as a dying breed of fanatics desperately use any means to uphold what they believe is their God-given right to discriminate against another human being.
Louis I've identified myself from day 1 and you haven't had the courage to to discuss anything with me. No, God did NOT create MARRIAGE. NO version of the Bible says anything about God creating MARRIAGE. God in the Bible created the sexual union of male and female, MARRIAGE was created by MAN.
And for a guy who swore to me up and down that you were not a religious organization and were not driven by religious motives you sure do use God as a fallback position an AWFUL lot Louis.
Do you want to know why people like you will be remembered as bigots by history? BECAUSE YOU ARE BIGOTS!!! You are holding YOUR PERSOINAL beliefs in higher regard than anyone else's, trying to force MAN'S law to adhere to YOUR religious beliefs, which is not only unconstitutional but directly disobeying Jesus Christ, (Give unto God what is God's, and give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's"), who was the first to decree separation of Church and State. You are demanding that YOUR personal beliefs and bias be used to prevent an entire class of people from being your equal.
You CANNOT actively fight to keep gay people subhuman and second class by law and still claim to not be a bigot.
Freedom OF Religion also means Freedom FROM Religion Louis. You have EVERY right to your religious beliefs but you have absolutely NO right to inflict your beliefs onto anyone else's life.
Now quit your pathetic lying and give up your hateful fight. Go picket a funeral like Fred Phelps does, but stop trying to force YOUR beliefs into the law.
I very much AM Married Louis. No lies you tell or beliefs you hold will change that. Grow the hell up and LIVE WITH THE TRUTH, because your lies just keep crumbling around you.
We'll see if you post this one.
Louis,
Ironically, unlike you I support religious freedom. I oppose the state recognizing the rites of one church and denying the rites of another.
When the ministers of the United Church of Christ conduct a marriage ceremony, the Catholic Church should not have veto power. And the UCC will soon be joined by the Episcopal Church (who has already began the process of developing rites) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. In fact, within the next decade I predict that the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA) will also recognize same sex marriages.
And I support their freedom to do so. And I oppose the anti-religious-freedom message you bring of "My Church Dictates the Rules".
And, ya know something? In 20 years those who discriminate against gay folk and try to keep them second class citizens WILL be considered bigots and haters in exactly the same way that those who oppose mixed-race marriages are today. You can't stop that, Louis.
But I will STILL on that day support your religious right to your beliefs. I will still agree that YOUR church not have to conduct any marriage that they don't want to conduct. And I will still support your right to make whatever religious positions you like... and to let others judge those positions according to their values.
It's amusing, Louis, you want to dictate to the government the rules of your church and deny other churches, you want to insist that your beliefs are not subjected to inquiry about bigotry, and you want to call all of that religious freedom. I think you need a new dictionary.
My friend Summerwine over on Pam's House Blend had the PERFECT comment to counter Louis' (I swear I'm not a bigot!) hatemongering. DARE Louis to have the balls to post THIS one.
From Summerwine, in response to someone who, like Louis, kept ignoring proven facts and insisting gay marriage would harm society, (yet, also like Louis, refused to elaborate on exactly why this was) -
"If homosexual marriages are harmful to society, should we allow homosexuals to marry?
My answer is yes.
If federal law gives people the right to own and use a firearm, potentially opening the opportunity for a person to vengefully or accidentally kill a stranger or a loved one, then homosexuals should have the right to marry.
If people are allowed to smoke cigarettes, a drug we all know is a slow suicide and can affect second hand smokers such as children of smokers, then yes, homosexuals should have the right to marry.
If people are allowed to consume alcohol, which is detrimental to society when consumed beyond reason, then yes, homosexuals should have the right to marry.
If people are allowed to practice premarital sex, which from your point of view, is harmful to society, then yes, homosexuals should have the right to marry.
If people are allowed to divorce, which is arguably harmful to society, then yes, homosexuals should have the right to marry.
If people are allowed to enjoy violent video games, movies, and television shows, which may or may not influence people to engage in violent behavior, then yes, homosexuals should have the right to marry.
If people are allowed to go to strip clubs, then yes, homosexuals have the right to marry.
If people are allowed to gamble at licensed casinos, and we agree that gambling can become a dangerous addiction that is harmful to society, then yes, homosexuals have the right to marry.
If people are allowed to eat unhealthy foods and live a life of obesity (and if they don't have insurance, count on our tax payers' dollars), then yes, homosexuals should have the right to marry.
If people on death row or have more than 2 divorces under their belt are allowed to marry (not very good relationship resumes!), then yes, homosexuals should have the right to marry.
I can keep going, but I'll stop here.
Also, no. I don't think same sex-marriages will infringe on a religion's rights. The government is not going to force a church to marry a same-sex couple, and same sex-couples probably have had enough of a bad experience with religious groups to not want to get married at a church in the first place. Instead, they could use the court, a friend who has been ordained, or a minister/preacher who worships at a gay-friendly church."
Counter THAT Louis. And thanks to Summerwine for a perfect dissection of their bs.
Vienna,
I do not speak for NOM. I speak for myself.
Shamon,
You always have some conspiracy or another in your mind. It's ammusing. I reject your comments that include offensive language or personal attacks. That type of language is unnecessary. Unfortunately for you, the majority of your comments are like that. Therefore, the majority of your comments will not be posted.
Tim Kincaide,
I am not the only one claiming that there were over 100 attendees. You counted 86. Even the NOMTourTracker people from CA counted more than that! Come on, man.
Louis Louis Louis, how sad and pathetic your words are becoming.
If indeed you feel that same sex couple wo hold a marriage license are not married, what are you still fussing about?
If as you say only God can make two poeple 'married' than have SS civil 'marriage' should not at all upset you...not 'real' marriage, just a civil contract. Sounds great!
Oh and just so you know...Religious freedom means you get to believe and worship as you see fit....it DOES NOT mean you get to decide how others live their lives.
We live in a Republic not a Theocracy.
You have your freedom of religion, and others have freedom FROM religion
Mark M.
Louis wrote: I don't have any financial donors. I pay for my operations out of pocket. Remember, simply working with NOM doesn't make me NOM. I understand you were talking about them with your sarcastic question but I am not an employee of the National Organization for Marriage.
Right, Louis. Of *course* you only represent yourself and not NOM. How many times have you been told to distance yourself from them, since they are trying not to look like extremists?
Finally, I suggest that you read up on the history of marriage ... because I'm curious as to which traditions you support: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html (This does not cover cultures that feature visiting marriages, matrifocal cultures, etc. ... which are a whole different ball of wax.)
So, let's stick with what you obviously believe: the Bible. Should we stone women to death if they are not virgins on their wedding night? Is it still okay with you if a rapist gives his victim's father 50 pieces of silver and marries her? Those were parts of the Biblical marriage tradition, after all ...
Much love from the still-banned Fiona64
As others have pointed out, if civil marriage and legal status means so little to you, and if your own personal views regarding marriage mean so much more, then you're wasting a great deal of money, effort, and causing a lot of hurt to same-sex couples for absolutely no reason.
Because, again, as it's been pointed out, civil marriage and legal status is all that we're seeking (and in states like MA, it's all that we've achieved), and your own personal views regarding marriage simply aren't being threatened.
Your defense about the next generation doesn't really stand up. Right now numerous faiths and their communities all maintain diverse views of what marriage is (and pass those on to their next generation) despite the fact that state and federal government treats them all the same.
Now this couple may very well be wonderful people. They may be great people individually and according to some, they may even make a cute couple.
Why can't you just talk to them and find out for yourself? They're smiling and posing...no frightening dog in the way. Hardly a threat to you. Go for it.
It might get in the way of you passing judgment over them, but it might also just resolve your issues.
Louis,
I'm not here to change your mind about marriage. I'm here to get you to simply report facts truthfully. Not "oh someone else said it too" but the genuine honest truth based on objective facts.
A number is a factual thing. It isn't subject to opinion, interpretation, or religious perspective. I say there were 86 people in a photograph, you insist that there were over 150 attendees at the rally.
My challenge still stands: count the people. Here is the link to NOM's photograph with Brian speaking so you know it's not taken before the event or doctored in some way by equality supporters.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/50933783@N07/4850827706/sizes/o/
And, Louis, you are mistaken when you said, "Even the NOMTourTracker people from CA counted more than that."
Their site said, "86 NOM supporters are scattered under various shade trees..." so we actually got the same count.
So PLEASE Louis, go prove me wrong. Take 15 seconds and count the number of people listening to the speaker at the rally. They are all clearly distinguishable in the picture. Tell us all how many you count.
Louis wrote (8/1 11:40pm): "Marriage is something higher than the word of men."
Well there it is in black and white folks: proof that NOM and their supporters are unable, unwilling, or both, to separate civil marriage from religious ceremony. Louis, marriage may be something higher than the word of men within the context of your religion and we can all respect that. But your religion is not what's at issue. This is about civil law which is, unquestionably, the word of men. NOM has tried really hard to present secular based arguments for their mission. They've rejected suggestions that they are motivated by religious doctrine because they outwardly acknowledge that we do not live in a theocracy. But with your "higher than the word of men" comment Louis, you have just proven that the weak secular arguments NOM puts forth are nothing but a thin veil. As we've known all along, NOM's goal is to enshrine its religious views into our SHARED laws and force their beliefs on everyone else. Thanks being big enough to admit it.
Ummm, Louis? I asked you two questions and you never responded. Perhaps you'll respond now?
Louis,
At this point I'll just assume that you counted the heads in the picture and realized that my count is accurate and yours is doubled. And I guess you are either too embarrassed to admit that you were wrong or are too worried about spin.
I invite everyone else here to take 15 seconds and count the total attendees at NOM's Des Moines rally.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/50933783@N07/4850827706/sizes/o/
But the offer is still open, Louis. Prove me wrong.
BTW, I saw the KCCI article: "The National Organization for Marriage brought its controversial summer tour to Des Moines on Sunday, drawing more than 100 people to the Iowa State Capitol to voice support for traditional marriage."
I also saw the Des Moines Register: "Carroll made his comments to a crowd of about 50 at a rally on the steps of the Iowa Capitol sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage, a national same-sex marriage protest group."
I'm still counting a number between the two news reports.
Louis, I am sorry that you think they are not married. The only way I can reconcile their government issued marriage license and recognized civil marriage with your claim is that for you, only a heterosexual religious marriage is valid. If so, why don't you propose that the government goes out of marriage all together? That would also solve the violations between church and state you are proposing!
Siglind,
You are missing the most important aspect of marriage.
Louis will recognize my marriage if I:
marry someone 20 years older
marry someone 20 years younger
marry someone on death row
marry someone I've never met
marry someone of a different race
marry someone of a different faith
marry someone who clearly loves my things more than me
marry someone who has been divorced 8 times
marry someone who wants children
marry someone who doesn't want children
marry someone who doesn't much like sex
marry someone who can't have sex
marry someone for companionship
marry someone for their connections
marry someone for their wealth
marry someone because my family wants me to
marry someone in a arranged marriage
marry someone with an Elvis impersonator presiding
marry someone for eternity in the Mormon temple
marry someone only until death do us part
marry absolutely anyone in absolutely any way with absolutely any purpose and absolutely any agenda
EXCEPT that they can't have a penis. Because that's what REALLY matters in marriage: who has a penis.
Do you believe that a marriage has to have a religious component in order to be considered a true "marriage?"
If so, which religious institutions' ceremonies do you think should "count?" Are couples (gay or straight) married in a Reform Synagogue by a Rabbi actually "married?" Are couples (gay or straight) married in an Episcopalian Church actually "married?" How about couples (gay or straight) married via a Wiccan ceremony?
Do you recognize couples (gay or straight) married in secular ceremonies as "married?"
If your church doesn't recognize same-sex partnerships as valid and doesn't choose to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, that's an excellent reason for people who attend your church to not enter into same-sex partnership. Freedom of Religion -- got it.
How, though, does the religious freedom you so clearly value benefit churches whose clergy/members want to bless same-sex unions? Isn't telling them they're not allowed to marry same-sex partners a violation of THEIR religious freedom?
I understand this relatively new-fangled idea of marriage being all about procreating and raising children. I want to know, though, how it applies to couples who can not procreate (either because of medical reasons such as a woman having undergone a hysterectomy or tubal ligation, or a man having had a vasectomy or testicular cancer, or a woman being post-menopausal, or being a same-sex partnership), or who do not wish to procreate? I have a number of straight married friends (and one straight couple who will be married this coming January) who want absolutely NO part of having or raising children. Unless I'm mistaken, they're just as married as my husband and I are even though we've chosen to reproduce and they haven't.
You are certainly free to believe that marriage was created by a higher power. Since I don't believe in a higher power and am very comfortable with the notion that man created marriage (just as man created religion), I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that the only valid reason for marrying someone is that you care for that person very deeply and can't imagine spending the rest of your life without that person. A significant part of being married is in how you view your partner -- you want to love, honor, and cherish someone you love -- and you want to take care of each other as long as you are both able to do so. In my mind, there's no actual relevance to the type of reproductive organs that either person possesses.
Why should your definition of marriage trump someone else's? When marriage equality is achieved throughout the country (as it has been in a handful of states and in a number of countries), you will still be free to consider legally-married people as not "really" married -- but those people will have the rights and benefits accorded to married people by the government. You won't be harmed by the fact that there are "not really married" married people all over the place, but the people who CAN have their relationships and their families legally recognized will certainly benefit.
I don't know for certain yet whether my little girl was born straight, lesbian, or somewhere in-between. Statistically speaking, she's more likely to grow up and fall in love with a man rather than a woman -- but I'll be happy if she finds her soul-mate & lives her life with someone who always treats her with dignity, kindness, respect, and yes - love. That's the kind of relationship I have with her father. No matter what, though, she will grow up knowing that her parents really do love her and support her -- and that we will fight for her rights if we need to fight for them. She'll also know that if she's straight, we'll be fighting for the rights of her friends no matter what their sexual orientation happens to be.
Out of curiosity, what documentation do you believe proves that a marriage is real?
One man and one woman, very drunk, can go to the Elvis chapel and get married in Vegas. I'm assuming you will use your blog to forcefully condemn this practice, Louis.
You know that being "for" same-sex marriage doesn't mean you're "against" opposite-sex marriage, right?
I am a woman. I'm (very happily) married to a man. I am 100% in favor of marriage equality.
Louis wrote: "I am attacking the misunderstanding these women share about marriage. And that misunderstanding, that fallacy, is that marriage is only about love and commitment."
Louis, I must say that my wife and I have no interest in having children. Based on your post, you are basically saying that my marriage is also invalid, as the true purpose of marriage is for reproduction, not love and commitment.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
As you well know, the pen is mightier than the sword. I wish you could see the effect your words have on so many people.
Your logic is at best, flawed.
Two women who love each other, who care for each other, who want to be each other's spouse and the reaction is, "they are not married." One day, even the most religious among us will look back at the oppositon to same sex marriage and shake their heads that ever was a group so denied basic rights. Let us not forget, those who opposed the right of women to vote were the religiously devout. Those who opposed interracial marriage, talked about their belief in god. Well, no good and just deity wants people to be 2nd class citizens in their own nation.
Excuse me, I'm new here. And I was just wondering why there haven't been any pro-NOM comments posted?
Once again Louis, you're lying through your teeth. No Louis the majority of my comments do NOT contain offensive or abusive language, they contain only brutal honest truth. In fact I've even gone out of my way not to swear or cuss since you re-instated the old comments despite how infuriating your blatant lies get. No Louis, there are not imaginary conspiracies in my mind, YOU have simply (for the umpteenth time) been caught lying like a rug. If you fail to post any of my comments it is only because of your personal bias against me. I'd bet good money you opnly let today's comments through so you could make it appear as if you aren't singling me out specifically. "Look everyone! See? I posted her comments today! I CAN'T POSSIBLY be trying to censor her!". Except YOU IN YOUR OWN WORDS have admitted, not only today to doing so, but on your brief fling with Disqus comments, to how much you were foiaming at the mouth to do so. And I have a screenshot to prove it Louis.
No Louis, NO ONE except your most fervent hatemonger followers are going to believe your excuse for censoring me. If you want any shred of your already non-existant credibility to be salvaged, let through EVERY comment posted by EVERYONE. If you censor so much as ONE comment, you are dishonest, and the debate is influenced unfairly by your doing so.
Man up Louis. This is pathetic reaching to justify crap even for you.
K, checked out the photo. I count 84 for sure and maybe 2 more, so 86 seems correct. Now that was not so hard was it?
I'm new here, but I concur...Louis you really need to become a fact based life form.
Marlene, I can answer that. Louis' victimhood would be endangered if he didn't a bunch of heartless, heathen, gay and lesbian folk around to hurt his feelings.
You say that couple are not married, even though the government says they are married, even though they are committed to each other, even though they love each other, even though they are committed to each other, even though they may be lovely people personally.
So what precisely is "marriage," and what is your justification? It seems to be requiring one man and one woman, but what do you base that on besides your own opinion and preference? I suppose "well, that's how it's always been done." Well, with that mentality, we'd still be in caves.
Please explain why your seal of approval is needed to make something a valid marriage.
Marlene, my guess is that we are the only ones reading this blog. Louis has failed utterly to attract any of the audience he is aiming at, and basically we are just reading him for the giggles at this point.
I'm wondering where all the threatening comments from violent homofacists are. According to Louis and NOM they dominate the marriage equality movement. But you wouldnt know it from reading these comments. Don't homofacists have internet access? Louis, do you have an explanation?
I'd love to come to one of your wild parties. Mind you, looking at the photos I think I'd probably go home well before the orgy started.
Steve,
Comments to this website are moderated and those type of comments are rejected from being published. There's your answer.
Those two ladies are a lovely couple. Congratulations on your marriage! I recognize it as valid just as the State of Iowa does!
Thanks for the answer Louis, although I have a hard time buying it. You've spent a lot of time focusing on the supposed negative behavior of equality supporters. I'm surprised that you suddenly want to shield your readers from that behavior when it's in the form of comments on your posts.
I will proudly state my name is Kate Spindler from Minneapolis, MN.
Louis, as a member of the clergy of the United Methodist Church, I pray for you and hope you find joy in your life. It seems important to you to (attempt) to rob other people of theirs.
May the peace of Christ be with you always, and may there be marriage where there is true love!
Mrs. Kate Spindler
Post a Comment