Turns out Vermont decided yesterday that getting married and being gay at the same time is A-OK in Vermont. I say, good for you Vermont. Way to take the lead again in the area of gay rights like you did back a decade or more ago when you were the first to allow civil unions for gay people. Now, you have overridden the veto of your governor and made it law in the state of Vermont that gay people can get married. That is some good stuff right there. Of course, when reached for comment, the hard care religious right were apoplectic, such as:
“Same-sex ‘marriage’ is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well. Time and again, we see when citizens have the opportunity to vote at the ballot box, they consistently opt to support traditional marriage,”
This little gem above came from our good friend, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. How are 2 people getting hitched going to destroy democracy? How? It won’t you reactionary asshole. Citizens may have voted for gan marriage bans to be put into place, but guess what? This isn’t an issue of popularity, or a decision where I think the masses can effectively decide for themselves, because all of their anti gay hatred tumbles forth when they do vote on things like this. Of course, he continues:
“The radical left wants to destroy the traditional union of one man and one woman across the country and they will not rest until they do so. The marriage amendment movement has been many times more successful than the same-sex ‘marriage’ movement,”
I’m not even really sure where to start on his statements, but let’s go with the little nugget that folks like Mr. Perkins always like to bring up. If gay people are allowed to get married it is going to destroy marriage as we know it. I always ask this question; how? How exactly will 2 people getting married affect the bond between say, my wife and myself? It doesn’t. It doesn’t at all. Our marriage is our marriage. How we got married was our choice (on a beach, in the Caribbean, and a secular ceremony). I suppose in the eyes of people like Mr. Perkins, we’re not really married either. How is wanting 2 people who live each other get married supposed to destroy the traditional union of one man and one woman? Someone explain this to me. How will a “regular” marriage be destroyed by gay people that you don’t know getting married? It won’t be. Nobody has an acceptable answer for this.
In the article that I pulled his quotes from, there is one gentleman quoted in there from beliefnet.com that is some sort of religious evangelical Christian site and he said that Vermont, “Vermont just got it the right way: democratically, through legislative action.” What he is of course trying to say is that if it had been enacted through their judicial system, it somehow would have been part of an “activist” liberal court system in Vermont bent on destroying the fabric of our nation. Of course, what folks like this guy forget is that our Constitution sets up our government to be 3 equal branches. You know, the whole checks and balances thing. What he also forgets is that without court intervention, slavery still might be around. Segregated separate but equal (yeah right) facilities for whites and minorities might still be around. Schools might still be segregated. Black and white people would not be allowed to get married. You could go on for days through court decisions that turned around legislative ones that were found to be un-Constitutional, just like not allowing gay people to get married is.
I see these guys prepping for another battle, and that battle coming closer is the one where they try to cram a Constitutional amendment down the throat of America that will not allow gay marriage. I don’t think that this will happen, and I do think that at some point in time, possibly in the next 10-15 years, this issue will be front and center at the United States Supreme Court, and no matter what their personal feelings on the matter are, the Justices have to rule in favor of allowing it. There is nothing in our laws that say it can’t be done. Nothing. Someone give me one rational legal reason as to WHY 2 men, or 2 women can’t get married. You. Can’t. Do. It. Besides, our Constitution was written to allow our laws to flow from it, and also to GIVE We The People rights in the United States. To add an amendment to this very important document that says we are taking away the rights of a certain group would prove contrary to what our Founding Fathers wanted for this country and for this document in general.
Anyway, enough with my tirade. I just hate it when stupid people make stupid statements like these guys from the Family Research Council. Letting people get married increases the bond of marriage throughout the country, it creates new families, and it commits 2 people (regardless of their sexual orientation) to each other hopefully for life. Isn’t this what these schmucks are always saying is lacking in our society? Nobody is saying that gay folks are going to show up, and want to get married in your church, so stop your fretting about that. I’m pretty certain they know that they aren’t welcome there, even though Jesus is rolling over in his grave every single time one of you spews forth your hatred for gay people during your sermons and services. Stop using Jesus and God as your justification for your bigotry and hatred. Anyway, what really happens when gay people get married? Nothing, nothing at all. The world isn’t going to open up and swallow our country. You’re not going to see anymore “gay” on the street than you do now. They’re aren’t going to be spontaneous gay pride parades all over the country. What happens? People get married, and that’s pretty much it.by
The question of marriage as far as the goverment is concerned should only be one of tax and legal purposes. Can two people of the same gender file taxes jointly? Can the same-gendered spouse be an automatic legal guardian of any children produced in that marriage, and can the same-gendered spouse be given the same health, probate, and other legal benefits afforded to millions of married couples currently. Beyond that, it is not an issue for the government to decide, it is for the churches, and whether they will perform a religious ceremony for a same-gendered couple. Secular, legal, marriages have no basis on which to discriminate the parties involved, beyond that of age.
This is all True!
…if people feared stupidity as much as they fear “different”, it would be a little more understandable…
Do you think if a different term was used that it would make it easier for people to handle? I had this conversation with a friend, while prepairing to vote on Prop 8, here in CA. last year. We voted opposite each other, based on this alone. What do Y’all think? Would it help?
And to bikesgonewild… different=scary…. stupid=happy
What’s the difference between a ‘civil union’ and a ‘marriage’? Sounds like we’re splitting hairs.
And come on, don’t be naive, it’s about money. People want their employers or the state to provide health insurance to their roommates. Health insurance is obnoxiously expensive.
As I understand it, and I’m way too busy to web search any relevant links, in Germany there is a separation between “civil union” and “marriage” that plays like this: You get your civil union from the state, and you get your marriage from the church. State rights come via civil union. Church stuff arrives via marriage. Solves the problem just like that.
It might work in this country too. At least, that’s what I think.
I agree with you Mikey. I know one person who said it would make a difference to him. Do you think he’s the only one? Just wondering if the gay rights movement should try a slight change in marketing strategy? They’re going to continue to get resistance from insurance companies, no doubt! I’m thinking maybe changing the term will win over some more numbers in votes. It’s not going to lose any! To me, it doesn’t matter… It IS splitting hairs! I still think it could make a difference to a number of people who are freaked out about it somehow diminishing the sacredness of their “marriage”…
The institution of marriage is being ruined by divorce, not gay people wanting to wed. Just like riding a bike…take’em for a test ride before you commit.
You know those Germans are always making great stuff!!.. We’re going to do this in real time… You with me camera guy?
…yep…ignorance, skewed priorities & deep rooted insecurities…life blood of so many…
I have had a standing challenge since I can remember anything about gay marriage being a controversy: Tell me how 2 people getting married can effect any other 2 people already married or who may be married in the future, and if I can’t logically refute the idea or use the same logic to prevent any other group from getting married (like fundy Xtians) then I will support a ban on gay marriage. Otherwise STFU. I have never ever as long as I have been issuing this challenge gotten a reply. Neither has anybody from the other side STFU.
“Tell me how 2 people getting married can effect any other 2 people already married or who may be married in the future, and if I can’t logically refute the idea or use the same logic to prevent any other group from getting married (like fundy Xtians) then I will support a ban on gay marriage.”
Okay, I’ll bite. By raising their taxes? By ending their spouses’ health benefits?
Big Jonny, I find myself in agreeance with both you and the state of Germany. Give me a moment to wrap my mind around that. Mmmm, Jim Beam…
Okay, I’m back. Yes, I think that would be a most elegant solution to the issue. Civil union to deal with the legal aspect of marriage, and the religious ceremony (or not) to address the spiritual/moral/whatever side.
Mikey, I’m having trouble understanding your angle on this. Do you think that’s what will happen? Or, are you stating what you think people fear. The question marks after each item make it hard to know which it is. Both of those things sound like what our last president would say to try to scare people into hating homo’s. Health benefits at most companies are layed out by the employer. Some companies cover spouses and children, and some will make you pay for anyone other than yourself. And where does the tax increase come from? Sounds like some shit Rush Limbaugh would try to make people believe.
“Mikey, I’m having trouble understanding your angle on this. Do you think that’s what will happen? Or, are you stating what you think people fear. The question marks after each item make it hard to know which it is.”
Sorry, let me try to be more clear. I see a grain of truth in both claims I cited in response to Mr. Opus’ challenge.
“Both of those things sound like what our last president would say to try to scare people into hating homo’s.”
Off-topic. It’s not about homos, it’s about MONEY. The State doesn’t care whether its citizens want to kiss boys or girls. In the exact example of “gay rights,” it’s THE GAYS that make their sexuality an issue, in an effort to gain benefits they previously did not always enjoy. Follow the money.
“Health benefits at most companies are layed out by the employer. Some companies cover spouses and children, and some will make you pay for anyone other than yourself. And where does the tax increase come from?”
Quite so. If small businesses are compelled to provide health benefits to roommates of their employees, under some form of (explicitly discriminatory) “anti-discrimination” language, they may elect not to provide those benefits at all. “Married” couples lose benefits. As I said, health insurance is obnoxiously expensive, and it’s already a crushing burden to small business.
If the State is compelled to provide health benefits to roommates of public employees, tax revenues pay for this.
Again, this issue is not about homosexuality, it’s about money. That’s why I use the term “roommate.” The “gay rights” folks want some and the Rush Limbaugh types retardedly, regressively, conservatively don’t like paying.
There is no morality play here. This is an issue of social cost accounting. I’ve been to several lovely “gay weddings” which are not recognized legally in the State of Washington. The ceremonies seemed genuine and meaningful to me… sort of like the “civil union” my wiife and I got down at the courthouse back in ’92.
Peace out, Mikey
…fine & dandy, mikey & understandably you’re intelligent enough to view the situation from a “practical” economic p.o.v….
…but while you’ve stated yer case well, you can’t deny that there is a large cadre of religious extremists who consider themselves “morally superior” & who find homosexuality immoral & therefore they will never accept same sex marriage from that standpoint…
…we’re talking about people who despite their supposed high moral stance are narrow minded, unenlightened & non-accepting of anyone & anything that varies from their limited viewpoint…yet they are allowed to affect the lives of millions of people who simply wish to live & share their lives w/ their chosen mates…& i believe ultimately, those folks can & should be accepted through the social programs you refer to…
…a marriage is a marriage is a marriage…
“…but while you’ve stated yer case well, you can’t deny that there is a large cadre of religious extremists who consider themselves “morally superior” & who find homosexuality immoral & therefore they will never accept same sex marriage from that standpoint…”
In my opinion, those people are idiots. Thankfully, they don’t run the government in this country.
“…a marriage is a marriage is a marriage…”
Here I have to disagree. The traditional man-woman marriage is supposed to provide a stable family structure for bearing and raising children. It more or less has for several thousand years. “Gay marriage” is something else- and it’s unclear exactly what.
That’s why I like to call it a “roommate” issue, to try and take the emotion out of it. As a social cost accounting issue, it’s extremely relevant.
…mikey, i can only say that living here in the san francisco bay area where we’ve witnessed some of the most egregious acts of blatant “gay-dom”, we’ve also been witness to wonderful loving gay relationships that have provided beautifully stable platforms for both adopting or even bearing & then ultimately raising well balanced children…
…if it’s an honest, loving, long term relationship, i don’t see the need to discriminate…
“we’ve also been witness to wonderful loving gay relationships that have provided beautifully stable platforms for both adopting or even bearing & then ultimately raising well balanced children…”
Up here in Pugetropolis (which is sort of like the Bay Area Jr.), there is a strong culture of the State placing children with lesbian women. It makes basic sense; kids need homes and women need kids. And while it makes sense and works most of the time (who knows, really?), I’ve witnessed first-hand some pretty weird shit. I met some kids who have three mommies and no father figure whatsoever. One woman was the biological mom of one kids and “divorced” from one of the others, and the “village” was raising them. If that’s bizarre and complicated for adults, how does a three year-old work it out in his or her head? Most kids will come out fine, but who knows? I think the State needs to tread carefully here.
`Off-topic. It’s not about homos, it’s about MONEY. The State doesn’t care whether its citizens want to kiss boys or girls. In the exact example of “gay rights,” it’s THE GAYS that make their sexuality an issue, in an effort to gain benefits they previously did not always enjoy. Follow the money.’
You’re missing my point! What you have stated here is correct. My problem is that the political angle is one of “moral values”. That’s what people are voting on. The $$$ is the hidden agenda. I completely agree that the $$$ is what matters most to the people in power, but that is not the argument they present, and seems to matter the least to most civilians that will take this argument.
“In my opinion, those people are idiots. Thankfully, they don’t run the government in this country.”
News Flash! They did for the past 8 years Dude! And they continue to have a lot of influence in the public’s political(and moral) opinion..
Also… I understand your concerns with having a mother and a father raising a child. I agree that it’s the best way. However, not always an option. I have seen and been concerned with some of the same child rearing issues you speak of. But, I tell you what… It’s better than not being loved by any parents at all!!! Better than being raised by a bunch of chicks in penguin suits!!! Better than being thrown out on the steets!!! You’re not thinking about what the alternative is for many of these adopted kids..
Finally… I’m sensing that you feel gay marriage is wrong, so why don’t you just come out and say it? Liberate yourself! You’ll feel better, once you just COME OUT! You’re presenting your argument like it’s someone elses, when in fact it’s slowly(comment by comment) showing that these are YOUR feelings. Cut the crap! This is drunkcyclist, where you can just let it flow… No sensorship here!
P.S. There is only ONE Bay Area! Beoootch!
“My problem is that the political angle is one of “moral values”. That’s what people are voting on.”
The so-called ‘religious right’ votes one way and gays vote another. No surprise there. Nothing is fucked, dude. It’s too bad that issues of social cost accounting are settled emotionally. Again, that’s why I refer to it as a ‘roommate’ issue- let’s try to take the emotion out of it and do what’s fair.
“News Flash! They did for the past 8 years Dude! And they continue to have a lot of influence in the public’s political(and moral) opinion.”
No they didn’t. We live in a secular state. I don’t believe in their god, I don’t attend their church, and there’s nothing they can do about it.
“Finally… I’m sensing that you feel gay marriage is wrong, so why don’t you just come out and say it? Liberate yourself! You’ll feel better, once you just COME OUT!”
I’m surprised (and pleased) that it took this long for someone to accuse me of hating gays. As I’ve carefully stated several times, this issue is not about homosexuality. In fact, I don’t see any moral issue here. I don’t care who kisses who or who “marries” who. It is, however, the RESPONSIBILITY of government to fairly address issues of social cost accounting, collect taxes and fund necessary programs. Again, the real issue here is, do roommates deserve benefits by law? This issue is extremely complex and extremely relevant.
Nothing is fucked?? They’re gonna kill that poor woman…
I’m still confused about why you keep mentioning roommates… Roomates are not getting married, and I don’t see the relevance in this conversation. On top of that, employers are not forced by law to give benefits to ANY spouse. Also surprised that you deny the political power of the church. I think that you’ve got your head in the sand if you think the church doesn’t influence your life, just because you don’t attend.
Finally, I wasn’t “accusing” you of “hating gays”… Your posts/comments seem to imply that you think gay marriage is wrong. Especially your last post from yesterday. It seemed pretty clear that was what you were getting at, without coming out and saying. Especially the parenting part. Do you disagree that most of the kids are better off having a strange family experience, rather than none at all?
Also Dude, keeping a wild animal, umm amphibious rodent, uhh as a pet, within umm city limits…. That aint legal either…
Try to reduce the emotion. “Roommates” is merely a metaphor for “gay” or “religious” or “veterans” or “diabetics” or whichever of a hundred different special interests that people use to appeal to emotion rather than simply fair governance. Follow the money.
Should “married” homosexuals receive benefits by law? Should “roommates?” Should “married” heterosexuals? It’s complicated.
You bring child rearing into the discussion. Which of the above groups should be legally adopting children? Who gets the tax credits? In Washington, the State makes handsome payments to adoptive parents. How should we prioritize? How much of this is really the State’s business?
This is a very complex issue. Some trends are fairly obvious, but still, I think the State should tread lightly.
I did not bring child rearing into the conversation.. YOU DID! I was responding to what YOU said. I’m not getting anything out of this interaction, so I’m going to let it go now.