Anti-gay marriage petition circulating

[alaine]

Received this today, link is

http://www.nogaymarriage.com

regarding the request for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (H.J. Res. 56). This is being put out by the American Family Association.

My own mother signed this, as it was forwarded to her by an aunt who signed it as well.

I think we need to get together and put a rider on this proposal that also makes divorce illegal since marriage is such a sacrament that it should not be allowed to be broken, and see how far it gets then.

[thermodynamic]

1. What's fair is fair, right my insane ultra-right wingnuts?

I'd sign such a document. The vows they want to 'protect' deserve no less.

[alaine]

3. I e-mailed them and reminded them that Jesus

never married and could have possibly been gay, and that he never spoke one word against homosexuals and their desire for civil rights equivalent to that of heterosexuals. I also said that he is probably up in heaven right now saying to God (in reference to this petition "forgive them father, for they know not what they do.")

[cherryperry]

2. I understand your feelings but

I was abused to the point of nearly losing my life. Please, let's think of another rider to piss them off. You know, all kinds of off-the-point riders get attached to bills, so how about banning gun sales or promoting stem-cell research or something else because the divorce thing sort of tossed me into PTSD (sorry!) :scared: :scared: :scared:

[sandnsea]

4. No offense to you, but that's the point

The ridiculousness of this sanctified marriage that they are promoting. And I actually believe in the sanctity of marriage.

But it's not a marriage when one person is a lunatic that beats his wife. Gays are not lunatics (unless they beat their partner too) which makes them more qualified to get married than many who are currently allowed to, like your nutcase ex.

[alaine]

6. My point is it would never pass with a rider like this

attached. It would cause a huge public outcry. Many heterosexuals don't understand the difference between civil unions and marriage, (Camille Paglia pointed out another benefit we lose, which is access to a spouse's social security upon their death) and it would be a great way to educate them.

I was actually being sarcastic, it don't think such a proposal would get anywhere because dems are laying down on gay marriage.

This is just a right-wing tactic of laying the ground-work to demonize liberals and distract the general public from the goings on in Iraq and what may come out of the redacted pages of the 9/11 report.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

5. Do you recommend that abused wives stay married to their abusers?

As a woman, I don't find your divorce recommendation amusing in the least.

[Caution]

7. As a man, I'd like to point out

that abuse is not a one way street. It is not always men abusing women (and yes I readily accept that the majority of cases of abuse involve men abusing women). I think the point of that suggestion was that the right wingnuts who wish to aoutlaw gay marriage because it is a sacrament, conveniently ignore other things the bible commands that they do when it is convenient.

[alaine]

8. Oh good God.

I followed my proposal with " AND SEE HOW FAR IT GETS THEN". (The answer: nowhere)

Geez, the point was to point out the hypocrisy of the "sanctity of marriage" folks when the divorce rate is 50%.

I'm suprised at these heterocentric remarks, honestly.

But just for a moment I wish people would notice their strong reaction to something (which obviously was tongue-in-cheek)
suggested that may potentially affect their lives.

This hard for me to reconcile when constrasted with the oppostion to a union that will affect only the two lives of the people involved, yet it gets the same strong reaction.

('m a woman, and It amused me. But maybe that's just because I'm a perverted queer.)

[donco6]

10. Exactly.

As if an "anti-divorce" amendment would get two steps down the road. Be sensible, people! More than 50% of ALL marriages end in divorce - Christian and otherwise. There's NO WAY even the fundies would support this measure, but they SHOULD, because they know that the true sacrament of marriage is the vow itself.

[jonnyblitz]

12. you are surprised at these heterocentric remarks?

you havent been reading the posts the past few days?!? I am a perverted queer too alaine btw...:hi:

[alaine]

13. I would ask what I have missed...

but I probably don't want to know.

[jonnyblitz]

15. go to this thread

right here and read #2, pretty "interesting" IMHO:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=121079

[Mike Niendorff]

9. Translation: ...

... Howard Dean scares the hell out of the VRWC, so they're furiously laying the groundwork to turn the 2004 campaign into a referendum on "gay marriage" and, not coincidentally, to cast Howard Dean as the "gay marriage" candidate.

Seriously: if anyone still doubts the extremity with which the RW controls the American media, just watch them fall into line for this (ongoing) Republican PR campaign.

MDN

[alaine]

11. Thanks...

that's the point I was trying to make with this.

But, you know, I don't think that folks whose families are dying overseas, or the 9/11 families, are goint to jump on this band-wagon of "blame the queers for all evil since the dawn of time". They're are more pressing issues and probably feel insulted by stuff like this.

BUT dems could fall into a trap if the right starts using the above statements against us like "look at the Iraq war,and 9/11, we need to focus on national defense, and all bleeding heart liberals care about is gay marriage."

I'm not offended at this point as far as whether a candidate is for marriage or civil unions, because campaigns are mostly rhetoric, and our job is to pick the candidate that will really do what they say they are going to do.

Because of what's going on in Mass. they are going to make this an issue anyway, so dems. better start planning how to counter it.

p.s. I don't remember ever hearing any mention of Adam and Eve being married. Hmmmmm.

[bluestateguy]

14. States Rights?

If the redneck states these folks come from want to ban gay marriage, fine, but why should Vermont or Massachusetts be forced to not recognize such marriages?

I guess the Right is all for states rights unless it means the right of states to pass assisted suicide laws, medicinal marijuana laws, gay marriages or the right of local election officials to recount votes.