Gay Marriage - The New Willy Horton
By John M. Kelley
Want to know what the new “values” issue is for the Republicans to try and bolster the right wing vote for the 2006 elections is? Look to Texas who will test whether gay marriage can martial the forces. The State of Texas has placed a proposal to ban gay marriage and civil unions on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.
After the Massachusetts Supreme Court made a decision that said the state could not prevent gay marriage, conservatives and the religious right went over the edge. Instantly conservative politicians called for a constitutional amendment to only allow men and women to wed. Preachers on the religious right assured us the country was rushing to the doors of hell opened by radical judges. The thought that gay marriage is a threat to the sanctity of marriage and of course part of the grand homosexual agenda is one of the grandest frauds ever proposed.
Legal Marriage Vs. Civil Marriage
First of all lets look at what marriage is and what it isn’t. Marriage has two meanings 1) a legal contract between two people outlining certain legal privileges and obligations and 2) a spiritual pledge of two souls. If you want to get legally married you must go to your county courthouse, pay a fee, find a couple of witnesses and a person authorized by the state. Now that can be just about anyone including a judge, a justice of the peace or a minister even if he/she got his or her ordainment by mail. The act that makes the license binding is that both parties sign the document, date it and get it witnessed like any other contract. Spiritual beliefs are not required to become legally married, it is a civil contract, nor can a minister performing a ceremony legally marry anyone without a state license. This requirement of a state sanctioned contract between consenting adults is to protect the property interests of the partners, children and potential heirs, and other legally interested parties. The state also has an interest in the civil rights of those involved. The most dramatic changes have been in the protection of the rights of women and children. Changes such as the outlawing of women or children being forced into arranged marriages against their will and other changes in legal status (women and children were once considered chattel or property) have been paramount in the march towards freedom and human equality.
The spiritual act of marriage occurs based on a statement of love and commitment of two people to each other before their loved ones and the universal power of their choice. This may or may not involve a church but does for most people. This personal commitment is the “sacredness” of marriage. It has nothing to do with the civil contract.
The ruling of the Massachusetts Court that started the uproar, is that the civil contract called marriage by the state between two people cannot be denied to anyone based on gender anymore then it could be on race. The genders of the parties cannot interfere legally with their ability to make a civil contract without violating the “equal treatment under the law” protection of the constitution.
While many religions require that marriage be between a man and a woman that has nothing to do with the civil contract between two people. Regardless of what Senator Rick Santorum or Rev. James Dobson believes a contract cannot be executed between a man an dog, a man and a child or a man and a donkey. The confusion comes because most states use the term “marriage” to describe what really is a “civil union”. Marriage is a civil contract that must be regulated by the state and does not require a church’s blessing. Further, no decision by the state will force churches to perform marriages for same sex couples in their church. Unfortunately, the unique history of getting a license from the state and then going through a ceremony with a minister blurs the two acts into one in the minds of most people and makes it an issue for exploitation.
The Hairy Hand
A friend of mine recently related a story he had heard about shell game operators in the 1800’s. They would glue hair in the palm of their hands. Then as they moved the shells and slid the pea from one to the other they would frequently show the palms of their hands. The mark would be so caught up in the sight of the distracting hair in the operator’s hand it would insure they would lose track of the pea and of course forfeit their money.
The decision of the Massachusetts Court, the Supreme Court ruling striking down sodomy laws and the public’s lack of understanding of the issue has given the Republicans the hairy hand issue they can exploit in each upcoming election. They think they can galvanize and get out the vote of the religious right and split Democrats to insure the reelection of Republicans and gain offices at every level.
The Republicans know that this is a successful strategy because it was one of the factors that helped George Bush Sr. win over Michael Dukakis in 1988 election. The Republicans played the race card repeatedly running advertisements showing Willie Horton an African-American murderer who was paroled and then committed another murder. This was given a voice over blaming Dukakis for being soft on crime even though he had nothing to do with the parole. In spite of the fact that crime was at historic lows, the Republican’s succeeded in scaring voters with the fear not only of crime but hooking into age old irrational fears and prejudice against black males that was embedded deeply in the country’s subconscious.
We got so tough on crime that we now have the biggest prison system in the history of the world. We rival the Soviet Gulags in the number of people we have imprisoned, half for nonviolent drug offenses. Whole rural towns in Texas now have economies built around prisons. We’re breaking the state budget with getting tough on crime and so we need a new Willy Horton. The Republicans needed someone that could be anywhere, even wilier then the “bearded terrorists”. One that is near enough to everyone to distract people from the pillaging of the national treasury, the dismantling and shipping abroad of our means of production and the growing, internal intelligence gathering, militarization of America. Hence, gays are bad, is born.
What we will see is debates where Bush and other GOP office seekers challenge their opponents to defend “the sanctity of marriage” by supporting an national anti-gay constitutional amendment, which the Republicans know will never pass. It has been a nasty celebration of gay bashing that has rivaled the GOP’s fight against integration and the passage of voting rights for African-Americans in the 60’s. In historical Republican form, the Texas State Republican Platform not only would deny gay marriage it would also deny civil unions, criminalize gay sexual acts and prohibit criminal and civil penalties against those who would openly discriminate against gays.
The sad part about this is not that most of the conservatives are anti-gay (they are) but to them it is just an issue that they can exploit to divide the country over fears born of ignorance. They are willing to drum up new Jim Crow laws impairing the goal of freedom for all in America for political advantage. Their goal is to use the hairy hand trick to distract the public from any problems with the economy, war deaths in Iraq, the missing WMDs, the Patriot Act, the transfer of wealth, the gutting of the environment and social programs, the massive federal debt, the trade deficit, and on and on and on.
The Sanctity of Marriage
How does passing a law that prevents civil unions between consenting adults interfere with the sanctity of marriage? Religious ceremony certainly hasn’t insured the success of marriage. 40% of all marriages end in divorce, 50% of all children in the United States will spend some time in a single parent home.
I haven’t seen any data showing that millions of men and women are waiting for gay marriage to be approved so they can leave their heterosexual spouse to marry their gay lovers. All current research shows that homosexuality is a complex combination of physiological and psychological factors that the individuals so oriented have little or no control over. Ask any homosexual and their journey is usually a painful one of accepting themselves the way they are, no one seeks out an alternative “lifestyle” just to suffer discriminatory treatment all their life.
The so-called homosexual agenda is a quest for equal treatment, not an attempt to recruit people to the homosexual lifestyle. Those who talk of a homosexual agenda need to look up homophobia in the dictionary. One of the more ridiculous arguments I heard on a national TV program was that we have to protect and promote procreation. Does anybody really believe that people will stop procreating if we don’t pass a “Marriage Protection Amendment”. We can’t even get people to wait until they are grown up and married to procreate. The last I looked we were procreating ourselves into a global crises. Texas has the second highest teenage birth rate in the country (Mississippi is first) and Corpus one of the highest rates in Texas.
What Civil Union Really Means
What gays are asking for is to be able to make the same legal commitments to each other as any other couple that love each other. Can you imagine if you lived with your spouse for 10, 15, 20 years or more and you weren’t allowed to provide health insurance for them, to be able to make decisions for them if they are sick, to determine how they should be treated in death, to inherit jointly owned property without question. That is just some of the discrimination that same sex couples face.
My brother died at age 38 in 1992 of AIDs related illness. My parents after much self questioning and education had accepted his sexual orientation and the fact that he had AIDs. He died in our mother’s arms. My parents were devastated and numb with grief. My sister who is a right wing evangelical Christian swung in and took over. Even though she rejected him in life, would not allow him around his nephews and told him he “would burn in Hell”, she decided to control the events around his burial.
A ceremony was held in the church of her choice, with a service performed by a minister who believed my brother was a mortal sinner and would burn in hell. No mention was made that he was gay. No mention was made that he raised more then a million dollars for the AIDS Quilt Project. No mention was made of the many newly diagnosed HIV/AIDs patients he talked to in order to share some of the peace and hope that he had found in his own spirituality after being diagnosed. No mention was made of the thousands volunteer hours he donated, sometimes from a hospital bed, for HIV/AIDs related education and causes. His friends were made to not feel welcome and left early. I am grateful that he had buried his long-term partner two years before who had died from AIDs related illness. His partner would have been excluded, in the cruelest manner, from participating in the most intimate process of love, burying and grieving a loved one.
So when you say you support the sanctity of marriage please allow everyone to decide what that means for him or her. If your marriage is threatened because gays can marry it doesn’t have anything to do with them. Think about it, no one should be denied the full benefits of a loving relationship.
John M. Kelley
John M. Kelley is a teacher, philosopher, writer, artist, political activist, singer of ballads, rebellious Irishman and agent for change who worries daily about the world he is leaving for his grandchildren. His blog is at www.mytown.ca/johnkelley
Want to know what the new “values” issue is for the Republicans to try and bolster the right wing vote for the 2006 elections is? Look to Texas who will test whether gay marriage can martial the forces. The State of Texas has placed a proposal to ban gay marriage and civil unions on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.
After the Massachusetts Supreme Court made a decision that said the state could not prevent gay marriage, conservatives and the religious right went over the edge. Instantly conservative politicians called for a constitutional amendment to only allow men and women to wed. Preachers on the religious right assured us the country was rushing to the doors of hell opened by radical judges. The thought that gay marriage is a threat to the sanctity of marriage and of course part of the grand homosexual agenda is one of the grandest frauds ever proposed.
Legal Marriage Vs. Civil Marriage
First of all lets look at what marriage is and what it isn’t. Marriage has two meanings 1) a legal contract between two people outlining certain legal privileges and obligations and 2) a spiritual pledge of two souls. If you want to get legally married you must go to your county courthouse, pay a fee, find a couple of witnesses and a person authorized by the state. Now that can be just about anyone including a judge, a justice of the peace or a minister even if he/she got his or her ordainment by mail. The act that makes the license binding is that both parties sign the document, date it and get it witnessed like any other contract. Spiritual beliefs are not required to become legally married, it is a civil contract, nor can a minister performing a ceremony legally marry anyone without a state license. This requirement of a state sanctioned contract between consenting adults is to protect the property interests of the partners, children and potential heirs, and other legally interested parties. The state also has an interest in the civil rights of those involved. The most dramatic changes have been in the protection of the rights of women and children. Changes such as the outlawing of women or children being forced into arranged marriages against their will and other changes in legal status (women and children were once considered chattel or property) have been paramount in the march towards freedom and human equality.
The spiritual act of marriage occurs based on a statement of love and commitment of two people to each other before their loved ones and the universal power of their choice. This may or may not involve a church but does for most people. This personal commitment is the “sacredness” of marriage. It has nothing to do with the civil contract.
The ruling of the Massachusetts Court that started the uproar, is that the civil contract called marriage by the state between two people cannot be denied to anyone based on gender anymore then it could be on race. The genders of the parties cannot interfere legally with their ability to make a civil contract without violating the “equal treatment under the law” protection of the constitution.
While many religions require that marriage be between a man and a woman that has nothing to do with the civil contract between two people. Regardless of what Senator Rick Santorum or Rev. James Dobson believes a contract cannot be executed between a man an dog, a man and a child or a man and a donkey. The confusion comes because most states use the term “marriage” to describe what really is a “civil union”. Marriage is a civil contract that must be regulated by the state and does not require a church’s blessing. Further, no decision by the state will force churches to perform marriages for same sex couples in their church. Unfortunately, the unique history of getting a license from the state and then going through a ceremony with a minister blurs the two acts into one in the minds of most people and makes it an issue for exploitation.
The Hairy Hand
A friend of mine recently related a story he had heard about shell game operators in the 1800’s. They would glue hair in the palm of their hands. Then as they moved the shells and slid the pea from one to the other they would frequently show the palms of their hands. The mark would be so caught up in the sight of the distracting hair in the operator’s hand it would insure they would lose track of the pea and of course forfeit their money.
The decision of the Massachusetts Court, the Supreme Court ruling striking down sodomy laws and the public’s lack of understanding of the issue has given the Republicans the hairy hand issue they can exploit in each upcoming election. They think they can galvanize and get out the vote of the religious right and split Democrats to insure the reelection of Republicans and gain offices at every level.
The Republicans know that this is a successful strategy because it was one of the factors that helped George Bush Sr. win over Michael Dukakis in 1988 election. The Republicans played the race card repeatedly running advertisements showing Willie Horton an African-American murderer who was paroled and then committed another murder. This was given a voice over blaming Dukakis for being soft on crime even though he had nothing to do with the parole. In spite of the fact that crime was at historic lows, the Republican’s succeeded in scaring voters with the fear not only of crime but hooking into age old irrational fears and prejudice against black males that was embedded deeply in the country’s subconscious.
We got so tough on crime that we now have the biggest prison system in the history of the world. We rival the Soviet Gulags in the number of people we have imprisoned, half for nonviolent drug offenses. Whole rural towns in Texas now have economies built around prisons. We’re breaking the state budget with getting tough on crime and so we need a new Willy Horton. The Republicans needed someone that could be anywhere, even wilier then the “bearded terrorists”. One that is near enough to everyone to distract people from the pillaging of the national treasury, the dismantling and shipping abroad of our means of production and the growing, internal intelligence gathering, militarization of America. Hence, gays are bad, is born.
What we will see is debates where Bush and other GOP office seekers challenge their opponents to defend “the sanctity of marriage” by supporting an national anti-gay constitutional amendment, which the Republicans know will never pass. It has been a nasty celebration of gay bashing that has rivaled the GOP’s fight against integration and the passage of voting rights for African-Americans in the 60’s. In historical Republican form, the Texas State Republican Platform not only would deny gay marriage it would also deny civil unions, criminalize gay sexual acts and prohibit criminal and civil penalties against those who would openly discriminate against gays.
The sad part about this is not that most of the conservatives are anti-gay (they are) but to them it is just an issue that they can exploit to divide the country over fears born of ignorance. They are willing to drum up new Jim Crow laws impairing the goal of freedom for all in America for political advantage. Their goal is to use the hairy hand trick to distract the public from any problems with the economy, war deaths in Iraq, the missing WMDs, the Patriot Act, the transfer of wealth, the gutting of the environment and social programs, the massive federal debt, the trade deficit, and on and on and on.
The Sanctity of Marriage
How does passing a law that prevents civil unions between consenting adults interfere with the sanctity of marriage? Religious ceremony certainly hasn’t insured the success of marriage. 40% of all marriages end in divorce, 50% of all children in the United States will spend some time in a single parent home.
I haven’t seen any data showing that millions of men and women are waiting for gay marriage to be approved so they can leave their heterosexual spouse to marry their gay lovers. All current research shows that homosexuality is a complex combination of physiological and psychological factors that the individuals so oriented have little or no control over. Ask any homosexual and their journey is usually a painful one of accepting themselves the way they are, no one seeks out an alternative “lifestyle” just to suffer discriminatory treatment all their life.
The so-called homosexual agenda is a quest for equal treatment, not an attempt to recruit people to the homosexual lifestyle. Those who talk of a homosexual agenda need to look up homophobia in the dictionary. One of the more ridiculous arguments I heard on a national TV program was that we have to protect and promote procreation. Does anybody really believe that people will stop procreating if we don’t pass a “Marriage Protection Amendment”. We can’t even get people to wait until they are grown up and married to procreate. The last I looked we were procreating ourselves into a global crises. Texas has the second highest teenage birth rate in the country (Mississippi is first) and Corpus one of the highest rates in Texas.
What Civil Union Really Means
What gays are asking for is to be able to make the same legal commitments to each other as any other couple that love each other. Can you imagine if you lived with your spouse for 10, 15, 20 years or more and you weren’t allowed to provide health insurance for them, to be able to make decisions for them if they are sick, to determine how they should be treated in death, to inherit jointly owned property without question. That is just some of the discrimination that same sex couples face.
My brother died at age 38 in 1992 of AIDs related illness. My parents after much self questioning and education had accepted his sexual orientation and the fact that he had AIDs. He died in our mother’s arms. My parents were devastated and numb with grief. My sister who is a right wing evangelical Christian swung in and took over. Even though she rejected him in life, would not allow him around his nephews and told him he “would burn in Hell”, she decided to control the events around his burial.
A ceremony was held in the church of her choice, with a service performed by a minister who believed my brother was a mortal sinner and would burn in hell. No mention was made that he was gay. No mention was made that he raised more then a million dollars for the AIDS Quilt Project. No mention was made of the many newly diagnosed HIV/AIDs patients he talked to in order to share some of the peace and hope that he had found in his own spirituality after being diagnosed. No mention was made of the thousands volunteer hours he donated, sometimes from a hospital bed, for HIV/AIDs related education and causes. His friends were made to not feel welcome and left early. I am grateful that he had buried his long-term partner two years before who had died from AIDs related illness. His partner would have been excluded, in the cruelest manner, from participating in the most intimate process of love, burying and grieving a loved one.
So when you say you support the sanctity of marriage please allow everyone to decide what that means for him or her. If your marriage is threatened because gays can marry it doesn’t have anything to do with them. Think about it, no one should be denied the full benefits of a loving relationship.
John M. Kelley
John M. Kelley is a teacher, philosopher, writer, artist, political activist, singer of ballads, rebellious Irishman and agent for change who worries daily about the world he is leaving for his grandchildren. His blog is at www.mytown.ca/johnkelley
21 Comments:
"The so-called homosexual agenda is a quest for equal treatment, not an attempt to recruit people to the homosexual lifestyle."
I know what homophobia means. Most people do and that includes people opposed to gay marriage
(an oxymoron...look it up in the dictionary).
You should do more research before throwing out statements you know nothing about.
The homosexual lifestyle is being aggressively promoted in grade schools and high schools in Massachusetts as a result of that same-sex marriage ruling
I don't give a damn if two gays want to form a civil union and enjoy the benefits that it provides. I don't care if others also want to use civil unions for these benefits...eg., elderly sisters, etc. as an example.
My problem with same-sex marriage has absolutely nothing to do with morality. It has absolutely nothing with forcing people how to live.
IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH MY LIBERTY.
It's a libertarian problem I have with same-sex marriage. Giving same-sex marriage legal legitimacy, means giving the homosexual lifestyle full legal legitimacy.
And that opens the flood gates for yet another boat-load of lawsuits (yet another protected special interest). Churches being sued for speaking out against homosexuality is a possibility. Corporations forced into affirmative action programs for gays, special hiring and promotions, giving them the same draconian advantages regarding harrassment. As with women today, harrassment has morphed from an attempt to recify true and legitmate wrongs to an advantage for all women. They simply need to be displeased with a man for any reason and they can put any man in a defensive position. Forced teaching in grade schools (students as young as 14 y/o) and highschools about the grittier details of the gay lifestyle -it is happening already in Massachusetts:
http://www.article8.org/docs/new...ook_inside.htm)
I won't go down the long list of issues and problems that I have but the reason gays won't settle for civil unions (which I'm ok with) is because same-sex marriage will result in a windfall of advantages for gays. It will make them "special"....the way women today are "special". Special rights, special privileges, special
set-asides.
And these take liberties away from me.
I don't give a damn how others live their lives as long as it doesn't take away MY liberties.
And I'm not telling ANYONE how to live. And I'm not making any judgements about where any guy sticks his dick and into whom...or what sex toys lesbians fuck with. I really don't give a shit.
But we here in America have way too many special groups-and I'm fucking tired of it.
Gay activists have themselves done little to create a more tolerant attitude. Having said that, from my own observations I believe this country has moved pretty far towards having a live and let live attitude towards homosexuals. I don't think the shows on television ("Queer Eye.., Will & Grace)would have been made, or Ellen Degeneres and others would not have "come out", had there not been a more tolerant society. I could be wrong. I don't know if anyone knows for sure but my belief is that most people just don't care about another's sexuality.
But they also don't want to have to deal (forced) with anyone's sexuality either. David Parker is a father of a kindergarten boy in Lexington, MA. They are teaching about homosexuality in that school to kindergarten children. What the hell is up with that? David Parker went through all the steps as a parent with the principal and superintendent about them notifying him when that subject would be taught. He had this in writing. They ignored his requirements-his parental authority and rights. He went to pull his son out that day and the female principal had him arrested and she put a restraining order on him. He cannot pick up his son from school. He spent a night in jail.
Is this America or a gulag in the Soviet Union?
Citizens have protested and rallied to his defense. David Parker and his supporters have received death threats from gay activists and there have been clashes during these protests. Should gays now be expecting understanding?
When gays put on their yearly freak show in places like NYC and SF and elsewhere they do not get understanding from these either.
Their attempts at forcing their behavior on the rest of us is backfiring on them. The first step for the gays in restoring acceptance from the rest of us, is to stop challenging OUR rights, and stop exposing their deviant behaviors in public. If they were respectful of the rights of others, and were more discretionary about their sexuality in public maybe we could all live together better. The ball is in THEIR court not OURS.
An excellent commentary.
We in the U.S need to do like most other countries in the world... Marriages can not be performed by clergy even in the most Catholic of countries. You must get married in a civil ceremony by the state for your marriage to be a legal contract. The clergy do not have "powers vested"in them by the state. You can have a religious ceremony righ after the civil but clergy can not solemnize a marriage. We in the US have it backward.
I have been with my same sex spouse for 27 years, longer than most of our straight friend and our congressional representatives who are on thier second and third marriages. Don't scream the sanctity of marriage to me. Brittney Spears can get married for 55 hours and have all the 1138 federal rights when we have been together for 27 and get none.
Christian religions did not perform marriages until the 12th century read EJ Graff "what is marriage for?" It has not been a religious rite for thousands of years.
We were married in Canada in 2003 the year of our 25th anniverary.
Being gay is not a choice of lifestyle. I was born this way. Why would I choose to be faced with bigotry, hate and gay bashing.
Thanks for putting it "straight".
I would bet that Dennis is a WHITE male. A threatened white male. Threatened by the prospect of losing is dominant place in his world. My partner and I have a full and loving EQUAL relationship. I doubt that his is the same. For this, and this alone, I feel sorry for him, but sorrier yet for his partner. The article is very , very accurate sir.
Mr. Kelley apparently is not aware of some things.
First, the church has always had "first dibs" control over marriage. Unfortunately, most of them abdicated it and allowed the state to start parsing it out into a "civil" contract versus a "religious" one.
Secondly, a "rationalization" is a socially-acceptable excuse for socially-unacceptable behavior. Gay men have 800% more sexual partners than do their heterosexual partners. They are the majority of child sexual abusers (and lesbians do too). The APA directorate overrode the vote of psychologists -- 75% of whom voted that homosexuality is a sexual disorder. This is not to forget that AIDS is still predominantly spread by gays. It is a tremendously expensive and dangerous disease -- and Mr. Kelley seems to think this is completely unimportant.
Third, opposing the insane political proposition that a "behavior" is somehow a "gender", and therefore subject to the same protections as race or sex; and opposing the politics of the National Organization for Women, does not constitute "hate". Very few conservatives "hate" gays or lesbians. Nearly all conservatives oppose the politics of N.O.W., who wishes to make it possible for any two women to "marry" each other, take over the entire social construct of marriage and civil unions, leaving men with nothing to do except pay child support and be boy toys.
If Mr. Kelley thinks that gay marriage is just another Willie Horton, he might take a moment to see what radical feminism did to the relationship between the sexes. Same-sex lesbian marriage is the last major item on their list to achieve feminist supremacy.
After reading this article and the 4 comments, the only thing really clear is that those who are so vocal in being against marriage between two consenting adults of the same gender, make each other look like total nuts. Their laughable arguments against these couples is the reason that in the end, the couples will be allowed to be married. Stay calm Chicken Littles, the sky will not fall.
It amazing how people like Denis and Dave choose to remain uneducated on the subject. Good comments brian.
Interesting counterposts.
Guys, I have heard all the "threatened white male" crap...the "uneducated" bs. Please offer intelligent rebuttals. We are all big boys here right?...As a white male it is ludicrous to speak about "privilege". I have the right to be discriminated against in employment...by women of all colors and males who are non-white. That is just one example, there are plenty of others. You speak of another era a along long time ago. Anyone who has been awake the last 40 years realizes that the average white male not only has no privilege...but also has no "special" rights, unlike so many other " special groups". As far as uneducated...well....what the hell kind of position is that?
I'm highly educated with enough degrees. Some of the most intelligent people I've known were self-educated. What the hell is your point?
In Canada, churches are already being sued and are being intimidated to change a faith that goes back 2000 years. The law of unintended consequences.
I have no problem with civil unions. It is the gays who are militant and who expect "special" rights from same-sex marriage. You know it. I know it.
How about commenting about the real goal of same-sex marriage. Lawsuits and legislation to force special privilege status..in hiring...in harrassment cases.....the freedom of religion....in the teaching of children...as young as 14 y/o in middle and high schools as is now the case in MA. Have you gone to the link?....also explain why a parent is arrested because he believes he has the parental authority to decide if and when to discuss homosexuality to his own son.....a son who is now in kindergarten. Explain why he and his supporters who want THEIR rights as parents protected and enforced get arrested...get death threats....by gays and their supporters.
The usual attack tactics also being shown here...name calling...with some condescention thrown in......(e.g., "threatened", "uneducated") are not credible arguments and positions...these are nothing more than the efforts of a weak mind.
Same-sex marriage in MA will be made illegal. Permanently.
Wait and see.
Yes David. Same-sex marriage IS the last step to make all heterosexual males/fathers inferior as to rights.
how is it that individuals who have never been found wanting in any sector of society can be denied rights and privileges that most heterosexuals believe are assets to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. no one has ever been found wanting as a brother, mother, manager, doctor, lawyer, counselor, friend etc because he was a practicing homosexual. even the reasoning and understanding of scripture by the "bible says" group completely breaks down when forced to explain their position on "homosexuality is a sin." its like we are reliving the fear and stupidity associated with mixed marriage and integration in the present. who would have believed that we could have are very own witch hunt in 2005.
In fact, men and women are NOT equal, under the eyes of the law. In one critical area -- reproductive rights -- women have more rights than men. Knowing this, how anyone could claim that mm/mf/ff unions are in any way "equal" is beyond me.
Men need to stand up and demand reproductive equality. Maybe THEN we can talk about marriage equality.
Denis a few things for you to read
We are not asking any religions to perfom marriages. The license come from the government it's just who signs it to legalize it.
The debate over the freedom to marry is about the right to enter into the state-created institution of civil marriage only. After all, marriage is a civil right and two consenting adults should be allowed to enter into the institution if they so choose.
Unlike some religious definitions, civil definitions of marriage do not usually mention childbearing, sexual relations, living arrangements, or religious belief/observance.
When clergy or congregations marry couples it is a religious rite, not a civil ceremony, though the government may recognize it. Clergy and congregations choose whom they marry. They aren't compelled to accept the state's marriage definition, and indeed, many religious institutions don't accept it. Many religious institutions are more restrictive than the state, rejecting interfaith marriages or remarriages after divorce. And some have a broader definition, blessing the unions of same-gender couples.
In the U.S., a marriage is only legal with the signing of a marriage license. That is why many opposite-sex couples can go to a judge or any other public officiant and need not go to a church, synagogue or mosque. However, our government has made the process simpler by allowing priests, ministers, rabbis and other religious folk, to perform a couple's desire for a religious ceremony AND act as an officiant. This convenience does not mean that a purely religious ceremony would be legal. Each religious cleric must sign the license before witnesses and the couple. In Europe, couples MUST go before a public official to marry. A religious ceremony is 'secondary' and only needed if the couple wishes to have a church ceremony.
This fact is important to note because many same-sex couples are simply interested in the government's acknowledgement of their relationship. We are not asking for any religion to accept our marriages, although, many churches already do throughout our country.
Civil and religious marriage are not the same thing. Many churches and faiths already recognize religious unions or marriages between same-sex couples, even though such unions are not recognized by the government.
Individual congregations of Reform Jews, American Baptists, Buddhists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarian Universalists, Methodists, the Society of Friends and members of the United Church of Christ have performed marriages for same-sex couples.
" Right-wing moralizing to the contrary, "marriage" and "family" are not very traditional at all. For instance, Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings, sharing a father. Jewish law once required childless husbands to marry a second time, with or without divorcing the first wife. Only the upper one-third of empire Romans had the legal right to marry; everyone else lived together outside the law. For its first five hundred to a thousand years, the early Christian church considered marriage a tainted, earthly institution, something rendered unto Caesar, and didn't officially declare marriage a sacrament until 1215. In English and American law, women did not have the right to be their children's guardians until the 19th century. While American states were battling for nearly 150 years over whether to recognize each others' divorces, Protestant denominations were roiled by the question of whether it was sinful to remarry divorced people whose ex-spouses were still alive. Marriage has always been a social battleground, its rules and borders shifting to suit each economy, each era, each class." (submitted by author E.J. Graff)
Even after civil marriage becomes available to same-sex couples, churches will retain the right to decide for themselves whether to perform or recognize any marriage, just as they already do for every couple. No court decision or legislative enactment can change the basic tenets of religious faith. For example, some religions will not marry someone who has already been divorced, although the person is free to marry civilly. We respect the right of a faith to decide for itself what marriages it will embrace.
Furthermore, there are many Christians and Jews alike who support same-sex marriage. For a conservative biblical perspective on marriage, please go to: The National Gay Pentecostal Alliance
Please visit these sites for more religious persepectives and support for marriage equality:
The Religious Coalition for the Freedom To Marry http://www.rcfm.org
Interfaith Working Group http://www.iwgonline.org
Here is an EXCELLENT article entitled, "A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage" on a site called Musings On that refutes conservative Christians' belief that civil marriage for same-sex couples should not be recognized.
In March of 2000, the Central Conference of American Rabbis voted to support ceremonies for same-sex couples. (Ten years ago, the group voted to support the ordination of gays and lesbians.) No reform rabbi is required to perform a ceremony for a same-sex couple; however, if a rabbi wishes to, they may perform any ceremony they see fitting and call it anything they want, including a "wedding." The approved resolution says that "the relationship of a Jewish same-gender couple is worthy of affirmation through Jewish ritual." Below is the full text of the resolution.
WHEREAS, justice and human dignity are cherished Jewish values, and WHEREAS, in March of 1999 the Women's Rabbinic Network passed a resolution urging the Central Conference of American Rabbis to bring the issue of honoring ceremonies between two Jews of the same gender to the floor of the convention plenum, and WHEREAS, the institutions of Reform Judaism have a long history of support for civil and equal rights for gays and lesbians, and WHEREAS, North American organizations of the Reform Movement have passed resolutions in support of civil marriage for gays and lesbians, therefore WE DO HEREBY RESOLVE, that the relationship of a Jewish, same gender couple is worthy of affirmation through appropriate Jewish ritual, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that we recognize the diversity of opinions within our ranks on this issue. We support the decision of those who choose to officiate at rituals of union for same-gender couples, and we support the decision of those who do not, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that we call upon the CCAR to support all colleagues in their choices in this matter, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that we also call upon the CCAR to develop both educational and liturgical resources in this area.
The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Church of God Anonymous, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, and the Unitarian Universalist Association bless same-gender relationships as a matter of policy.
The United Church of Christ, and various Quaker groups leave the decision to clergy, congregations or local governing bodies.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) allows the blessings of same-gender unions with terminology restrictions.
The United Methodist Church forbids blessing same-sex unions, which has inspired ecclesiastical disobedience, church trials and much debate.
Recommended Reading:
Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe
by John Boswell
"In God's Image: Christian Witness to the Need for Gay/Lesbian Equality in the Eyes of the Church"
by Fr. Robert Warren Cromey, Rector, Trinity Episcopal Church, San Francisco, CA
Published by Alamo Square Press, San Francisco, CA
Available for $12.00 tax and postage included from Trinity Episcopal Church,
1668 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94109. 415-775-1117
"Theological Arguments for Equality of Marriage"
by The Most Rev. Mark Shirilau, Ph.D., Archbishop and Primate, The Ecumenical Catholic Church
Available at: http://ecchurch.org
michael-
thanks for the reply. I will say only a few brief things now and return to this post in a few days.
I will look into the links you provide.
The church I belong to has a large membership, the largest single church in the U.S.-the Catholic Church. Catholics, especially the American church have an overwhelming opposition to same-sex marriage. I realize that American Catholics appear somewhat schizophrenic or even hypocritical in their thinking to others as many Catholics use birth control, and have other positions that are contrary to church doctrine. It is fair to say that American Catholics are the most liberal as far as church teachings-but their views on same-sex marriage is solidly anti. I don't want to see church's getting sued by gay activists for epousing views that go back 2000 years-it's happening in Canada.
This is a right I am fighting for.
The column given here is a largely legal perspective. One of the complaints of those on my side, is that the courts are making law-not interpreting it. Legislatures create the laws-laws that reflect the people's will through their representatives. 75% of Massachusetts oppose same-sex marriage. It is a cross section of people across religious, ethnic/cultural, and political backgrounds.
No where in the Massachusetts State Constitution can anyone find a provision even remotely allowing same-sex marriage. SJC Margaret Marshall claims to see it. It's not there however. If the legislative process was allowed to go forward as it should this would be a dead issue already.It will be a dead issue again in MA and four SJC Justices will take early retirement. Wait and see.
I have seen the rights of men and fathers progressively and severely damaged or outright eliminated for decades. And there is no privilege whatsoever in being a white male.At least for 99.9% of us white males.
I am interested in preserving and restoring the rights of fathers as parents and the rights of men generally. This is part of my fight. I don't want to see father's getting arrested because they are fighting for their rights and authority as a parent. I don't want kindergarden children or middle or high school kids being taught about the homosexual lifestyle in taxpayer funded public schools, if their own parents don't want that also-and they don't. I don't want public tax money being used to create "how to" manuals for homosexual activity and then provided to 14 year old students-gay and straight alike-as it is in MA. I don't want these fathers getting death threats for fighting for their rights-as they have.
These are more rights that I am fighting for.
I realize that the high failure rate of marriages in America would imply that heterosexuals do not provide a good example for the institution. Destroying marriage and the family has been the goal of feminists for 40+years. It was done by taking legal rights away from one partner (the man/father)and giving more and more to the other partner (wife/mother). Incentives are provided to encourage divorce. Hostility between men and women is constantly being created via the media, the legal system, the government. As the center of gravity has shifted in marrigae(as a result of this radfem onslaught)from one man & one women to the government and the woman, the men, and there rights have been pushed aside and pushed back-way back. Gay marriage will put a nail in the coffin for any hope that heterosexual men can have equal standing in a marriage as a husband and father. This IS part of the radfem and gay agenda. I am willing to bet money that far more lesbians are pushing for same-sex marriage than the gay men.
These are rights that I am fighting for.
The laws are meant to be created by the citizenry through their representatives. It is how the people create the kind of society that they want. Most Americans don't want to be another Europe.
Most don't want an age of consent at 12 years old like some European countries, most Americans don't want legalized euthanasia...most don't want legalized prostitution....most don't want legalized public sex shows....we could as a nation have all these and more...including same-sex marriage, but we don't.
17 states have voted it down in 2004 with some amending their state constitutions defining marriage as one man + one woman. This is democracy in action.
The courts are the only hope proponents for same-sex marriage have. Same with sex shows, prostitution, etc.
Same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue as some hope to make it.
If gays want same-sex civil unions in the sense that I previously posted, I have already stated I'm ok with that.
and, I have expressed the types of rights that I am fighting for.
Denis unfortunately civil unions don't give us all the federal protections. I will try to address some of your other issues but let give you this info for now.
go to this web site to see some of the real differences.
http://www.glad.org/rights/Marriage_v_CU_chart.pdf
As to being a father and father's rights you think you have problems. I have several men couples who have adopted children talk about not having parenting rights. You would be surprised how many men couples have adopted children. We were foster parents for a period in our lives.
By the way I was born and raised catholic went to catholic school through college. Sang in my church choir for 32 years, 22 of them along side my spouse. When we got married our wedding announcement was in the NY times.
The pastor through us out the Sunday after we were married on the church steps in the presence of my 85 year old mother a life long catholic. It's not so much what he did, but how he did it. So insensitive especially to my mom. We never flaunted or discuss our orentation with anyone in the parish. He did it in a public display. Needless to say we are no longer practicing Roman Catholics but after being invited to more than 12 congregations we are now all three of us Episcopalians.
denis by the way the statics have changed
56% of Massachucettes residence now favor same sex marriage see
this article
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/17/SAMESEX.TMP
At the same time, Massachusetts' straight residents appear to be more accepting of same-sex marriage. A Boston Globe poll in March indicated that 56 percent of people here supported same-sex marriage, up from 40 percent in the spring of 2004.
Michael-
go to:
http://www.massnews.com/2005_editions/9_sept/92305_poll_showing_loss_is_a_lie.htm
The topic in this link is:
"Polling Company Has “Falsified Books and Records”"
The article you have given has used falsified information. The NYT is behind this.
If sfgate was truly honest they would have given you the whole story and included this information. They did not.
The Boston Globe which is owned by the NYT has an agenda. Or rather the owner of the NYT and the Boston Globe, Pinch Sulzberger, has an agenda. A gay agenda. He has been caught spreading misinformatiopn to force through same-sex marriage in MA. He has been exposed on this several times including the article you have given.
The husband of Margaret Marshall, the the Massachusetts SJC Justice who has been at the forefront within the SJC to force same-sex on the residents of MA, works for the NYT.
When Kerry lost in the last election Democrats have blamed much of the loss on Margaret Marshall.
This poll is a lie and it is meant to try and soften resistance to same-sex marriage. It has backfired.
Same-sex marriage in MA will end, Margaret Marshall and 3 other justices will retire or be removed. They will probably opt for retirement instead of removal to save their million dollar pensions.
michael-
one additional comment. Please consider giving some thought to not judging all Catholic priests due to the insensitivity of the one. As it was 2-3 % of the Catholic priests who sexually abused children in the Boston diocese(overwhelmingly boys)it would be a gross injustice to hold the other 97-98% to blame.
The Pastor of my parish has stressed in numerous sermons to not mistreat gays while being a strong proponent of marriage as one man+ one woman.
Denis has twice said that "In Canada, churches are already being sued and are being intimidated to change a faith that goes back 2000 years". As a Canadian, I don't believe that to be true. The legislation clearly states that churches are protected from any impact of the law allowing gay marriage, which refers solely to civil marriage. This is analagous to the fact that the Catholic Church in Canada (and elsewhere) does not allow women to become priests, even though there is legislation to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex. I am not aware of any church or church official who has been sued or charged for doing - or not doing - anything related to same sex marriage within their church.
I would also like to point out to Denis that I am a member of the largest protestant church in Canada, and our church supports same sex marriage; there have already been a number in our congregation. Several large, reputable polling organizations show support for same sex marriage growing steadily in Canada.
Time, I'm afraid Denis, is not on your side.
Denbeau-
I will try to find my source about that.
Canada and the U.S. are very different. You are following a European model.
The vast majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. All the credible polls taken verifies this.
17 states voted same-sex marriage down in 2004. Several have amended their state constitutions.
MA will end same-sex marriage.
Denbeau-
here is one source regarding state intrusion into church affairs. (I have more sources, but I have not found them as yet.)
"Alberta Christian Pastor Hauled Before Human Rights Tribunal For Letter to Editor on Homosexuality"
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05090204.html
From the article:
"Boissoin (Reverend Stephen Boissoin) is being hauled before the Human Rights Commission to answer to a complaint filed by Darren Lund, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary. Lund made his complaint after Boissoin published a letter to the editor in the Red Deer Advocate, in which he denounced homosexuality as immoral and dangerous, and called into question new gay-rights curriculums permeating the province’s educational system."
"In that letter to the editor, Boisson lamented that “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”"
"Boissoin, who is himself no stranger to the dangers of homosexual and bi-sexual activity, since many of the youth he works with fall into that category, repeatedly expressed his concern that behaviour that is dangerous, and sometimes fatal, is being presented as normative and even healthy to the most impressionable. “I was just writing a letter to the editor, to the heterosexual population,” he says, “saying this is something to be very, very concerned about.”"
"For expressing that view, however, Boissoin has been called a “bigot” and a “hate-mongerer”, and worse. Darren Lund has likened the young pastor to Terry Long of Aryan Nation, a local white supremacist, and James Keegstra, a holocaust denier."
Also for Denbeau:
A 2002 U.S. government study by the National Center for Health Statistics asked 12,571 in age group 18-44, “Do you think of yourself as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or something else?” In answer, 2.3% of men and women said they were homosexual, and 1.8% answered bisexual, translating to possibly 4.5 million self-identified homosexual or bisexual persons.i
Encouraging news comes from a July 2005 Rasmussen Reports poll showing not only American pro-life voters overwhelmingly support traditional marriage but 48% of pro-abortion voters support it as well. Among all 1,000 likely American voters polled, 66% favor traditional marriage over same-sex marriage. see:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Abortion%20and%20Same%20Sex%20Marriage.htm
In another interesting Gallup Poll,ii Americans are turning more negative toward the concept of same-sex marriage. The poll taken during March 18-20, 2005 shows 57% of Americans polled support a federal constitutional amendment ban against same-sex marriage. In addition, 68% of Americans polled said same-sex marriage should not be legalized. A year earlier, in February 2004, the poll showed support for a federal constitutional amendment was only 47%.
Denbeau-it appears that time IS indeed on MY side.
i. Study by National Center for Health Statistics, “Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures: Men and Women 15-44 Years of Age, United States, 2002.”
ii. Poll conducted March 18-20, 2004 is the highest measured response of 57% in favor of marriage being ‘between a man and a woman,’ across the seven other times the question has been asked since the summer of 2003. Support for a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage among Republican voters in March 2004 was 71%, while support by Democrat voters was 45%. Independent voters supported the amendment at 51%. Highest support for an amendment to ban came from Southern states at 65%, with Midwest states at 56%. Men supported a ban at 59% while women polls supported the ban at 55%. Men and women in the 30-49 year range gave the highest support to ban same-sex marriage, at 61%. Weekly churchgoers gave the ban 67% support, while those who seldom go to church gave the ban only 46% support.
I have fielded the challenges to my postings. How about some courtesy here and returning the favor?
From my previous posts:
1.) What are your comments regarding the distribution of "how to" books on homosexual sexual acts that are taxpayer funded and being distributed to taxpayer-funded middle and highschool students in MA, some as young as 14 y/o? I gave the link in a previous post here.
2.) What are your comments regarding David Parkers rights as a parent, to decide if,when, and how, the topic of homosexuality is to be handled with his own kindegarten-age son? Should a taxpayer-funded kindergarden school be allowed to do this over the objections of parents and taxpayers?
3.) David Parker and his supporters have been subjected to violence and death threats. If the table were turned this would be called a hate-crime against gays. Should this be treated equally as a hate crime against heterosexuals?
I do not wish to divert attention from my previous post concerning the three issues (which I am hoping to receive a reply to).
However, the following is relevant to my postions given thusfar:
U.S. hate-crimes bill
'threatens free speech'
Global movement sees it as attack on natural family
October 14, 2005
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
A bill that would add "sexual orientation" to federal hate-crimes law will make homosexuals a protected class for civil rights purposes and threaten free speech, charges the leader of a global movement supporting traditional families.
The bill, passed in the House in September and now pending in the Senate, is a "subtle attack on the natural family," warns Allan Carlson, founder and convener of the World Congress of Families.
"While it's presented to the public as a way to stop physical attacks on gays, adding so-called sexual orientation to existing hate-crimes law could be used to crush dissent," said Carlson.
"After all, gay activists have told us repeatedly that objections to homosexuality spawn anti-gay violence," he continued. "It then becomes a short step from adding an extra punishment for physical acts to penalizing controversial views."
The companion bill in the Senate is expected to be approved soon by the Senate Judiciary Committee, paving the way for a floor vote.
Carlson noted that in Canada and Sweden similar laws have been used to punish expression.
In Sweden in 2004, Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green was sent to prison for a month for a 2003 sermon in which he described homosexual acts as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society."
In the Canadian province of Alberta, Rev. Stephen Boissoin is being threatened with thousands of dollars in fines by the province's Human Rights Tribunal for writing a letter to the editor decrying public school indoctrination in favor of the gay lifestyle.
Carlson points out that in the past, hate-crimes laws have been based on race, religion, ethnicity or sex – mostly immutable characteristics.
If homosexuals are added to federal law in the U.S., he said, for the first time a protected class would be designated solely on the basis of sexual behavior.
"Homosexuality isn't biologically determined," he insisted. "The much-touted search for a 'gay gene' of several years back has elicited no scientific evidence."
Carlson contended that while everyone's rights should be protected, and physical attacks on individuals should always be punished, "the purpose of adding gays to hate-crimes laws is to suppress dissent and legitimize conduct which all of the world's great religions view as immoral."
Civil-rights laws for homosexuals will lead to promotion of curricula that will press children to believe all forms of sexual expression are equally valid, he said.
"But the future of society and civilization is based exclusively on one relationship – the monogamous relationship of a man and a woman, sanctified by law and tradition," Carlson declared. "For Congress to pass such legislation is a move fraught with danger – for families and society."
The World Congress of Families held its third conference in Mexico City in 2004. More than 3,300 delegates from around the world adopted "The Mexico City Declaration," an international declaration of principles affirming the natural family as the fundamental unit of society.
A congress also was held in Prague in 1997 and in Geneva in 1999. The fourth congress is planned for Warsaw in 2007.
John M. Kelley: you have it backwards. Traditional Marriage is: The New Willy Horton".
Post a Comment
<< Home