Vermont's "Happily Ever After"
Yes, anti-gay marriage robocalls urged me and thousands more voters to contact, well, my wife, who is a Vermont state representative. Then love won.
The Vermont State House was packed and overflowing. Inside the 152-year-old building, a drama was reaching its climactic act. Nine years after Vermont became the first state in the nation to legalize civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, the Vermont Legislature was about to vote again on whether to legalize same-sex marriage. The House and Senate had overwhelmingly approved same-sex marriage a week earlier, only to have Republican Gov. Jim Douglas veto the bill within 15 minutes of receiving it on April 6, 2009.
On the morning of April 7, 2009, Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin rose to address his colleagues. "This is our moment. This is our chance," he declared in the packed Senate chamber. And with hardly any debate, the Senate swiftly overrode the governor’s veto, 23-5. All eyes turned to the tall Senate clerk wearing a dark green blazer as he walked the bill down the hall to the overflowing chamber of the House of Representatives, where 100 votes—a two-thirds majority—were needed to override the governor's veto.
-
Message to the Religious Right: Gay Marriage Has Nothing to Do With "Tyranny"
-
The Gay Marriage Stimulus Package
-
And Now, the Honeymoon
Four years after my moms exchanged vows in San Francisco, the state of CA finally decided they could get married. This time, I'll give them both away at their wedding.
The Vermont Legislature has only overridden a governor's veto six times in its history. (The last was 19 years ago.) The vote for same-sex marriage the previous week was five votes short of the necessary supermajority. Shap Smith, the boyish-looking state representative from a working-class town who had become Speaker of the House just three months earlier, had been working the phones to persuade reluctant colleagues to override. He was taking on a popular four-term Republican governor who had regularly outmaneuvered the Democratic legislature. By this morning, everyone knew the final vote would be razor thin; no one could confidently predict the outcome.
In the mundane rituals that belie the historic significance of the moment, the roll of the House was called by the clerk as it has been since the American Revolution, one by one. One hundred and forty-nine times (one legislator was out sick), a name rang out, and was greeted with a "yes" or "no." As the last of the names was called, a swell of murmurs rippled through the galley. Finally, Speaker Smith, his voice cracking with emotion, announced, "Those voting yes, a hundred. Those voting no, 49. A hundred needed to pass; you have voted to override the veto."
A swing of the gavel, an explosion of emotion from spectators in the galley and from members of the legislature who rose to their feet to clap, and same-sex marriage was legal in Vermont. It's the fourth state in the country to allow same-sex marriage—Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa legalized it as a result of court orders—and the first in the country to do so through a vote of its elected leaders.
As I walked up the long, grassy lawn in front of the Vermont State House on the chilly, wet morning of the historic override vote, I had a sense of déjà vu. Large signs stood in front of the gold-domed building. "Believe in Our Common Humanity." "Override for Love." A lone "Take Back Vermont" sign, the slogan of gay-marriage opponents, stuck in the soft, wet spring earth.
Nine years ago, I covered the battle for civil unions in Vermont for Mother Jones. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in Baker v. Vermont that gay and lesbian couples were entitled to the same legal rights and benefits of marriage as heterosexual couples. The court ordered the Vermont legislature to craft a law that would satisfy the ruling, either by legalizing gay marriage or by creating an equivalent partnership structure. The decision, wrote Chief Justice Jeffrey Amestoy, "is simply a recognition of our common humanity." In April 2000, the Vermont legislature passed civil unions, the legal equivalent of heterosexual marriage. Gov. Howard Dean signed it into law the next day.
That winter of 2000, the debate over civil unions raged for four months. I vividly remember arriving at the State House in the midst of a blizzard for the public hearings. Inside, thousands of Vermonters in down jackets and snow boots were camped out in the halls and in the chamber of the House of Representatives. Opponents of civil unions warned that God’s wrath would come down upon the state if "the homosexual agenda" was enacted. Southern Christian churches bused in activists to oppose the effort. But Vermont political leaders barred out-of-state residents from speaking, ensuring that the discussion over gay rights would take place among neighbors. I witnessed one result of this when I came across fanatical anti-abortion leader Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, reduced to shouting himself hoarse on the windswept and icy steps of the State House, unable to make his case to the legislators inside.
This time, the debate was different. For starters, the sky hasn't fallen in the nine years that Vermont has allowed same-sex unions. Gay and lesbian couples have had civil unions, raised kids, and some have divorced, just like straight couples. A cottage industry for civil unions has flourished in the state. A recent study of the economic impact of legalizing same-sex marriage in Vermont projected that it would boost the economy by more than $30 million, generate $3 million in local taxes and fees, and create about 700 new jobs. For a cash-strapped state whose governor recently proposed reducing the state work force by roughly the same number of jobs, it was another compelling argument.
The Vermont Legislature held a public hearing about gay marriage on March 18. There was no blizzard this time. Thousands of Vermonters came to the State House, and the event was notably civil. Marriage supporters wore bright yellow buttons that declared, "From Legal Rights to Equal Rights." Opponents sported white stickers that stated, "Marriage: A mother and father for every child." The opponents' choice of slogan was telling: With roughly half of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, their rallying cry seemed to be more nostalgia for a bygone era than about the ragged reality of modern family life.
Outside the chamber, I spoke with William Moore, a carpenter from Cambridge, Vermont. "As a Christian man, the word 'marriage' is defined by God," he told me. "They are seeking to co-opt the word and redefine it. They are going to strip all meaning from the word for their political desires. It's not a civil rights issue." I then asked him what he thought about civil unions. "I don't have a problem with civil unions," he replied quickly. "It doesn't dilute or add to the institution of marriage in any way."
Page 1 of 2 
Economic issues matter and marriage is an economic issue
Studies show that married people are slightly healthier (less costs) and wealthier (pay more taxes) than their single counterparts and this is true for gay people as well. Therefore, it is in the state's best economic interest to grant marriage equality.
Economic issues matter and marriage is an economic issue
I've seen this argument before, and it didn't make sense to me then, since it could well be that the causation is in the other direction (or even both ways, to be honest). It might well be that those inclined to marry are also those most likely to be fairly well off, healthier, and settled. That said, marriage equality may well lead to more gay and lesbian people being healthier (less stress, more health benefits) and wealthier (the same reasons). I'd like to see some evidence for both causal claims, though. A person in a dysfunctional marriage may be unhealthier and less wealthy than they would be if they were not tearing themselves (and their spouse) apart. A person not suited to marriage may be better off financially and healthwise than if they got into an unsuitable marriage. I expect everyone knows cases of each of the sorts of counterexamples I gave above. I want to know how common they are, and if it says anything to the direction of causation.
Good for Vermont, bad for out-of-state people
First off, I had a great and long comment that I had to delete due to the expanding bar below here, so I'll just try to summarize what I typed in previously.
Good job for Vermont for not having any pressure among out-of-state people talking about their views, while this was the people of the state's issue. Now for California, it was just chaotic for me because of the way the Proposition funding came from out-of-state, whether for yes or no. I wasn't shocked to see most Californians voting for Yes, as the old socially conservative people voted, most of them are still alive I believe.
The technical issues might be different from voters to the legislature, but I just wanted to look at the non-linear levels of the individual of the voter and the appointed legislature taken in by the majority and not the minority and how one might represent their vote by their views. (Hope it doesn't sound confusing.)
The Vermont constitution of
The Vermont constitution of 1777 states in its first article that all people are born equal and that slavery is forbidden. It took a while to get women's rights and voting in place. But the state has been a trailblazer in human rights. The marriage bill that accords equal rights to all couples is indeed an event to make us proud of Vermont.
We pay a good deal in taxes, but we are proud of the avaiability of social support systems and our attempts to realize the full humanity throughout our population.
It is great to live in Vermont.
http://www.skep41.blogspot.co
http://www.skep41.blogspot.com/
Sigh! Is nothing sacred? It used to be that being gay meant that you had turned your back on the antiquated middle-class, uptight values of a hypocritical society and gone to live in Edge City. From the first forbidden kiss it was a life of revolution and struggle against the mean, hyper-religious crackpots who want to tell everybody else what to do and snear at other people for being bad and dirty. But now, is this it? The restored Victorian with the matching Beamers parked neatly in the driveway, the expensively coiffed poodle, the matching Armani suits? Were those guys all the time secretly yearning not to be Liza Minelli or a nun in a thong bikini but instead dreaming of assuming the staid, plaid apron of Betty Crocker? I urge my gay friends to turn to the pages not of some ponderous, unreadable religious tome written two thousand years ago but to the ineffable truths to be found in 'Henny Youngman's Thousand Best One-liners'. Married? Are you nuts? Do you know how many straight lives that moribund institution has destroyed? Look at your parents, do you want to end up like THEM? I'm working on a ballot measure that requires gay people to get married while straight people troll on the internet for anonymous sex partners...
Really?
One cannot logically equate being gay with rebellion. One may choose to be rebellious whereas one may not choose to be gay. In so many words, you say nothing of value.
This is about freedom to choose, not about poodles
Skep41, no one is going to make you marry anyone, but you haven't the right to tell someone else they can't. This whole thing is about having an equal right in a so-called free society - a right to make a choice, if you want to.
Your old 70's attitude is out of date and boring. Those of us who are in committed relationships want to have this right of choice. We lose so many benefits for our relationships that heterosexuals have - like being able to make decisions for our partners when they become disabled, or even being allowed to visit them in intensive care since without this Right we aren't considered "family". Then there are the Rights of inheritance and pension and health care benefits that heteros can claim from their married partners but we have not been able to. My partner must have a separate health insurance plan which costs much more and if I die he can't continue to receive my pension, as married heteros can. It is a matter of fairness.
This is not about poodles and suburbia. My partner and I, of 18 years, are Democratic Socialists and Animal Rights Activists - hardly your stereotype Ozzie and Harriet household. And so what if we were? It isn't up to you, with your old outdated ideas or the ignorant, bigoted, relgious goofballs to decide who can and cannot have equal rights in a so-called free society. It's about equal access, equal rights and about a minority being oppressed by the majority. Did you say the same things to Blacks when they were struggling against a bigoted society for their equal rights? Oh, who needs to vote anyway? Who cares if you can eat anywhere you want to, most of the food they serve is crap anyway? Get real.
God, why is that our worst enemies are from the self-hating grinches among our own people - and always have been? You remember Dan Savage, who wrote a sleazy column for a sleazy rag in Seattle and, as an openly gay man, put himself up as the poster boy for the evangelical rightwingers who were fighting against equal rights for LGBT people in the 90's? He talked just like you and actually went public to fight against our freedom. Well, now he's talking a different story, now that he and his partner have adopted a child and want that child to have a legal family as it sets out into a world that is hard enough without having come from a family in the shadows. We wait to hear his apology, yeah sure. Who knows maybe you'll someday meet your soul mate and want to have those rights that are denied to you/us now. Put your anger and energy into something more positive - something you won't someday have to regret.
Just the Facts
skep41,
Back say, in the beginning, if homosexuality was normal and heterosexuality was abnormal, humans would have never procreated in sufficient numbers to survive as a species. While other species exhibit homosexual behavior, their numbers are in the margin. It’s good thing, they can not procreate. That is, unless the LGBT mafia starts lobbying legislators to pour money into science projects to investigate how these anomalous animals can be helped; much like artificial insemination in lesbian couples now allows them to have children.
Like it or not, homosexuality is deviant behavior and defies nature's method of procreating. Our society is starting to "accept” this behavior as a viable lifestyle. When that acceptance transcends into the public schools, I for one, will raise a major stink. I will tolerate homosexuality. I will not accept it. To impress upon a young child that homosexuality is acceptable; to have them in fact lean in that "direction" serves no purpose in "nature."
I do not however, believe in persecution of homosexuals. In fact, I believe homosexuals ought to be free to choose their partners, and reap the benefits of that "partnered" relationship. Just don't call it a marriage. Marriage in fact was created in the Church, not the courts. Call it something else.
Ultimately, our time and efforts as a society should be spent on finding the root causes of this anomaly, and a cure. There's been much debate over its causes. Choice or genetic it doesn't really matter; it is an anomaly against nature.
Suggestions for additional cures
Should we also find a cure for those heterosexual couples unable to procreate according to the laws of nature? According to your logic, their behavior is unnatural and deviant. I wish you luck in attacking these deviants in the school systems around the country.
Wbinmd You have destroyed this planet with your "natural" drives
Your sense of self-worth is quite amazing! Just because you can get drunk and get a woman pregnant makes you something special? Cockroaches breed and reproduce too, big deal. You Breeders seem to think there is something superior and special about you for being able to give in to your "natural" urges and shoot a load of sperm into a warm place. Is that all you have to be superior about? What else have you accomplished? What a loser.
You, and your inability to control your urges, have just about destroyed this planet with overpopulation. There are just too many people and everything wrong with our environment, climate, pollution, habitat loss etc. all comes down to you not being able to control yourselves. Homosexuality is probably nature's way of natural birth control - who cares why? We exist so we much be as much a part of nature as you are, just because there are more of you doesn't make you better. We exist in pretty much every known species. So because we are a minority you think that makes us less valuable, less important, less worthy? Wow! You don't want to persecute us, you just want to denigrate us, demean us, dehumanize us and ultimately, silence us. You and your kind have done a pretty good job over the centuries. Well, we don't want to persecute you either, even though you and your "kind" are going to be the death of us all with your overbreeding. It is people like you who need to be controlled (and will have to be some day soon if we all are to survive).
And as far as marriage being invented by the church, get real. Marriage is in a lot more countries and cultures than any of the pseudo-Christian churches are. Marriage in the middle ages in the church was mostly reserved for the ruling class as a way of ensuring the passing on of property and money. We common folk then mostly just moved in together (as more and more do now again). There were church rites of union for same-sex couples in pre-modern European societies until the beginning of the 12th century when the barbarians took over so much of western society. Yes, that's right - homosexual couples were joined together in churches for hundreds of years. Read "Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe", by John Boswell, the A. whitney Griswold Professor of History at Yale University. Just one more historical note where homosexuals have been whitewashed out, as usual. Your Western culture would be far poorer without all the homosexuals through the ages from Alexander the Great, to Michaelangelo, to Da Vinci, to Gertrude Stein, to Saints Serge and Bacchus (the only saints to have been promised to be together in heaven for their perfect love). That is if you have any interest in enlightening yourself. It's a good thing the majority of gay men don't have the proclivity to violence so many of your kind have or we would never have put up with you and your ilk's oppression, repression and arrogance for so many centuries.
If marriage is such a sacred heterosexual thing, why do half of your marriages end in divorce? Homosexuals getting "married" couldn't be any more of a blot on "marriage" itself than what you lot have been. You sure haven't treated it like it is so special, have you? And in Muslim societies divorce is easier still and they even have a "temporary marriage" so if you meet someone you want to have sex with, you just pop into your local imam, get a temporary marriage license and have at it until you've expended all your lust, then you just walk away and haven't committed any "sin" because you were married for the time it took to get your rocks off. And maybe you were able to create another mouth to feed in the world too! Wow! You guys really treat "marriage" with respect. Grow up!
Urges
Look who's talking. You are the one that can't control your immoral urges to shoot your load into any consensual hole just to satisfy that urge. The next step for you and your kind will be having sex with four legged animals. As hard as I seem I will pray for you.
Save your breath
Your love for your neighbor is so inspiring! So like so many of your fellow pseudo-Christians. If you were arrested, along with your leader Dubya, and put on trial for being a Christian would there be enough evidence to convict you? Fat chance. "They'll know you're my disciples by your love", "Judge not that you be not judged (you'll be judged the same as you judge others", "Give all you have to the poor and follow me" (Well? hand it over devout follower of the Prince of Peace), ''Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (are you ready, oh sinless one?).
You know nothing about my, or any other gay person's, life, love or sexual activity & your typical Evangelical bigotry about gay people and animals is getting really old. This world will not be the better place it could be as long as people like you and your superstitious, medieval cults all die out. You and your Muslim brothers - God save us all from you, who claim to be his followers. (There are between 10,000 and 11,000 religions, cults & sects in the world and they almost all say they are the only true one. Isn't that amazing. Just think, if you were born in India you'd be a devout Hindu!)
Have you even read your Bible? Outside of the Gospels it's pretty disgusting. Not much different from the hate-filled, violence of the Koran, which was inspired by the Old Testament. Do you believe in the Old Testament (a non-Christian book, by the way), if so then I wonder what hateful admonishments you choose to ignore - is it that women who dress in men's clothes (pants etc.) are an abomination? That a son who is disobedient should be stoned to death? That you are given permission to make slaves of anyone outside of your own group, and the children of strangers within your land. How about food - do you eat pork, shellfish, anything that "creepeth" in the sea, turtles, etc.? I'll bet you do & have a good excuse for not obeying that one, right? A woman who is menstruating must be "put away for seven days" - do you lock your unclean wife up each month? I wonder who cooks then? Do you accept that a woman who gives birth to a boy is unclean for 7 days, and if to a lowly girl she is unclean for 2 whole weeks? Disgusting women! Do you agree that if a man lie with a menstruating woman he should be cast out from the people? Or here's a really good one you fundamentalists should really be able to feel self-righteous about - Adulterers must both be put to death (this Leviticus is really a hoot, isn't it). The New Testament, outside of the Gospels for those of you who follow Paul, Peter or any of the others, rather than Jesus, (who often contradict or add to what Jesus said) has some fun ones too - like, Women should keep silence in church, should wear modest apparel, and not wear braids, gold, pearls or costly apparel. Wow that really makes an abomination of your friend Sarah Palin, doesn't - and those pants she wears, remember that is an abomination!!! And don't forget that women should not even teach or "usurp authority over man but remain silent". You better tell her to keep to her place and leave politics to real men, who god favors more. Mohammed couldn't have said it better. And here's one for you to meditate on today - Everyone who is proud in heart is an Abomination to the Lord (that's back to the OT, Prov. 16:5). And remind your bishop, if you have one (since all you "Christian" sects seem to believe in so many different things!), that " A bishop should not drink wine." Boy those evil Catholics! Wow! I bet you do everything you can to avoid reading about the love between Jonathan and David, the Beloved of the Lord - the "love that surpasses the love of women" - they even kissed one another and Jonathan loved David more than his own soul. Then they probably went right out and had sex with a gerbil, though, right?
There are so many of these stupid rules in your flawless scriptures, you must be tired from trying to do them all and remain sane. But though there so many more of these doozies I'll just remind you of just one more - that you shall not wear a garment of mixed types - so throw out all those cotton/polyester blends, you don't want to go to hell for that evil sin, do you? But don't forget, we all want to hear how you are now going to really follow ALL the Bible rules and you are going to start to condemn rich people too. Let's be fair, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality (strange, if it is so important to you fundamentalists?) but he said plenty in condemning the rich - "and the rich he sent empty away" - they can't get into heaven either so make sure your preacher casts those evil bums out of your congregation of such righteous souls. OK? Let us know how you get on. Some of those preachers are pretty "iffy" when it comes to losing those big donations - just think of the mansions, heli-pads, pools and A/C for the dogs from some of those fundamentalists we love the most - Jerry Falwell, Pat Robinson, and my personal favorites, Tammy & Jim (really, Tammy even loves gay people! I guess she'll burn in eternal fire for that, though. Shame)
What kind of a good and loving god would cast his/her own creation/children into "Hell" to be tormented and tortured for all eternity for any reason. Even a loving human parent is more loving and forgiving than that! The Zoroastrian prophet Zarathustra said that no good god would ever do that. And since Judaism, and therefore Christianity and Islam, bases much of its beliefs (heaven, resurrection, baptism, saviors etc.) on the preceding Zoroastrian/Persian religion, it's a shame that these so-called Monotheistic religions took the bad god from that founding religion, and not the good god Ahura Mazda. What a different world it would be without all these centuries of hate, fear, burnings at the stake, beheadings etc. if these religions had picked the good god that loved all the earth, all his children and wanted them to have a life of joy without fear of eternal torture.
Last time
Freethinker,
My arguments, while initially rooted in "nature" didn't pass your muster, nor do my religious arguments. You've obviously read considerable biblical content, certainly more than I, but probably just enough to point out those versus you find appalling in order to sway some wavering faithful. Yes, you point out several atrocities of the Old Testament, but we know little about the real context of those times. We know considerably more about the crusades, but again there Christians, for lack of a better term, “retaliating” (yes I know, turn the other cheek) against atrocities committed against them. That combined with the passion of the day, turned into perceived overzealousness. Ultimately, some justified their acts in the name of the Church.
My acts, which you equate to demonizing, have been to point out something that is wrong. While you perceive that as condemnation, you could consider it also as genuine interest in your well being. No one wants gays and lesbians to go to hell and in the end, while we are not entitled to judge, we would do well to help those who do wrong (alcoholics for example). We are however, entitled to preserve that which we hold dear. And I try not to hide behind the Church, for I am admittedly a sinner extraordinaire.
For the record, W is not my leader here on Earth. I'm a Regan Republican with Libertarian free market tendencies. Because I do not agree marriage should be extended to homosexuals one could argue I’m not a true libertarian. That’s when I just revert back to common sense natural argument.
Just to reiterate what I said scattered throughout my posts:
1) It is anomaly in nature and wrt God, something that should be acknowledged, repented, and hopefully…God willing, overcome.
2) From April 9th: I do not however, believe in persecution of homosexuals. In fact, I believe homosexuals ought to be free to choose their partners, and reap the benefits of that "partnered" relationship. Just please don't call it a marriage.
3) Because it is abnormal, more research should be performed to understand and treat it.
But here’s a new twist on things my friend. Casting aside any niceness I may have left and concluding my comments on this wonderful piece here goes. Don’t like being called abnormal? Then don’t be receiving that nice warm load up your ass buddy. Think about what you are doing. It’s a one-way street buddy….made for defecation, not fornication, nor intercourse!
Just the Facts
I won't argue with the "facts" here, though I have my doubts. Whatever the facts here, it is pure poofery to argue that they should have anything to do with marriage rights. Enforcing heterosexual marriage won't make sterile people procreate, or homosexuals to marry people of opposite sex. Completely irrelevant hogwash.
give gay families their dignity
I can't imagine being excluded or looked down on because my two parents happened to be gay. That young girl who spoke out on her mothers' behalf in front of a crowd is wiser than many adults I know. Teach your kids compassion and tolerance not hate.
Shannon from Brooklyn
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/home.html
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Re "Some of the marriage benefits include Social Security survivor benefits," I assume you realize -- and I hope readers realize -- that same-sex married couples in Vermont still will NOT be entitled to Social Security survivor benefits. Those benefits will not be available until there is federal recognition of same-sex marriage (or federal legislation extending those benefits without using the word "marriage").
http://www.skep41.blogspot.co
http://www.skep41.blogspot.com/
Just The Facts
Isnt it time we all lightened up about this? Gay people are going to be gay whether they can get legally married or not. If it makes people happy without disrupting anyone else's life why should we be against it? If you want to protect the 'sanctity' of marriage shouldnt you be militating for tougher divorce laws? Gay marriage wont have any effect on anyone except the gay people who are getting married. The unspoken divide here is between people who see sex as licit only between a man and his wife for the purpose of creating children and the people who think that sex is a vehicle for affection and even a way to have fun. Many of the acts done by hetero couples these days are the same as the ones done by homo couples. Not likely to lead to children. How can we say that one set of people are deviants and another normal if they are doing essentially the same thing? Times are changing. People are moving on. No one with any sense wants to waste their time telling their neighbors that they are evil deviants and should be ashamed of themselves. In twenty years this wont even be an issue.
Black/White (Right/Wrong) transcends to infinite shades of gray
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/vermonts-happily-ever-after
Skep41,
I'm truly baffled by your inability to accept homosexuality as an anomaly, one that while it should be tolerated, root causes and treatments should be sought.
Unfortunately because you and many others today "lighten up" the very right and wrong of our society is torn to shreds; black and white transcends to infinite shades of gray. In your world of gray the prevailing attitude is "if it feels good, do it."
I love your quote - "No one with any sense wants to waste their time telling their neighbors that they are evil deviants and should be ashamed of themselves." Sex as designed by nature is primarily for the purpose of procreation. The fact that humans and other advanced species enjoy it does not somehow justify the complete negation of its original intent through same sex sex.
Unfortunately this nation’s moral fabric (through liberal and socialist efforts) is experiencing increasing social entropy. To all his own. Anything goes. You say, “After In twenty years this wont even be an issue.” Fast forward and I can see the next likely “liberating effort” you and your homosexual supporters will champion. Sex with animals Skep. After all, animals and humans can express affection towards one another can’t they Skep?
We are all on a slippery slope Skep. And you and your liberals are just pouring oil onto that slope. Thanks a lot for accelerating the degeneration of my country. Stay away from my community and God help you if you or any of your like-minded buddies attempt to indoctrinate my children into this Gray-based relativism.
Comment on Gay Marriage
Wbinmd,
Wow! Who else do you wish to ban from "your" community? Blacks? Indians? Chinese? Hispanics?
Indoctrinate your children? By your "moral" standards you will surely push them away from listening to you. You won't need any help.
You might find a shortage of healthcare workers, police, firemen, maybe even your own relatives in "your" community.
I think you have a holier than thou attitude and may wind up a very lonely person.
Good luck to you! My gay friends are on a roll! May God bless them!
Comment on Gay Marriage
I have no issues with anyone just because of their skin color, be it Black, Indian, Chinese or Hispanic. BTW, I'm married to a Hispanic. However, I do have concerns about those who throw away their God given sex and its purpose for another "lifestyle." “Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does.”1 Your actions are your choice.
My children will be taught just what I've been trying to say. Unfortunately, you all seem to twist it around. I left God out of my previous posts, but since you brought him up, let’s just replace all my previous references to “nature” with “God.”
1) Homosexuality is anomalous behavior in the context of nature and procreation.
2) Homosexuals choose their partners. These relationships should not be viewed as marriages, which were created by the churches which oppose gay marriage; churches that actually follow their own teachings that is.
3) God is a loving God and while I don't agree with homosexual behavior, I attempt not (but obviously do) to judge it. Yes, my “moral” standards are obviously not up to task, given the difficulty I have with loving my gay neighbors (no pun). However, I will not accept it as something normal, nor does Christ or anyone who follows for that matter.
Yes, Christ is all forgiving. However, do you believe he really wants someone to continually sin? The homosexual community seems to believe they aren’t sinners for their acts. What I’d like to see from a religious stand point, is an admission stating, “Yes we are sinners. Yes we repent. Yes we will try not to sin again.” But we won’t see that, because homosexuals don’t realize what they are doing is fundamentally wrong. Yes, as I type this I feel a healthy dose of hypocrisy coming over me. We are all sinners, all of us. That doesn't mean we should give up. That doesn't mean we should not point out something wrong.
Good luck back to you. I sincerely hope you (and your gay friends) find their way.
Leave God our of your bigotry
Just because you are ignorant and bigoted doesn't mean God is. Show us where Jesus said anything at all about homosexuality? If it was such a big deal don't you think he would have said something. I do not accept anything said by Moses, Paul, or any cross-dressing pope. The words of Jesus are inspiring, for the most part, along with Buddha & Zarathustra, but you can't hang your bigotry on him. He did condemn in no uncertain terms the rich, but I don't see you religionists who claim to actually believe in him, while beating people with the non-Christian Old Testament, going out of your way to exclude them from your society and the rights it claims to give to all (except....). How many times has anyone heard fiery condemnation of the rich from the evangelical-I-believe-every-word-in-the-Bible pulpits? Or demanding that rich people be excluded from their righteous congregations or not be allowed to be mentioned in schools for fear of corrupting the little ones? Never. And if you believe that marriage is for procreation then why don't you at least be fair and deny it to heteros who have no intention of breeding and producing more children to overpopulate this already overburdened planet? Why should they be allowed to marry just to have sex without results? Your hypocrisy is so loud it is hard to even hear what you have to say. Oh, and Jesus did say that there should be no divorce - so let's hear you campaign for that. You heteros, who have a 50% divorce rate, certainly have no claims on keeping the holy name of marriage from being besmirched, do you? How can a loving same-sex couple possibly do any more damage to the institution of marriage than you heteros have already done?
Do you believe that the US should give equal rights to all people or not? Or just to the ones the majority decides to accept? Because that is, in the end, what this all about. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without the ignorance and bigotry of the majority's interference. If the majority of USAmericans actually believed in the things the US has claimed to cherish (but has not made good on) then we would not be having this argument. It would be a moot point.
My partner and I, of 18 years, have left the Conservative and puritanical US for the freedoms of progressive - and yes, Socialist - Spain where the scarey Socialists have given us our freedom to marry and have all the exact rights as heteros. It's wonderful to live in a place where our right to basic human dignity is recognized. The church, you seem to respect for some odd reason, here is looked at with skepticism (as it is in most of Europe) borne of centuries of oppression by it of the common people - from its support of the fascist dictatorship of Franco to the brutality of the Inquisition to its backing of the murderous and thieving Conquistadors - the church has been on the side of corruption and power in every situation, and the people know it. Something you can't possibly understand, having had it all your life as a member of the ruling class elite males. So even though the majority of Spaniards claim to be religious, they don't pay much attention to all the arrogant prelates from the silly ermine-clad pope on down. Fortunately. And the big majority of Spaniards, as opposed to the more Conservative and puritanical USAmericans, supported freedom, equality and marriage for homosexuals. It's like living with the light on for a change after the darkness of Conservative, evangelical, puritanical USAmerica. We give thanks every day that we left there.
Sexual orientation is not a choice - religion and ignorance are. You admit above that there are homosexuals in just about every known species (they even have a popular gay penguin couple in the Berlin zoo). We are just as natural as you are, just different is some ways. Just because most of us don't breed has nothing to do with our right to exist and to enjoy equal rights in a country that claims to be a leader in democracy and human rights (a claim that is increasingly seen as totally bogus by the more advanced nations).
And get some "larnin'" dude, the pseudo-Christian church and all it's pedophiles did not invent Marriage. Read the book about premodern same-sex unions I mentioned above. Marriage in the old days was basically just shacking up for the common folk, despite Hollywood movies, and church weddings were mostly for the rich to pass on wealth and women (as property). Celebrations of marriage exist in non-Christian cultures all over the world. Muslims even have temporary marriage, so you can have a short relationship with someone you have the hots for without committing the sin of adultery or fornication then just walk away free. My, that really makes marriage seem like a sacred act, doesn't it?
Traditional marriage, you say?
By all means, restore marriage to its traditional definition if you want: "An exchange of property arranged by the parents of strangers." Sound like a recipe for happiness?
We have always had gay marriage. "Traditionally," however, they have been between a straight person and a gay person forced to pretend to be straight. Result: miserable people, miserable marriages .. and, likely, divorce.
Btw, about the whole "anomoly" thing. Look at the human race as a whole. You know what's anomolous? European-descended white people. What rights shall we all be denied? Pick.
IS or DOES
Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person IS, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person DOES.” Rights should not be denied based on what a person IS, but rather what a person DOES. Homosexual actions are choices.
You are SUCH a hypocrite
HETEROSEXUAL ACTIONS ARE A CHOICE TOO, IDIOT! Sexual orientation is NOT a choice - hetero or homo. So if a same-sex couple promised not "to do it" and be celibate, would you agree to let them marry? Puke. Of course, if you are of the large group of USAmericans who actually believe, despite all scientific facts to the contrary, that the earth is just 6000 years old, then there is no point in even trying to talk to you. Your brain is dead.
Tell us straight out that you reject that the US is a secular state and the you reject it's promise of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all. It was promised to all, though has never been given. It is time it is. If you don't like that then there are lots of countries that you'd be much happier in - good god-fearing Conservative countries, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan etc. Places where men are given the power and privilege they deserve and women are kept in their servile places and, best of all!, those troublesome homos are killed! No problem. Those kinds of places seem to hold what so many USAmericans want to think of as "The American Dream" more than the US does, especially if it gives in some day and actually grants equal rights to all its citizens (after all, it does tax them all at the same rates).
You've lost
Your children are already "indoctrinated." There is nothing that you can do about it. Your time has passed. Our time will be a time of peace, love, and grace. We're just waiting on your kind to pass or come into God's light. You will be judged for your devilish judgments. God help you.
You could use some help too.
Since you played the God trump card...
I struggle with how to put this as I obviously came on very strongly above. Love is truly God's greatest gift, and one I was certainly not exhibiting in my above post. However, your acts, while loving defy how God defined marital love which is between a man and woman. So, while I was being judgmental above, you too are a sinner for your acts. You just rationalize that sin away by wearing your love arm band.
"My time" has passed you say? On Earth it's passing each day. But time here on Earth is preparation for eternity. So, may God help you as well. May his light shine upon you to open your mind and heart to accept the life he wants for you, not the one you have chosen for yourself.
We are what God wanted us to
We are what God wanted us to be, or we'd all be heterosexual. You think people just wake up some day and say - Wow! I think I'll be homosexual and be excluded, persecuted and maybe even get lucky and be beaten to death on the street! Yeah! That's what I'd like to be now. Even God won't love me and my country will refuse to treat me with equality. Wow! This is a dream come true!
God, you people. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality - NOTHING! If it was such a big deal I'm sure he would have said something dont' you? He certainly thought being rich was a big enough sin to mention several times. So let's exclude the rich - refuse them equal rights, after all, Jesus actually did condemn them. Oh ye hypocrites.
God's Love
His love is infinite, but we are all human. Despite our imperfections, our sins, he forgives us. We just need to acknowledge, repent, and ask for that forgiveness. As to Jesus defining marriage, read Matthew Chapter 19, verse 5. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh."
I've obviously put forth a lot of energy on these posts as have many of you as witnessed by your passionate responses. There are a lot of extrapolations of what I wrote (many in the wrong direction). So, if I post in the future, I'll work harder to capture my opinions (and whatever supporting facts there are) in a more clear, concise and positive manner. Because we are all God's children. Perhaps some of this heated style debate can be transformed into future healthy dialogue about this and other issues. I look forward to it.
I hope and pray that all of you have a happy Easter.
wbinmd
Gay relations
Wbinmd,
I do not stand beside any of my friends, gay or straight, and spend my thoughts on what goes on in their private lives. I assume you also have a personal life and question why you and others are so consumed by all of this and so blind you cannot even see the actual person.
May God forgive you for judging others. That's his job.
Oh yeah, Happy Easter to you too.
Excellent column here.
I too wrote a column confronting those who oppose same-sex marriages. The title of it is called, "To the National Organization for Marriage: Quit your bitching!" and can be found at this link: http://www.marymacelveen.com/blog/_archives/2009/4/10/4149418.html
Is it so hard for society to not allow those who do love each other to marry? My brother is Gay and I do consider his partner my brother in-law. While their union is not legal, they have all the components of a marriage, including who cleans, who makes the dinners and my children call my brother's partner uncle. It does not get any better at that.
Best,
Mary MacElveen
http://www.marymacelveen.com
I have no idea how to write
I have no idea how to write a research paper on this topic. Who can help me?
tiffany jewelry
-
tagged as:
- result
That little blue box - everyone woman dreams of seeing it come their way. tiffany jewelry jewelry is world renowned for its stunning quality and top of the line artisanship; however, it also has a reputation for having a price tag that is way out of most people's leagues.
discount tiffany jewelry That doesn't mean you can't get that Tiffany look you want at a price you can afford, however. Thanks to replica Tiffany jewelry, you can look like you are draped in Tiffany jewelry, and yet still have the money left in your pocket to go out and show off your looks.
