Just the sheer thought of gay marriage puts my marriage at risk

[KitchenWitch]

:sarcasm:

In Minnesota, the movement for a "marriage amendment" has gotten started. Homophobic rallies at the Capitol, "clergy" meetings at the mega-mcchurches, etc. It makes me wonder if any of these people have actually read the Constitution.

Simply put, offering rights to one group of people to the exclusion of others IS unconstitutional and goes against everything our founding fathers fought for.

We have many pressing problems in our country, such as the fact that not everyone has adequate healthcare, the inconsistencies in our education system, and the most glaring one, the fact that we are fighting a war that was waged under false pretenses. We are "spreading freedom" in other countries only to take away freedom in our own. Is there anything wrong with this picture?

I pray for enlightenment to come into these "Christians'" lives.

[Untermonkey]

1. The government should have no say or veto over who I chose to marry.

Or live with, or sleep with, or anything else that occurs between consenting adults.

[KitchenWitch]

2. I totally agree!

[ScreamingMeemie]

3. It's sickening, isn't it? That came to town here in Detroit in 2004 for

the elections. The last day I ever attended Catholic Church was the day the priest, because the Archdiocese told him to, threw aside his normal homily and lectured on the evils of allowing gays to marry. :puke: The pure hatred pushed by those who purport to live by God's rule destroys me.

These people need to spend a bit more time in their own bedrooms.

[KitchenWitch]

4. For sure!

I am a firm believer in revoking the non-profit status of churches preaching politics from the pulpit.

[ScreamingMeemie]

6. I actually sent a letter of disgust to my pastor, whom I was on pretty

decent terms with at the time. The plus side is that I stopped getting literature for the building campaign. I mean, Lord knows where my money comes from and they don't want gay loving, tainted money raising the walls of their new choir loft.

[KitchenWitch]

8. ...

So if gay marriage gets passed, are you going to file for divorce from your husband? :eyes:

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. I suppose I will have to. It will be better for the kids that way I'm

guessing. :sarcasm:

[neoblues]

7. If they want to be political... that's fine, but...

political organizations should be taxed (and doubly so if they claim a mandate from G_d)!

[tocqueville]

22. there is no separation of Church and State if you subsidize

it has nothing to do with what they say or not.

[Untermonkey]

12. I can accept a church that refuses to marry gays, but not a government.

I support the the right of a church, as a private religious organizaiton, to refuse to perform ceremonies for individuals who do not meet the church's standards. A government should not be able to deny a particular service, status, or right to any citizen.

[KitchenWitch]

13. I agree

but I disagree with churches telling members how to participate in the political process whilst maintaining tax exempt status.

[ScreamingMeemie]

20. I didn't ask my church to marry gays. I asked them, or expected them,

not to preach hate from the pulpit. Not to tell us how to vote. :shrug: Where did you get refusing to marry gays from my post? For clarification, the priest was sermonizing on voting no on the Marriage ammendment, which had nothing to do with the Church and everything to do with the government.

[Untermonkey]

34. I don't have a problem with the clergy saying whatever they wish.

There are plenty of churches out there for me to attend if I don't like what a particular church or minister is preaching. I believe churches have both the right and the moral obligation to voice their opinions on all manner of moral issues. If I don't like the message, I'll find another church.

Just my two cents worth.

[ScreamingMeemie]

81. Not when they're not paying taxes and they pretend to preach a "Christian"

message. I honestly have no idea what your beef was with my original message, other than a possible misunderstanding of it on your part. Like I said, I'm not asking them to perform any sort of marriage. Look, you don't like my posts, place me on ignore. Thanks.

[sarcasmo]

32. I too will never attend a Church again Mrs Grumpy for the shear Hatred

and Bigotry the church now speaks. The only way I will set a foot in a church again is for a funeral or a weeding of a close friend or relative.

[B Calm]

5. Republican Wedge Issues = Getting the working man to shoot

himself in the foot for his employer's entertaintment.

[billyskank]

10. Speaking as a no-nothing Brit here

I thought the purpose of the constitution was to limit the powers of the government? Not to restrain the actions of the citizens. :shrug:

[KitchenWitch]

11. Yes, in theory!

but given the current misadministration, a mere "piece of paper" will not limit what they will do anyway. :eyes:

[billyskank]

14. That's an important point

Often you hear people in Britain say that the fact that we have no written constitution gives the government too much power, and that we should have one. They point to America. But I think this is stupid. The last five years have demonstrated that the constitution in and of itself doesn't mean shit if people in positions of power aren't prepared to stop its violation.

Going further, it seems to me that if there are people who care about these sorts of things in power, you don't even need a constitution.

Bottom line, it's people and actions, not documents and words, that matter.

Just my musings... :hi:

[KitchenWitch]

16. I hear you loud and clear

So I guess it all boils down to personal ethics. Something our current politicians are sorely lacking.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

30. Very true.

The only exception was Prohibition (of alcohol), which took an amendment, but it was later repealed by another amendment, so it canceled itself out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition

[Untermonkey]

38. 100% correct.

However, over the past 150 or so years too many Americans have surrendered their rights, bit by bit, for the perceived safety of state protection. Now it's coming back to bite us in the collective ass.

[terrya]

15. Well, of course I agree with you.

As a gay man, I'm getting more than a little tired of hearing from these bigots that my right to legally marry my partner, to simply honor my everlasting love and commitment to him and to our relationship by getting married, somehow will cause the "destruction of the family". In all of this discussion, that's the worst, most despicable lie of all...that we gay and lesbian folks somehow are contributing to the degradation of marriage.

Legally...we're in the right. The Massachusetts Supreme Court, the Canadian Supreme Court, the Vermont Supreme Court, all have said that there are no legal roadblocks to same-sex marriage. When the Supreme Court of the United States, in 2003, ruled in "Lawrence v Texas", declaring sodomy laws unconstitutional, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (and chief SCOTUS homophobe), in a blistering dissent, said that this decision will open the door for "homosexual marriage", he was absolutely right. That decision did remove the last remaining legal roadblock to same-sex marriage.

Why these "Christians" are against same-sex marriage is quite simple, in my opinion. They don't like gay and lesbian people and they don't want us to enjoy the same rights they have. Period. Of course, they bristle at the idea of homophobia underlying their opposition. When the "Federal Marriage Amendment" was being debated in the Senate a few years ago, Senator Rick Santorum said at one point that people who opposed same-sex marriage "were not haters", well, that's another lie. Because that's exactly what this is all about.

KitchenWitch, thank you. For expressing these thoughts. I don't know when the opponents to our getting the same rights heterosexuals currently enjoy will ever see the light. But I am optimistic. Same-sex marriage will ultimately happen. I'm not under any false assumptions that it will happen anytime soon, though.

[KitchenWitch]

17. I was spurred to express this by a phone call I received last night

I got a call from a progressive political group, urging me to contact my state senator in order to express my wish that he block the progress of the "marriage amendment" and to try and assure that it does not end up on the ballot.

As a straight, married woman, I simply do not understand why the wingnuts have made homosexuality such an abomination. I think hatred, in any form is the true abomination. I wish for a day that my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are given the same rights as I have as a heterosexual woman.

Power to the people!

[BR_Parkway]

21. You left out the billion$ in cash that the anti gay industry rakes in

and yes, they are an industry

[Solly Mack]

18. equal rights are not special rights

it's those who would oppress others that want the special rights

[KitchenWitch]

19. Exactly

Thank you for stating it so succinctly.

[dddem]

23. "We have many pressing problems in our country"

but as long as we keep talking about those gay people, we don't have to think about them. As long as I live, I'll never forget the debate between John Edwards and Dick Cheney. Edwards brought up the fact that we are building 14 military bases (14!!!)in Iraq, and the following day, all they could talk about was gay Mary Cheney! WTF?!?! If I were gay, I would resent not only the way I am treated by other folks, but also by the way I were being used by this administratoin (with help from the media) as a big fat distraction.

[NMMNG]

24. Hear, hear!

These fools would deny gays and lesbians the right to commit to each other in marriage. Then they would turn around and claim that gay and lesbian relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships because gays/lesbians don't make the same enduring commitments as heterosexuals.

Well how the can we when you put in place laws to prevent us from doing so???

Hypocritical fools.

[DanCa]

25. Damn ignorant people

Sorry I just got up and it takes me two or three posts before I get glib. When will people learn to stay out of other peoples buisness? Damn it's just not right.

[Minnesota Libra]

26. Enlightenment from neocons/fundies?? I want whatever it........

....is that you are smoking/taking.:rofl: Maybe it would make getting through this nightmare just a tad easier.:shrug:

In all seriousness though these creatures are absolutely sick and I have no idea what it will take to wake these fools up.:grr:

[TomChicago]

27. marriage for anyone who wants it

As with other serious issues, the lines between what is a civic and a religious matter have become blurred to the point of crisis. The founders held off for nearly 100 years before they allowed clergy to perform recognized "marriage" ceremonies, granting that power only to civil authorities. That is the way it should be again. Civil law should govern civil unions. If you want to have the sanction of your church, you certainly should be able to do so, but subsequent to and subordinate to the civil union performed under the rule of law. We were a country of laws, not of (Christian) churches.

[area51]

66. Welcome to DU, TomChicago. (n/t)

[flordehinojos]

28. going after gay marriages is the new witch hunt these hypocritical Xans

have come up with.

Everything is always a witch hunt for them.

[undeterred]

29. Bumper sticker idea: There is no sanctity in BIGOTRY

Its happening in wisconsin too - and because I am a Christian I am working to defeat it.

[WePurrsevere]

31. My 84 yo father & I had a go around about this issue. His problem is not

"gays" or "lesbians" per se... he doesn't feel that who an adult is attracted to, loves or has sex with is anybody's business as long as it's consenting adults.

His "Christian" issue with it is the word "marriage". To him "marriage" is a Judeo-Christian sacriment making it a church issue. He doesn't mind at all legal state recognized civil unions and when we got to talking he said it should be up to the church whether they "marry" gays or not.. for some reason he has it in his head that the churches will be forced to marry gays even if it's against their beliefs. Knowing he believes in the Separation of Church and State I said to my father then make all non-church unions "civil unions", gay or straight, and only use the term marriage for those married in a church IF that church is okay with it. He doesn't have a problem with that. Other anti-gay "marriage" folks that I've spoken with feel the same way so is it in the "framing"? Maybe what needs to be changed is to separate church "marriage" and state "civil unions". :shrug:

::sigh:: He's hasn't liked most Republicans since Ike and can't stand Bush or what the new Republicans are doing. In many ways he's very liberal considering his age and how and where he was brought up... as a rather logic oriented man he struggles and wants so very much to understand but is also set in some ways. Although I have found we share a strong dislike of Bush and the neo-con policies B-) there are still things we part company on and as he gets older I find myself increasingly hesitate to get too much into our differences since I know our time together is very precious and I don't want to waste it arguing so that my last memory of him (or him of me) to be one of anger.

Anyway... my husband and I don't feel threatened at all by the idea of gays marrying... but then again we are both very secure in the love we have for each other and rejoice in that... who are we to deny the same to another couple just because they are the same sex? For us love is the "law", love over all.

[DFW]

33. A fabulous retort

was sent to me by my sister.

It seems the Maryland State Legislature had some bill on the table from the far right trying to outlaw gay
marriage in the state. Some Republican State Senator was harrassing an expert witness, saying that in her
Bible it stated that marriage was between a man and a woman. The witness responded: "When you took the oath
of office, you put your hand on a Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not put your hand on
the Constitution qnd swear to uphold the Bible."

My nomination for best retort of the week to the relgious loonies!

[Brazenly Liberal]

54. People who feel the institution of marriage is threatened by gays

haven't looked around lately to see what straight people are doing to it.

[WePurrsevere]

80. He doesn't feel marriage is "threatened by gays" anymore then society in

general.

At 84 he comes from growing up in, what in man yways is, a very different time. I watch him struggling to understand and make some sense of the times he's living in now... but as many of us know those old ingrained "tapes" inside our heads don't always die an easy death... I just appreciate that most of the time at least he tries.

[Brazenly Liberal]

85. You know what?

I apologize. I made a comment about people in general when you were talking about one person in particular. One person who is important to you. Looking at it that way, my comment was pretty insensitive.

The guy is 84 years old. We're all a product of our times and if he is trying to make sense of all that's changed in nearly a century, good for him!

Again, I'm sorry. I wasn't thinking. I can be a smartass and I like being a smartass, but not at the expense of someone like you.

[WePurrsevere]

87. It's okay, some of my favorite people have been & are smartasses.

:evilgrin:

Anyway, I truly appreciate that you apologized, it sometimes seems like it's a dying art. B-)

Welcome to DU btw. :)

[xmas74]

55. I can see where he's coming from.

I am a supporter of gay and lesbian rights and I understand the argument between "marriage" and "civil unions". Technically, a marriage is a sacrement, according to Judeo-Christians. IMO, the state should only offer civil unions to all, whether gay or hetero and the marriage contract should be only offered by churches.

My brother and my best friend were not married in churches. My brother was married at the Ren Fest by a JoP and my best friend was married at the local courthouse. Both absolutely agree with the idea of civil union, which is technically what each have. Another one of my close friends also agrees w/ the idea. He has stated that if he and his partner ever had the chance to legally bind their relationship it would be considered a civil union unless it was held in a church setting (then it would be considered a marriage).

Just my opinion but I believe that all "marriage" licenses given by the state should actually be civil union documents. But where I disagree w/ your father about the idea of marriages having to marry gays and lesbians. They would still have the right to recognize or disavow that union in their setting only, just as they could w/ a marriage between a man and a woman. A church is, in some ways, a private club, no different than a sorority or a Lodge. They can decide whether they want to grant or deny membership for any reason. (Keep in mind that this is coming from a liberal Christian.) But the state should legally have to recognize any union between consenting adults.

[KitchenWitch]

58. I definitely see your point!

But I do believe that if civil union legislation is passed, there will be churches (such as the Metropolitan Community Church, et al) which may be willing to have marriage services for gays.

[xmas74]

59. I attend a Methodist church.

A fellow DU'er informed me that my pastor did offer marriage services for gays and lesbians at her previous church.

Yes, there will be some churches that will gladly do so. The ones who choose not to do not have to have our support, same as any organization that that has ideals that we do not approve of.

[KitchenWitch]

61. exactly!

I think I know this fellow DUer of whom you speak!

[xmas74]

63. Actually it's not that one

but we know she would have no problems w/ it. It's a DU'er from the KC area who knew about my pastor. My pastor has only been here since last summer and she gave me the 411 about her.

All her info made me only too happy to keep attending the church!

[KitchenWitch]

65. That is wonderful!

I know that our mutual friend here on DU would be open to it as well.

[xmas74]

69. I know she would be.

We know of two people now to tend our friends to if they would like a ceremony!

[we can do it]

74. So I Get It, Only Christians and Jews Can Marry

That also excludes Muslims, Buddists, Atheists, etc......sorry that arguement doesn't fly either....it's all or none.

[xmas74]

75. That's not it.

Think about it-marriage has traditionally been something that has been found in religions. Marriage should not be recognized by the state at all. Technically, you do not need a marriage license by the state in order to marry in a church.

The states need to get out of the business of marriage in general. Civil unions are a better representative of what the state should be dealing w/ for the population in general.

BTW-my brother is an atheist. He says that since he was not married in a religious service he does consider what the state of Kansas gave him as a document of a civil union. My best friend is Wiccan. She considers the paper from the state of Missouri to also be a document of a civil union. They both agree that no state has any business pushing a religious institution on anyone and that it should be represented as it is-a union of two people who have chosen to share their lives together instead of a religious statement of bringing two families together in the church-which is what marriages traditionally were. They were not about love. They were about joining families together. IMO, civil unions speak of a free will choice between two individuals to pledge themselves to each other instead of a "forced" choice to administer oneself to all the sacraments (since some Christian faiths do believe marriage to be a sacrament).

[we can do it]

89. Sorry, But That's Just Not True - Religions "Adopted" Marriage Later On

Women Were "Property" In Some Cultures....
An Athenian marriage ceremony (not celebration) between father or guardian and suitor went something like this:
>I give this woman for the procreation of legitimate children.  
  I accept.  
  >Here is (sum of money, dowry).  
  I'm happy with that.  
This transaction sealed, if not consummated, the marriage.

Some jurists held that a marriage was not legal unless a dowry was paid. This is another widespread usage that lasted until recently in Mediterranean lands. Note that nothing was said about love, and the girl had no say in the matter. Love and choice are very modern additions, even in our own culture.

http://semperegoauditor.typepad.com/ccc/2005/11/marriage_in_his.html


>Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.


http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm

[WePurrsevere]

79. I don't think he minds the idea of a church choosing to marry any one..

I think the "having to" thing may come from disinformation from "the pulpit". When I asked him if a "church" & their clergy (I used Unitarian and Wiccan as an example) chose to perform a ceremony of "marriage" between two gay men would he have a problem with that he said "no", that's their right. Then he went off again about churches "having to" again, I said but no ones trying to force them too... and at that point my beloved step-mother gave me a wink and a slight shake of her head and decided that was enough at the dinner table. (She's a life long Catholic and is more liberal then he is but then again she taught many years in a city public high school so I think she is more mellow... come to think of it I guess she had more impact on me then I thought. B-))

[xmas74]

82. At least he's heading toward the right direction.

I've heard a few say that marriage should not be allowed no matter what.

Sounds like he's trying to understand but has been given some "misinformation", as you put it. Like I said before, a church is no different than any exclusionary club or organization. They can decide to do what they like w/in the confines of their walls. Do we have to support them? No. Do they have the right to take their views and force them on the populace at large? Once again, no. Right now we have a few who are trying to force their views on the population at large.

I'm hoping that eventually common sense will prevail.

[readmoreoften]

95. My parents were married by a justice of the peace...

in my grandmother's home. After almost 40 years, they would find the notion that they are "not married' to be absurd. I agree with your argument, but this issue is not just some sticky widget wording problem that will be solved through replacing state-sanctioned marriage with civil unions (for one, these people hate GLBT people and actively want to deny us rights and, for two, they would just spin the move and say that the gays are trying to "destroy marriage" and force everyone into civil unions.

The fundies are irrational. They irrationally hate and fear gay people.

Even still, I think that gay marriage is inevitable. We may have a holocaust of gays in America before sense prevails, but I think it will be a reality it 25 years. (Not sooner, though.)

[dddem]

99. My brother and his wife are against gay marriage,

but they have no problem with a civil union. They eloped. They were married outside of a religious ceremony. i asked my sister in law whether she would be happy with the label "Civil Union". Whether she would like to be "less" married than me, but with the same legal benefits. For some reason, she didn't like the idea. Hmmm.

[Gormy Cuss]

57. Here's a slightly different version of that sort of compromise.

Let's get rid of marriage as a secular term. Marriage can be used for sacred unions. The state wouldn't be required to recognize sacred unions, so anyone who wants legal recognition must participate in a civil union, a simple contract signing ceremony would do it.

[xmas74]

76. I just posted something similar to that and got

nailed for it.

[Gormy Cuss]

91. Well, too bad for those who don't see that it's a solution.

If all the state does for anyone is a civil union, I'm fine with that. I don't like the idea of creating a second category for gays that could be construed as inferior. Marriage can be the word for the folks who think of it as a religious ceremony and they can duke it out with their own denominations whether that includes gays. For the state, it shouldn't be an issue. Any two adults ought to be able to join legally with the same set of rights and responsibilities.

Not that I have an opinion on this.
:silly:

[xmas74]

94. Which is exactly how I feel about it.

The religious community has adopted marriage as their own exclusive right. Why not give everyone, no matter who you are or whom you are choosing to spend your life with, a civil union and call it even.

I don't see myself marrying any time in the near future. (That would mean this single mom would actually have to allow herself a life!) But if I were I would have no problems w/ the state recognizing my hetero relationship as a civil union. If I chose to later marry in a church in front of my family and friends then that would be different but only according to my church. Legally, all unions should be held as equal, no matter who the people involved are and where they joined together. The only thing I care about is that the parties involved are consenting adults.

[WePurrsevere]

77. Basically I think that's what I said and he agreed with but he also felt

that it would take an awful lot to change the way people see and think of marriages and civil unions.

I apologize if I wasn't clear... I had a wild day yesterday (we were with daughter #1of2 who gave birth to our 1st grandbaby) and barely slept last night. :hangover:

[Gormy Cuss]

90. Cool about the grandchild!

:toast:
:toast:

[WePurrsevere]

100. Thanks.. now I just need to figure out where the years went. It seems like

it was only yesterday that my now 28 y/o DD was a baby in my ("too young";)) arms. ;)

[Ex Lion Tamer]

35. Oh me too!

I've so longed for the day that I could leave my wife and three beautiful children to marry another man. To caress his stubbly cheeks . . . .

YUCK! And I say "yuck" not because I'm homophobic but because I am genetically heterosexual. AND NOTHING CAN CHANGE THAT! I know gay men feel the same way about sex with a woman.

It's not a lifestyle choice! How idiotic.

I would love to be able to see my gay friends marry. My wife feels the same way. Love is love; commitment is commitment. I have no doubt that I'd tear up at that wedding just as I do at heterosexual weddings: The very concept of two people declaring their love and commitment to each other is beautiful and affirming.

[JerseygirlCT]

36. Total political pandering to the basest instincts of bigots. nt

[salin]

37. There is an easy counter to this movement...

a sort of put up or shut up response.

Point to current divorce rates and ask - why is something that is currently not legal either the "cause" of these divorce rates, or a threat that is greater than the divorce rates?

That for those who are truly concerned about threats against marriage, why are they not cleaning their own houses? Because to do so might require themselves to look in the mirror and take blame if they have committed adultry, divorced, abandoned a family in order to seek a new family, skirted paying child support, etc.

It seems that the real threats are from within - and pretending that something else is the problem - just allows the real threat to grow. So why are they supporting allowing the "threat" against the family to grow? Do they hate the idea of families?

[the_expatriate]

39. God, neighborhood bully.

I am absolutely amazed at the amount of sick fundamentalist taint that is, more and more, influencing laws in this country. It is absolutely mind-boggling.

[the_expatriate]

40. PS

God's watching you. And you just pissed Him off. You shouldn't insult His pet. Its bowels are all stuffed up...poor administration .

[liberalpress]

41. Of course it does..

... once people see how easy and socially accceptable in is to be gay, then all of us straights will "cross over."

--SARCASM OFF--

[Nye Bevan]

42. I think the best strategy is not to push for the word "marriage"

since I get the feeling that this is the only thing many people object to.

Instead, let's push for "civil unions" which confer *exactly* the same rights and privileges as marriage. I know it's illogical but this seems much more likely to be accepted by many in the center and on the right.

Once civil unions are in place, then I think the word "marriage" will quickly come in practice to apply to gay marriages as well as straight marriages. "Dave and Bob are civilly united" or "Dave and Bob have a civil union" just does not flow as smoothly as "Dave and Bob are married". So for all practical purposes gay marriage will then exist.

[madinmaryland]

43. The sheer though of Rush Limbaugh IS putting my marriage

at risk and all of the other many-times divorced repub's.

:scared:

[LaurenG]

44. I have such a difficult time with mean people.

It makes me want to go on a rant. My marriage has been put at risk alright but not any gay person. My marriage has been threatened by the dreaded heterosexual "horn dogettes". Perhaps we should have a constitutional amendment, state and national that prevents extramarital unions as well, hell lets just stone all the parties involved, that should clear out most of the clergy and the republican congress. Or, maybe we should bring the offending parties to state supreme court so that we can make clear who/what the real risks in marriages are.

Fucking idiots! :eyes:

[KitchenWitch]

45. Three words: Mean People Suck

x(

[jmm]

46. We wouldn't want J Lo, Brittany,and Elizabeth Taylor's

sanctified marriages to be threatened by gay marriage.

[KitchenWitch]

47. Good point!

did not get that memo!

:eyes:

[Brewman_Jax]

48. I say let the gays get married

so they can be as miserable as the straight married people. :rofl:

[AirmensMom]

49. I couldn't agree with you more, KW.

I used to work with a woman who had long discussions with anyone who would listen about how gay people in CA proselytized on street corners, trying to get everyone else to "turn gay." Give me a break! Her marriage is in trouble because she married a jerk. Her husband divorced his first wife because she had an affair (with a man, by the way). All this marital trouble happened because gay people want (and should have) the same rights heterosexuals have?
:wtf:

I really hate it when narrow-minded people spread stupid ideas. :grr: :banghead:

[KitchenWitch]

50. Me too, AM, me too

I trust you are feeling better today?

The only people I ever see proseletyzing are the fundy evangelists. It is as if they are trying to prove to themselves by converting others, that their faith is the right faith.

[AirmensMom]

56. Yeah, a little.

Thanks. :hug:

We are in total agreement on this one.

[miss_american_pie]

51. I'm quite sure

that certain "submissive wife" doctrines are much more threatening to marriage than gay people having equal rights.

[KitchenWitch]

52. Yes indeed.

Very logical argument, unfortunately those people eschew logic.

[Brazenly Liberal]

53. I just don't get it. Never did.

The degree of rancor these people feel toward someone who has nothing to do with them. It's stunning.

I believe it's their own sexual repression. I think they're afraid that if the rigid set of rules they live by is altered in any way, their own kinkiness will burst forth uncontrollably.

[bigwillq]

60. Great post KW!

Nicely said. K&R! :bounce: :hi:

[KitchenWitch]

62. Thank you, it means a lot to me!

:pals:

[Left Is Write]

64. No! No, no! What is happening to my beloved once-liberal state?

[KitchenWitch]

67. We are getting Cheney'd

x(

[no name no slogan]

68. I got in a great debate about this at my mom's church

a few weeks back, I was visiting my mother, and attended her church Sunday morning. It's a fairly conservative, evangelical church, but I still like the pastor and he gives good sermons.

Consequently, there's a number of "Minnesota for Marriage" members in the church. One of the MfMers is in Bible study classes with my mother, and was trying to get her to sign their petition to get the bill out of the state Senate. My mother (who is fairly conservative, but doesn't agree with them, and supports civil unions) tried to be polite and brush the woman off, but she was persistant. After my mom got away from her, I told her what I know of the issue.

In particular, I told her that it will NOT happen this year because:
1) It's an election year, and NO politician (GOP or DFL) is even going to touch this thing in an election year, and
2) Most Minnesotans don't feel threatened by gay marriage enough to amend the state constitution, and
3) We already have a law on the books from 1997 (passed during the Clinton DOMA thing) that already forbids same-sex marriage.

Well, wouldn't you know it, they had a table set up in the lobby after the service. My mother walked me over there and got me into an argument with her bible study friend. Needless to say, we drew a fairly big crowd! I kept my cool, and kept my voice down, and allowed the other side to voice their opinions, and gave them the respect I would like to be shown-- even though I think their opinions are a little far-fetched.

And I think I even won over a few supporters to our side, too, with my tactics. Let them look like the crazy ranting nutjubs. Come across as civil and respectful of their ideas, even though they may be assinine. Make them look unhinged, because it makes you look sane.

Later that week, my mother got an email from the pastor, apologizing for the way the MfMers handled themselves. I told her no apology was necessary, as I wasn't threatened by them, and it was a free exchange of ideas.

In the words of Hunter Thompson, "res ipsa loquitor": the thing speaks for itself. If you come off as zany and insane, people will thing your ideas are zany and insane.

[KitchenWitch]

70. Good for you!

I am glad you were able to keep your cool.

[no name no slogan]

72. I guess shouting "SERENITY NOW" at the top of my lungs works

:o

[readmoreoften]

97. I find it deeply unsettling....

I find it deeply unsettling that a church allows a table to be set up so that people can politically conspire for the sole purpose of denying my partner and me the right to care for one another in sickness and in health, for better and for worse. The amount of suffering they cause the gay community trumps all the cakes these people bake for neighbors and the money they raise to send evangelical doctors to foreign lands. All the gay teenagers and children who commit suicide because they don't believe they have a future, those people and people like them are responsible. The banality of evil, they call it.

Still, thanks for helping out!

[bridgit]

71. check this out, hon...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=722555&mesg_id=722555 x(

sadly, those old powered wig wearing dudes were real big on segregation & exclusion, being busy consolidating their power elite; same sex marriage was the last thing on their minds at the time

separate church & state NOW!

[LeftHander]

73. Time to picket fundy churches...

For promting discrimination.

[Kurovski]

78. Why do they think that the goal for gays is to bag every woman's husband,

and every husband's wife?

This is the only way that I can figure out the whole "Threat to marriage" theory.

There must be something very personally appealing about same-gender activities to the "defenders of marriage" for them to be so certain that marriage will end, and the population will die out if the floodgates of acceptability are opened by granting civil rights to a minority.

Or perhaps it's just the elitist, exclusionary mindset of those who also believe that only they will be allowed entrance into that cloudy country club in the sky? It seems that exclusion and manufactured elitism is about the only way some can find a sense of meaning and value in their lives, artificial though it may be.

[Odin2005]

83. We need to use the term "civil unions" instead of "gay marrige".

The first the much harder for the wing-nuts to spin. Or, better yet, create a "non-marrige contractual agreement" that can could be used by ANY two people who want to unify their estates (like, for instance, two elderly sisters that live together so theyaren't lonely after thier husbands died), this will take even more steam out of the RW spin cycle.

[emdee]

84. They usually cite the book of Romans for their hatred of the gay lifestyle

but, for the life of me, I can't figure out why they completely ignore the rest of Romans which speaks against unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetness, maliciousness, envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful, who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worth of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Does the Right Wing expect governmental control of all of these things? I doubt it. I don't think people should be malicious but do we need to change the constitution to include that? I'm sure that Republicans would say no - that one change would lock most of them up!!

emdee (a Christian Democrat)

[Nikki Stone 1]

86. A lack of BIRTH CONTROL puts marriages at risk

Not a couple of gays or lesbians gettin it on.

PLEASE!

[Lisa]

88. I might not want to get married at all, if gay people can get hitched!

My jurisdiction (British Columbia) has allowed same-sex marriage for a couple of years now -- and, well, what's the point in my getting wed if there isn't an identifiable group which can be excluded, so I can feel more "special"?

Not!

By the way, the dire predictions of BC's social/economic collapse as a direct result of same-sex marriage don't seem to have come true -- yet. I suppose all of you watching the Vancouver Olympics on TV in 2010 can check for rains of brimstone or leather-winged demons, though. (The brimstone thing might actually happen, if the neo-cons get their wish for a coal-fired power plant on the Lower Mainland.)


p.s. the Phelps-type activists who were leaving threatening voicemails for the Members of Parliament who voted for same-sex marriage were going on about how worried they are for "children and families". One would think that if they really wanted to encourage more people to have kids, they could focus on, oh, getting a national day care plan approved? Or arguing against the cutbacks to housing and other services for low-income families? Or making postsecondary education more affordable? Or (if they're in the States, as a lot of them seem to be), forcing Bush to do something about the softwood lumber dispute so more mills don't close?

[Wetzelbill]

93. psh you wacky Canuckians

If I didn't love your country so much, I'd...

Well, I don't really know where I was going with this.

Hey, I want to go to the Olympics there. If I move back to MT or Seattle, I'll be much closer than I am now. I am a total wannabe curler. :)

Leather-winged demons? I might tune in just for that. :)

You guys don't have a national Day Care plan? I thought you did... First chink in the armor, Canada!

Did you know that Canada still pays a ton of money for Indian tribe's health care? It costs more because they aren't officially wards of Canada in that respect and aren't part of your national health care plan. Something to do with differing opinions on treaty interpretations. Tribes want to have self-determination, so they can have the resources to fund and create their own health care system that would cover all their needs. It would be much cheaper over the long haul to get them on that track, but your government is stuck in a system of national, provincial and reserve funding that costs over twice as much for an Indian's health care than it would for your average Canadian. It's a wasteful mess. You'd think politicians would actually want to fix real problems like that. Duh! Just goes to show, politicians on both sides of the border are not too bright. :)

[Lisa]

101. "medicine chest"

From what I can recall of First Nations treaty issues, some of the bands signed treaties which promised them a "medicine chest" as part of the concessions. Given that this was in the 1800s, there wasn't any provincial medicare back then. (In theory the provinces look after the health care stuff, so it's not really a "national" plan, e.g. the card that Bill Clinton was showing at his speech way back -- my card has "British Columbia" on it.)

And because it's legally a federal thing (the treaties are on a footing with international agreements), the provinces aren't supposed to have jurisdiction over aboriginals.

So there has been much legal wrangling over whether "medicine chest" is literal (a box stocked with bandages, disinfectant, etc.) -- or whether it was symbolic and should be updated to reflect what the bands were promised in a larger sense, or what our modern-day expectations are. Not surprising that there is a federal/provincial/municipal mess -- the land/resources issues are even worse. (If the box-of-bandages sounds weird, consider that many "treaty day" celebrations consist of a federal representative solemnly handing a crisp new bill to each member of the band ... in an amount like $5 or $10, which would have been a lot of money in 1900, but has not been indexed to inflation!)



Re: national day care, the old Liberal government was promising to put this in -- it didn't actually get off the ground, because the Conservatives are scrapping it for their own programme (which involves just giving parents money and letting the market take care of the rest). (Friends with kids tell me that the payments won't go very far.)

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=587d1824-0129-4bed-889b-dc18b7e8c0d3&k=63741

[Wetzelbill]

92. the mere fact that I exist puts your marriage at risk!

You and I could have kids of normal height. They wouldn't have to endure the torment of being teased for being too tall or too short. Just think about that for a minute. :think:

(On another note, NEVER give me an opening that easy again!)
:rofl:

[KitchenWitch]

104. LOL

[Crazy Guggenheim]

96. K&R.

:popcorn:

[EFerrari]

98. Fight the good fight, dear KitchenWitch

Let's get those homophobic bastards.

:hug:

[KitchenWitch]

102. Thank you and I will keep fighting.

The premise that allowing gay and lesbian partnerships to have the same benefits as my husband and I do as being harmful to my partnership is simply incorrect at best and to pursue legislation to assure that those partnerships are not given the same benefits is reprehensible.

[EFerrari]

103. It's plainly reprehensible and flatly unAmerican.

Unless we decide we want to stop being the "land of opportunity".

:toast: