OBAMA DOMA
Well, we’re off to the races. All this kidding and joking of the last couple weeks aside, now the rubber meets the road, and we can all get down to some more serious business. But first, a message from our sponsors:
I’m not real big on the “Birth Certificate” conspiracy, but since Obama is preaching transparency of Government, and Rule of Law, I would suggest just doing the right and easy thing and produce that birth certificate at a news conference so we can just put this to bed. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming…
Social Engineering, as Promised
The White House stance changed radically on day one of the Obama administration. From Clinton to Bush, DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) stood in what seemed to be a bipartisan manner. Obama intends to support any legislation striking down said act.
DOMA has clauses in it which those on the liberal left see as punitive for gays, lesbians, transgendered citizens. It prevents mandatory State to State recognition of marriages, i.e., if New York allowed gay marriage, the DOMA states that Rhode Island, for example, could not be forced to recognize the marriage if the couple moved there. Another clause in DOMA also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing same sex marriage.
Obama stated during his 2004 Senatorial campaign:
For the record, I opposed [the Defense of Marriage Act] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted.
Demonize people? Are you serious? Or is this just yet another example of over the top emotional fit throwing of a leftist, trying to make those who have a serious stance about a serious issue, but are in opposition to the left’s emotionally driven drivel, to feel or appear badly? This is a common tactic of the left. An example might be if you support a Republican, “another church will burn.”
The left attempts to paint anyone who opposes their agenda of “I’m ok, you’re ok, we’re all ok!!” with the broad brush of “bigot”. Obama’s attempt to claim that those in support of DOMA are attempting to demonize the homosexual community is preposterous. They (the left) wish to engender the image of you bigoted red neck church going bastards burning witches, holding slaves, or making someone sit on the back of the bus. In their minds, if you are opposed to gay marriage, you might as well be wearing a swastika, blue eyed and blonde haired, shoving jews into ovens.
And all of this from a group of people who think it is ok to suck babies out of wombs.
But, “demonize”? Seriously?
DOMA is not and was not an attempt to demonize anyone. It was and is an attempt to prevent the spreading of groundswell squeaky wheel partisan special interest group whackos from arm twisting the courts into allowing for gay marriage. In case some of you have not noticed, this is how the left gets a lot of “legislation” passed that it can’t get passed in Congress… it does so in the courts, by spreading precedent after precedent until you have such a mess that it can’t be undone.
Personally, I don’t care or give a rip what Joe does to Jack behind closed doors. And as far as having the rights to make medical decisions, or sell or buy a house together, or inherit the estate or life insurance, I really don’t care. But when we get to the point of making it precisely identical TO marriage, I draw the line. When we get to the point of making it so you can adopt children, I draw the line. I don’t think you’re evil for being gay, or incapable of raising a child. I just think it is unfair and frankly sick to go around placing kids into homes that are going to create confusion and perhaps embarrassment for the child. I couldn’t care less about the gay or lesbian in this case- I care about the kid that just got auctioned off into a potentially difficult situation just so we all could “feel good about America”.
Obama also said, in 1996 during his run for the Illinois Senate:
“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”
But now, the President elect favors civil unions. Hey, great, that is where I am on the issue. But you’re the damn President now, so get your finger out of the air and make up your mind.
Obama’s position, as stated in the new White House website:
“It’s about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”
Whoa. Wait a minute. Are you saying if the majority of Americans do NOT want gay marriage to be the equivalent of heterosexual marriage, that we are treating those people disrespectfully or stealing their dignity? Are we giving them separate water fountains? Back of the bus? I think not. We are simply saying that society does not want the American FAMILY defined that way. Nobody is saying stone the bastards. Nobody is saying let’s organize and put them all on an island. Go ahead- live your life the way you want. Do it behind closed doors. And yes, you can have some of the same legal and financial advantages married people do.
But saying we are treating them different equates to stealing their dignity or respect is, again, the knee jerk “if you don’t live and let live, you’re a Nazi bastard” mentality that the left wields like a billy club over anyone who has principles.
Let me put this a few different ways. You can drive when you are 16, but not 14. Loss of dignity? Respect? You can have pets in this apartment complex, not this one. Loss of dignity? Respect? You can marry one woman, not 12. Loss of dignity? Respect? You can’t drink before 21. I ask you 20 year olds… Loss of dignity? Respect? Men pee standing up. Women can’t. Wait… shouldn’t. Loss of dignity? Respect? (Well, bad example. If you gals pee standing up you probably will lose both.)
I think you get my point. Societal limits do not equate to unfairness to the degree that one cold make an argument that we are implementing Jim Crow across the nation. But, the left will always try to paint you principled bastards that way… you know they will.
Obama is also clearly on a path to repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell” for the miitary; he states clearly he opposes a constitutional ban on same sex marriage; expanding adoption rights to all types of “married” people regardless of sexual orientation.
If you recall, both DOMA and Don’t ask don’t tell are products of Clinton’s Presidency, clarifying the fact that not all Democrats are created equal.
More on all of these as they develop.
Hang on folks. Socially, you are in for a ride. Maybe Bill Clinton wasn’t so bad after all???
[...] My Favorite Books of 2009 « 777 Peppermint PlacePodcast #38 – YouTuber Laci “gogreen18″ « American Freethought A Problem for PawlentyGayPatriot » Is Monogamy Essential to Marital Bliss? Uganda: The other shoe drops — Warren ThrockmortonClosing the budget gap — one marriage at a timeOBAMA DOMA [...]
Chris –
Do you read because all the reasons have been repeated again and again in this blog? Just put your finger on the key and scroll, scroll, scroll.
I know the government has you pretty brainwashed but guess what — it is always a “justifiable act” to be discriminating. In fact thinking doesn’t have to be justified at all. When you discriminate you: select from others; observe the difference between; show partiality or prejudice and you MAKE A JUDGMENT OR REACH A VERDICT.
You are still allowed to think and make a judgment even if the word “discriminate” has come, to some, to mean “prejudice against.” That’s the “political” meaning and if you are afraid to think and draw a verdict because you might discriminate against someone you are in terrible trouble. You “discriminate” every day Chris — but don’t be afraid. Obama hasn’t invented a “thought Czar” yet.
As for the word “bigot,” it means a person who holds blindly and intolerably to a creed or opinion. I am neither blind nor intolerant. Name-callers like you use your names to shut up the opposition because it puts the other person in the position of having to defend himself personally. This argument isn’t personal Chris. For all I know you’re a weak-minded pervert but I haven’t suggested that, have I? And even if I did suggest it how would you prove me wrong?
I have reached my “opinion” through thoughtful soul-searching, study and life experience and my opnion is that gays should get “civil unions” and leave the word “marriage” for heterosexuals where it has been from the beginning of time.
[...] he was running for the Senate in 2004, Obama said, It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any [...]
You ask: “Are you saying if the majority of Americans do NOT want gay marriage to be the equivalent of heterosexual marriage, that we are treating those people disrespectfully or stealing their dignity?” You seem to think the question is rhetorical, even ridiculous.
But the answer is YES. That is EXACTLY what you are doing.
When you write, “I just think it is unfair and frankly sick to go around placing kids into [same-sex] homes” (and BTW, same-sex adoption is perfectly legal in many places where equal marriage isn’t yet), among various other slurs found in the comments thread here, that DOES deny people the dignity and respect they deserve as human beings and as citizens. It draws conclusions about them based on a stereotype derived from their status as members of a particular group, rather than treating them as individuals.
There are genuine concerns about public safety underlying, say, driving and drinking ages. However, I seriously doubt there are any “principles” you can name that justify laws against equal marriage. It’s bigotry, pure and simple.
Wow Chris, you are a genius. The old “We want same sex marriage so we should get same sex marriage or you are a bigot” is always a good argument. I’m surprised you didn’t use the word “hate” because it’s always a good one too.
I have a confession to make. I am a discriminator and you will probably want to report me to the PC police, Obama or a gay rights group. Yesterday I chose three rosy red apples over three shrunken and dry oranges at the grocery store. I discriminate every day of my life. I discriminated against those oranges and I admit it.
Stealing respect and dignity is a poor argument for gay marriage. Get another one.
All sarcasm aside, no one has to be a genius to see through your facile and dismissive. Once again: there are plausible *reasons* for preferring fresh fruit over shriveled fruit, just as there are for not wanting preteens to drive cars or sign contracts. “Discriminating” in that sense is therefore a justifiable act.
What, then, are your *reasons* for discriminating against same-sex couples, in terms of either marriage or parenting? You haven’t advanced any. Gay people are no less competent, loving, or socially responsible. Why on earth should the law treat them differently?
If you had a credible answer for that, you might find that people would stop accusing you of being a bigot.
Rebecca –
Today men and women are dying on the streets of Tehran and we are discussing gay rights. You make me feel like a pawn of the gay agenda and I’m not comfortable with that. We are at an impasse.
1) You say you are “discriminated against” but you will always be discriminated against, even if you are among the rich and famous. Nature itself discriminates against you and denies you children except by adoption or artificial means. Your union is not blessed by nature or most of society but you will push for it in order to mimic what you will never be — another gender.
You are part of a small and stagnant minority unless you start recruiting which some fear you already do. Your union is incomplete and deficient and defies what many consider the true purpose of marriage is – to create families, build stability and carry on the race. You seek to change the institution of marriage which has existed throughout the ages to benefit society and children. Most religions despise your practices and warn against them. Yes, you are discriminated against on a huge scale.
2) You say “your rights” are denied but you have the same rights as anyone else. You may live, love and have sex together. Laws do not exist to enable you to marry so you want to invent “special laws” for “special people” and many states have granted them.
3) You say you “don’t see how it would hurt” to allow same sex couples to marry. First it changes the commonly accepted definition of marriage which some consider inviolate. It lends the rubber stamp of normalcy and approval to the few over the many. It is abhorrent to most religions. It does not promote the best interests of society and family. It complicates and confuses role models. It can be a gateway to unhealthy or dangerous sexual practices when indiscriminate bisexuals cross over. It opens the door for those who want the opportunity to prey on children. It legitimizes aberrant sexual behavior. Some will use it for fraudulent purposes to gain insurance or money.
On a more personal note, I am glad your parents love and support you and the only assumption I made was that your parents didn’t ask for a homosexual child. Was I incorrect?
The child that was sexually molested was abused, over time, by an avowed “lesbian,” not just by a female babysitter. With regard to the “whipping boy” comment, when my friend Pam first came out she described an incident where she purposely made-out with her girlfriend, in the closed confines of a tour boat, just to irritate the old and obviously offended couple sitting in back of her. Maybe that wasn’t “flaunting.” Maybe that was just being nasty. Coming out seemed to give Pam a new set of rules where human behavior was concerned.
Thank you for explaining your mushy comparison of the Puerto Rican Parade with the Gay Rights Parade. Now I understand your comparison of gender, race, and homosexuality.
I’ll just reply to 2) by posting part of an essay I found on the net. It makes It perfectly clear why rights are being denied.
“Why This Is A Civil Rights Issue
When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters like the fact that we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may be estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and totally ignore our wishes for the treatment of our partners. If that hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in nearly all cases. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility — with results actually intended to be inimical to the interests of the patient! One couple I know uses the following line in the “sig” lines on their email: “…partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law.” Is this fair?
If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. Is this fair?
In most cases, even carefully drafted wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner’s grave. As survivors, they can even sieze a real estate property that we may have been buying together for years, quickly sell it at a huge loss and stick us with the remaining debt on a property we no longer own. When these are presented to a homophobic probate judge, he will usually find some pretext to overturn them. Is this fair?
These aren’t just theoretical issues, either; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you horror stories of friends who have been victimized in such ways.
These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony or whether an announcement is accepted for publication in the local paper. It is not a matter of “special rights” to ask for the same rights that other couples enjoy by law, even by constitutional mandate.”
—Scott Bidstrup
Rebecca –
Normally, no pun intended, I would argue point by point for a civil debate but you offended me by using the word “hatred” in your first long paragraph where you also tried to compare The Puerto Rican Day Parade with a Gay Pride Parade and this bewildered me.
“Hate and hatred” are the buzz words currently used by the Hispanic lobby to label anyone who disagrees with them. As for comparing ethnicity with sexual preference, this makes no sense at all.
I wish you a long and happy homosexual life. I know the man who lent his sperm and the woman who contributed her egg to create you did not say, “Gee, I hope she grows up to be a lesbian.” No sane person would wish the inherent problems of being gay on their child.
I stand by everything I’ve said in my posts and I have nothing against lesbians except this: A friend’s child (a girl) was sexually molested by her lesbian babysitter in the bathtub. This affected the molested child deeply and she grew up to be very cautious about her own children and she blamed her mother.
I share this only because I was dumb enough not to realize it could happen and I know your moral standards do not necessarily match the babysitter’s.
There is only one inherent problem with being gay and that is being discriminated against and having rights denied by people like you. No offense, since you appear to become sensitive when your beliefs are challenged (a bit ironic, don’t you think?), but there would not be any difficulties for the gay population if the conservative citizens of this country would simply allow everyone to fall in love with and marry whoever makes them happy. I still fail to see how it would hurt you at all to allow a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. What would you lose? How would it make you suffer?
And I’m pretty sure my heterosexual parents only ever said, “I hope she grows up to be happy.” I don’t think that they would love me any differently either way. They have completely supported my sexuality and have welcomed my girlfriend into their family. I know that sharing this has no effect on you since you’ve clearly made up your mind and no amount of logical reasoning could ever convince you otherwise. I just thought I’d share that your assumptions about my family were incorrect, and I would wager that other assumptions of yours about gays have likewise been off point.
Now, what does a little girl being molested by a female babysitter have to do with anything? I could also talk about the two of my close friends that have been raped (by men) or my friend that was sexually molested by her uncle… There are bad people everywhere. I’m unsure of the point you are trying to make. But if you’re so convinced that you have nothing against lesbians, then why are you so adamantly promoting DOMA, a piece of legislation that is a partial cause of the difficulties you mentioned.
Oh and I almost forgot. Comparing sexual preference and ethnicity does make sense seeing as they are both pieces of your identity that you cannot change. You are born Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, etc. the same way you are born gay or straight or bisexual. The point I was making was, why is it considered perfectly fine to deny rights to gays but discrimination based on race or gender is unacceptable? Should they not be equally frowned upon?
While conservatives fear that the gay population is attempting to make homosexuality the norm, this is entirely untrue. Why can it not be accepted that a gay couple may simply wish to be granted the same privileges and American rights as their fellow heterosexual citizens? And in response to this claim that gay pride “flaunts” homosexuality, do you have the same hatred of the Cuban Day Parade? St. Patrick’s Day? Puerto Rican Day? Correct me if I am wrong, but up until now neither the Cuban nor Irish nor Puerto Rican ethnicities are the majority and yet you do not have any problem with them expressing their pride of their identity. So please explain to me why gay pride is met with such disdain when it is merely a group of people celebrating a part of themselves. How about the Christian Youth Parade? An argument could be made that they are “flaunting” their religion as if it is the norm even though this country is made up of many different religious populations and promotes religious freedom. Of course, I do not believe that any race or religion should be discriminated against, but I am showing how selective prejudice against someone based on their sexuality is just as unacceptable and un-American as discrimination based on ethnicity or religion.
Responding to the continued belief that homosexual behavior should be saved for behind closed doors, I would like anyone who thinks this to take a walk down the street. Note how many heterosexual couples are holding hands, leaning up against a building kissing, or worse. Now turn on the television. In nearly every primetime television drama, there are scenes of premarital heterosexual sex. Is this not also considered a sin? But I do not see anyone banging on Obama’s door to have this banned from television.
The fact that you think that homosexual couples are expressing their feelings for one another purely to make you their “whipping boy” is just childish and silly. I’m pretty sure that they do not even notice you are there and even if they did, you are certainly not important enough for them to go out of their way to make you uncomfortable. Once again, do you not also feel uncomfortable when a heterosexual couple is practically having sex outdoors for everyone to see? Or is that perfectly fine since it is “normal” sex?
I do not see an merit to the argument that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the end of humanity. Just because gays would be allowed to marry does not mean that every American citizen will be expected to become gay and enter into a homosexual marriage. In fact, there will be little to no change for the heterosexual population. This will only mean that 10% of the population will go from life partners to husbands/wives. That’s all. No apocalypse. No destruction of humanity. Heterosexual couples will continue reproducing as always and homosexual couples will continue being proud of the lives they lead, as always.
To Sarah –
I didn’t know I was making a “societal limits” argument but let’s jump in. Societies do set limits on what’s appropraite and what’s not. Today the majority of people in our “society” do not want the institution of marriage to apply to gays for many different reasons including religion.
Your first paragraph is a perfect example of what society accepted in the past — but not today. Society changed its mind on the vote, interracial marriage and property ownership. See Sarah — society does evolve with the times.
However, all this is moot considering that on Thursday, June 18, 2009 President Obama signed a presidential memorandum that gives same sex domestic partners of federal employees access to long-term care insurance benefits and allows civil servants to use sick leave to care for ailing domestic partners and children not related by blood or adoption.
This is Obama’s gift to all his gay and lesbian voters, just as Sotomayor is a gift to all his Hispanice voters, in return for their support. I don’t know where this goes from here, because some say it violates the law, but if it stands I’m sure many local and state officials will follow suit.
Jim Crow laws were the province of the state and local entities but the Supreme Court weighed in on “Brown v. Board of Education” and Jim Crow laws were overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
You said you didn’t care about “definitions” so Obama’s memorandum may be the beginning of you getting what you want outside the title of marriage or even within, I don’t know. What I do know is that Obama has stretched DOMA as far as he can go to benefit same-sex partnerships.
As for me and the majority of people in this nation, I don’t consider a same-sex partnership a marriage and I hope the word “marriage” will be reserved for heterosexuals.
The nasty last line of your post is what turns me off about gays/lesbians and your special “society.” You cram it, ram it, display it, orchestrate it, demonstrate it — your sexual preference, that is.
—————————————
To Scott –
I’m a Christian and a woman. I’ve been discriminated against all my life.
Your societal limits argument doesn’t hold water. Consider the following:
—————–
You can vote if you’re a man, but not a woman. Loss of dignity? Respect? You can own property if you’re white, but not black. Loss of dignity? Respect? You can marry someone of the same race, but not someone of a different race. Loss of dignity? Respect? (Well, bad example. If you folks marry outside your races you probably will lose both.)
I think you get my point. Societal limits do not equate to unfairness to the degree that one could make an argument that we are implementing Jim Crow across the nation. But, the left will always try to paint you principled bastards that way… you know they will.
————–
On another note, I do appreciate that you’re only fussing with definitions. I could care less about definitions, as long as they don’t impact me legally or financially. Give me and my partner equal protection under the law (equal to a het married couple), and I don’t care what you call our marriage. Call it a “friendship” if you like. We’ll define our relationship the way we feel appropriate, and we won’t hide it behind closed doors. (Get used to it.)
Christians will not understand until they experience discrimination for themselves. Other people’s religious beliefs are not reason enough to deny gay people equality under the law. All religion is made up and cannot be proven. I don’t believe or follow your religion. The Bible is a fictional “history” book and is also not evidence to deny gay people equality. Sin is also a made up thing, it simply does not exist. It is time for science and reason, not religion and hocus pocus. Christianity is superstition, and therefore is not a valid argument against marriage equality. It’s interesting how Christians cite their “morals”, but Christians have committed some of the most heinous atrocities in the history of the world. They don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to morals. Christianity is a tradition of oppression and violence against people who do not believe as they do. Also, the world doesn’t need anymore breeding. Over population and the degradation of the earth can be directly blamed on heterosexuals with their compelling “need” to reproduce.
Let me clarify. When I reread my post I saw that I was not clear. I accept homosexuality as a natural condition of perhaps 10% of the population but consider it an aberation. If homosexuality were the norm few children would be born and I’m sure this is not what nature intended. Nature always strives to perpetuate life under good conditions.
Science, medicine and psychiatry have gone around the problem and changed their minds frequently but I believe the current consensus is that some people are born homosexual, realize they’re in the wrong body early on, and finally come to terms with their homosexuality. The process is often hard and damaging to the person trying to find his place in society.
For me this has nothing to do with the Bible or morality. It is simply a fact of nature. I condemn no one and consider “coming out” as an acceptance of who and what you are.
Now, having said all this, I do not agree that marriage, which has been culturally, socially and Biblically defined in practice, throughout the ages, as a union between a man and a woman should be hijacked by the 10% in the minority.
If you are a part of the homosexual “minority” get a civil union but do not try to expand the normally accepted meaning of marriage and enlarge it to include something some still consider a sin and an abomination. Many religions abhor homosexuality. To celebrate the awareness of your unique sexuality and to flaunt it is also not the norm. When was the last time you went to a heterosexual/straight parade?
Your homosexuality, your sexual preferences, your difference is your own business, not mine. It is how you interact in the privacy of your own home and in your community and should not be lauded on TV. Everyone has a sexual identity but most do not feel the need to exploit it.
Many homosexuals go to the extreme to announce themselves with theatrical displays done to purposely offend. Maybe they’re angry from having to suppress their natural desires as they fought to accept their uniqueness. I don’t know but don’t make me your whipping boy.
I agree with the previous poster who said the push for gay marriage was an attempt to “normalize” homosexuality. Homosexuality is not the “norm.” If homosexuality ever becomes the norm humanity will not survive it. Call it something else, get a new name, get a civil union but don’t call it “marriage.”
Maybe our culture will change 10 years from now but today your push tends to aggravate and anger many. Some homosexuals with gay pride,half-naked bodies, lascivious gropings,flagrant displays of sexuality, and loud voices spewing harsh demands and accusations are making your cause more difficult. It doesn’t help that HIV was rampant in the gay community not too long ago.
We have only to look at the recent Miss America contest and the question asked of Carrie Prejean, Miss California, to see the anger on both sides of the question of gay marriage.
Perez Hilton, flagrantly gay if not by name by action, should not have been allowed to ask such a polarizing question. In fact I challenge the idea that a homosexual male, who may have unorthodox, perverse feelings about women, should be allowed to sit as a judge in such a contest.
I think Perez Hilton has built a good case for excluding gays from becoming beauty contestant judges. Trump goofed big time on this one. Perhaps Perez Hilton is jealous of women because he was denied being one himself? Who knows how Perez Hilton thinks but calling Prejean a “bitch” and the “C” word gives us some insight into his character.
Homosexuals are not the norm. They are unique and should think up a “unique” word to describe their union. I certainly understand their wish to fit into society and be accepted but there has to be another way.
To Justin:
You want to “mainstream” homosexuality by making it seem normal, acceptable and even laudable. You are a ten-percenter who wants to hijack marriage.
Just be happy with civil unions and leave marriage alone. It is not normal — I don’t accept marriage for homosexuals — and I certainly don’t applaud your efforts.
To the author of this article…Until you are the person being told by state and federal law that you are not created equal, despite our founding father’s pledge that infact all men are created equal, then I suppose the bigot label would seem harsh. Though to be fair, I’ve never heard Obama, nor his “leftie” elected leaders, describe such povs as “bigotry.” But I’m assuming you have. Anyway, I’m sure since Obama has yet to repeal DOMA, you’ve discovered your fretting was in vain. Let me make it absolutly clear…just because a human being is gay or lesbian, does not mean they live without principles. That is simply what your religion’s leaders have taught you. Which you are entitled to believe. However, this country was founded by men who were members of a minority, not a majority. It was created to protect individual rights, including religious freedom. Though it does not mean that those religious beliefs should govern all it’s citizens. The constitution was developed to protect the rights of the minority, despite the belief system of the majority. We have yet to see this philosophy fully realized, and I fear that we never will. Let God judge homosexual unions. By your standrds that is His job. In the meantime, I do not see what is wrong with our law treating all citizens equally.
Opposing some items of the LGBT agenda is not being homophobic. But it’s convenient to namecall instead of arguing in a civil manner.
In California, couples entering into civil partnerships receive the same rights as married couples–they just aren’t called “married”. So why the continued battle for the name of “married”? It’s to use marriage as a normative vehicle rather than to gain rights, and I strongly oppose that.
When I read the woman above talking about an increase in hate crimes, I have to ask: isn’t any crime about hate? Is it actually worse to beat a gay woman than to beat a straight woman? What if the straight woman is black? What’s worse then? Can we really rate acts of violence by their supposed motivation? Aren’t there already laws against violence in most of its forms regardless of motivation?
Furthermore, statistics show that crimes against gays are lower than the norm, both in total and on a “per capita” basis. No crime is excusable. All victims should be treated with respect and empathy. Gay people aren’t getting bashed anymore than straight people, so let’s stop the scaremongering.
As for marriage, I’m a liberal, and I want to see marriage defined on a federal level as between one man and one woman. Civil partnerships can be defined as between two persons of any gender, but not marriage. Marriage in its ideal form provides the best possible home for childen–the fruit of heterosexual sex. Sure, there are lots of nonideal married homes, but let’s be honest and agree that mother nature intended for children to have a mother and a father. Research consistently shows the best outcomes for children living in stable homes with both biological parents. Perhaps we could go further to say that not only are these the best outcomes, but that the natural course of parenting requires both male and female role models to prepare children for adulthood and to provide the necessary “cues” for maturation. That parents of different genders parent differently is fact, not speculation or “bigotry”. Deliberately denying children a mother and a father is bigotry against children.
Not every heterosexual marriage produces children. Anti-marriage and anti-children proponents say that is enough to strike down the argument of marriage as being only between a man and a woman. I don’t think so. People –especially women–go through changes in fertility. It also isn’t possible (in most cases) to determine fertility in a couple of normal fertile age. Absolute fertility can never be guaranteed. But the likelihood of heterosexual couples of fertile age producing children is high. Only a small percentage (something like 3%) of hetero couples wanting to conceive can’t. As opposed to 100% of homosexual couples.
Older people who marry can still provide that cross-gender approach to parenting to children from previous relationships. Marriage also has other benefits to the partners (and society) that makes it a valuable institution to heterosexual couples past their initial child-bearing years. Would marriage offer the same benefits to homosexual partners? Maybe, but research into gay marriages in the Netherlands doesn’t support that hypothesis.
There are also a host of other issues surrounding marriage that should be thought through. For gay couples wanting to start a family and keep a strong legal bond with the third party involved in the procreation of the child, marriage and marriage laws aren’t sufficient. Why should we change marriage laws suitable for 98% of the population to suit the 2% with different needs. Wouldn’t it be better to tweak civil partnerships to the needs of the gay community?
I have respect for gay people already–I don’t need or want marriage to be redefined to suit the needs of a tiny minority in order to include LGBT in the normal course of society.
Kristina –
I have often asked myself where the push for “gay rights” would end because I knew “marriage” would not be enough — now I’m beginning to see the future.
It seems a young gay boy in a Los Angeles high school ran for “prom queen” and won. He shut out his rivals, all girls, and took the crown. This brings up so many possibilities my head is spinning.
What’s next?
Kristina –
Your response was lenghty. It cited law. It addressed gays in the military. It called for compassion, fairness and equal justice for all. It was the grandest, most inclusive argument you could make for gay marriage yet it fell short of convincing me of anything.
Your last paragraph was particularly confusing. To you are \gay rights\ and \marriage\ different issues or do you just seek to redefine the word \marriage\?
I have been bombarded for several days by several obviously biased television stations who are promoting your cause. They show all your supporters yelling with hand-held signs in tow. I have to tell you that I am disgusted by the blatant prejudice and disregard for the other side of the question. This is propaganda. No other word could describe it.
I might stay to argue the issue as you have set it up in your response but today I am just too disgusted and you have so many loopholes in your writing that it would take too long.
I will, however, congratulate you on not calling anyone a name.
I often wonder, how it is that we as American’s, humans beings filled with compassion, often find ourselves struggling to overcome the most basic of concepts, equal rights for homosexual couples. Whether or not you agree with the moral ideology surrounding homosexual couples choices of lifestyle, one thing we must face in the dilemma is the fact that there is discrimination of homosexuals here and today within the United States borders. With events of the past, such as discrimination amongst African American’s, and a womans rights to vote. In history there are several benchmark cases that defined equality in the United States. Cases like Loving v. Virginia, a landmark civil rights case in 1967, in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924?, unconstitutional and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. Today we would look at this issue and say, “of course it is okay for interracial marriage”.
Two of the most saddest events in recent past, in my opinion, is the Clinton administration’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA . Clinton’s attempt to fulfill another campaign promise of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the armed forces. After much debate, Congress implemented the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, stating as long as homosexuals keep their sexuality secret, they may serve in the military. It is a sad day, when you will allow a homosexual to join in the fight for America’s rights, however America will not allow you the same equal rights and protections if we find out your homosexual. Examples such as dishonorably discharging out Arabic linguists like Sergeant Bleu Copas in time of war, simply because he is gay. Telling Sergeant Eric Alva, who received a purple heart after losing his leg in a land mine explosion in Baghdad, that he is not equal because he is a gay. Discharging “dishonorably”, gay and lesbian service members because of their emails, diary entries, and communications with their doctors is wrong. Denying college benefits and pensions because someone is dishonorably discharged, only for being gay is wrong. Granting waivers to join the military to recruits who have made terrorist threats, committed murder or kidnapping; while simultaneously denying qualified and capable gay Americans to serve proudly, without fear that if they are found to be homosexual, that not only will you be dishonorably discharged, we will forfeit all your rights and privileges you worked so had to earn is simply said wrong.
The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:
1.No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2.The federal government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. With this being now federal law, it reached well over the states rights. States that if they chose to provide benefits of any kind to homosexual couples, that even then federally we will not recognize you anyway. President Barack Obama’s political platform includes full repeal of the DOMA.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides a broad definition of citizenship, it reads; “All persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Anyone who would look back at this, would say; “of course anyone born, or is a citizen of the U.S. can have a good quality of life, and liberty”. What if the constitution read; No State, or the United States shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States? Things like DOMA would be determined unconstitutional. I believe that “no state” should also be simultaneously interpreted as the United States, as each state collectively is the “United States”.
Imagine for a moment, not being able to lawfully be considered in today’s society. Imagine your significant other not having the ability to make any influential decision on your property when you are gone. What would happen if your loved one was denied the ability to be respected in their decision of your health care, in the event you were to become incapacitated? What about your children, not being given to your other half, the person you love, trust and rely on. The first person who comes to mind when you ask for help, or make any real decision in dealing with responsibilities, such as whose name will we place on the utilities, or whose name should go on the purchase of our car. The first person who would stand up for you in your absence without a single hesitation. I couldn’t imagine if I were to become ill, that my partner could not have a say in my best wishes, or have the rights to our property that they themselves had helped acquire. I cringe in disgust at the thought. What about if I told you that if you serve in the military and are caught having any kind of relationship with your loved one, including but not limited to, talking on the phone, discussing out loud, being seen with your loved one in any romantic way that you would no longer be considered a “honorable soldier” and discharge you simply for this, without any benefits promised to you by the United States Government. This is a reality for many homosexual couples.
I believe that somewhere along the way we as Americans have seriously detached ourselves of the literary and the literal terms in which we speak. I encourage you as the reader, to take a moment and step back. Placing aside any preconceived notions, to look at the real issue that is being addressed when the issue of equal rights for homosexuals is addressed. At this point in time, we as American’s need to be looking at the fundamentals of this serious issue. The issue of equal rights to the citizens of America, who happen to be homosexual. At no point should we be addressing issues of same-sex rights as defined by the word marriage.
And while I’m at it — I always feel a little uncomfortable talking about gay rights. There should be no “gay rights” just rights for everyone and marriage between Joe and Jim should not be one of them.
I feel uncomfortable because I worry about humanity in general and the continuation of our species specifically. I worry that certain diseases have become endemic like diabetes and autism. If our future is our children are most of them going to be autistic?
The “gay rights” of the 2-10% in this nation seem insignificant and overly advertised in a world with big problems. Gays must be very powerful or have very powerful friends in business and politics to be pushing their agenda in my face all the time.
If it’s just a matter of “economics” and you get tax breaks for being “partners” then you should have a union of partnership not a certificate of marriage. Would that do it or do you want something else?
I have to say I have reached some kind of saturation mark. I used to have sympathy if not empathy, but now I find myself turned off and tuned out. When the gay rights movement started I said they want to be recognized as being different and I said ok, I see you and I want to understand.
When “gay pride” was on the menu I said okay, they want to feel good about themselves and their differences. They just want to flaunt it. When AIDS became a problem among the community I said okay, they will have to be more careful and more discriminating. This is dangerous.
Now it’s gay marriage and I say I’ve had enough. Cease and desist untill more of the world is accepting. Stop calling me names if I don’t agree with you. Stop pushing your agenda in my face. You are a small, puffed up beyond recognition part of our population and you need to stop pushing.
Allen Maciej says:
May 5, 2009 at 7:52 am
You nitwit, the gay community is visible because they are fighting for the simple equality that is guaranteed them in the constitution. Once they have it, I suspect their visibility will be directly proportionate to their size of the population.
Sheesh, another exampleof someone taking a simple truth and creating a ridiculous conclusion from it. You are part of the problem, pal.
———————————————
Allen –
You are the nitwit. If you don’t like the “simple truth” it’s truth nonetheless. That doesn’t change because you don’t like it.
What “equality” are you talking about? A man married to a man will never, not in your wildest dreams, be the same as a man married to a woman. Philosophically, traditionally, culturally, biblically, morally and legally marriage has always been between a man and a woman. They are trying to change that. Why? What value does gay marriage bring to this country? None. How does gay marriage enrich my culture or my life or the health of this nation? It doesn’t.
In some Arab countries you can be executed for being gay. Many find it repugnant, unnatural,loathsome and against the teachings of their God. These beliefs have been ingrained and taught through the ages. Gay marriage will not change these teachings or the men who perpetuate them.
There is no “problem” here Allen. Tell the gay marriage crowd to come back in a hundred years when we are either so decadent or so enlightened we don’t care. Instant gratification of demands is withheld today for the 2-10% of the population who have declared themselves homosexuals.
I admit my perceptions have been tainted. When my step-brother came out I wanted to learn more. I picked up a copy of NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association)magazine lying on his coffee table. When I happened upon an article explaining how the adult lures the child into a homosexual relationship I became alarmed. The article was speaking of very young children. It was a step-by step tutorial.
When a friend first came out she explained how she felt and what she did in her first girl-on-girl relationship. I guess, having supressed her natural instincts for so long, she was compelled to throw her homosexuality in the faces of everyone, especially those hapless individuals most likely to be offended. I think the term is “flaming homosexual,” or maybe not. In other words she had to flaunt it.
As for me, I’m just not sure I’m ready to see men with men embracing and kissing in the street. I don’t want to have to explain it to a kid. I know they feel the same way a man would feel about a woman and vice-versa, but it’s just not the same. It will never be the same even if it’s legalized under law. They want to be what they can never be and they want me to condone it under law.
Allen, tell me about the gays you know or perhaps you’re gay. I know many others. Perhaps we can share more information here so others can understand. I’ve worked with gays, both men and women, who don’t advertise their sexual inclinations. Perhaps you know some also. Tell me what they think.
Gays are between 2-10% of our population — our entire population — yet their demands, marches and exhibitions are frenquently in our faces on TV and in the news.
Like everything else that is currently out of whack in this country, upside down or turned around,any TV viewer from another world might think our population is 50% gay because of the amount of coverage they get.
We have enough “special rules” for “special people” in this country.
You nitwit, the gay community is visible because they are fighting for the simple equality that is guaranteed them in the constitution. Once they have it, I suspect their visibility will be directly proportionate to their size of the population.
Sheesh, another exampleof someone taking a simple truth and creating a ridiculous conclusion from it. You are part of the problem, pal.
Interesting post. I would like to offer this up. I work very hard to make the living I do. I pay all my taxes and I abide by the laws of my city, state, and federal government. As a citizen of this country, you would think I would be allowed to pursue all the rights granted to a citizen of this country, but this is not true. I am denied marriage rights (over 1300 fed and state benefits included). Now, interestingly enough, my religion has no problem with my being married to my partner. But no one seems to recognize the irony in the fact that our government is choosing one religion over others. Isn’t this a violation of Church and State? Finally, to those claiming it is not a civil rights issue, … consider this… hate crimes against the LGBT community have risen 6% over last year alone. I could be fired, evicted, or beaten – with little recourse – in my state. All because of who I want to be my partner, who I find myself attracted to.
Jennifer, way to get “Hussein” in there again! Everyone knows Barack’s middle name now, and we hardly ever hear of McCain’s. (Hint: You’re exposing your agenda, bigot. Please, don’t hide it.)
Kristopher, your logic wrt “two individuals who can produce a child” would automatically eliminate heterosexual couples how can’t produce a child now, wouldn’t it? And to turn a gay civil rights issue into an insult against blacks is another twist of logic, not to mention a red herring. The rest of your post is also “red-herring” irrelevant: cost of living; democratic majority or human history should over-rule rights? Weird.
The U.S. Constitution is the final authority on our rights, not just stone-age nostalgic, heterosexual voters. Period.
WayneBradyByDay Marriage is sanctioned by the Government but does not “create” the cultural basis for it. I am in favor of the Government getting out of that end of the equation and defining the laws and rights surrounding the coupling of people as a practical matter.
The attack by the gay community on marriage as an institution is again based more on a desire to invalidate the cultural norm instead of gaining any real progress to the “rights” you have been denied.
If you wish to make real progress, take the other approach. Decouple the government from involvement on the issue of marriage and leave it to the Churches and the beliefs of the Churches as to whether or not they will sanctify it or not. Some Church out here will do so it it is so critically important to your validity as a human. But for you to enforce your need for validity onto the belief of others is the real violation of civil rights in this scenario.
There are some valid points to this article in respect the Obama’s hypocrisy. But marriage has gone through very significant changes over the 5000 years that was used as a point of reference in the article. At times its been arranged, a form of bondage and about financial arrangements and more often than not, not monogamous. So I’d say it’s been quite dynamic in its definition.
To say that gays haven’t been banished to the back of the bus but that they should do what they want “behind closed doors” seems contradictory. I do believe that it’s not equality, plain and simple. This is a principle that our democracy was founded on. The push and pull that we see across the nation is a prime example of another tenet of our democracy, majority rules (referendums) vs. minority rights (judiciary).
And yes I’m a liberal (ya got me). But I have bookmarked and will frequent this website for two reasons: a) I hope that we can return to a society where we can have civi debate ( and I blame both sides for this) and b) I hope to hold liberals’ feet to the fire.
@Randy
“The proponents of gay marriage so desperately want to frame this as a civil rights issue. They believe their path to “gay marriage” will be successful if they can cloud the reality of the issue.”
When you consider being Gay is about love, attraction and forming a relationship or bond with someone of the same sex, I would argue that Marriage is very much a Civil Right for a group discriminated against based on their attraction, love and bonds formed.
“On any given day they will tout their contribution to diversity and then they want to erase the major distinction that defines them from heterosexual couples. This is not to validate them, instead they seek to invalidate the cultural values that arose over 5000 years of history.”
Seek to invalidate the cultural values that arose over 5000 years of history? Cultural values are subjective and relative to each culture, I don’t understand your point. If some cultures are not supportive of Gay marriage, let the culture handle that. We’re talking about Government, law and taking away “rights” at the Federal level.
“You found out that the your desire to frame this as a civil rights issue is not washing with the Black Community so you have turned on them them. You deny the rights of other to have a difference of opinion on this and dismiss them as “hateful”, or you devolve to the “FUCK YOU” state.”
With the Black community? Lol, gay people are a part of every community, including the Black community. Just because an isolated incident of racism exists, it shouldn’t be representative of the entire culture. Your statement was pretty nonsensical and juvenile.
The proponents of gay marriage so desperately want to frame this as a civil rights issue. They believe their path to “gay marriage” will be successful if they can cloud the reality of the issue.
On any given day they will tout their contribution to diversity and then they want to erase the major distinction that defines them from heterosexual couples. This is not to validate them, instead they seek to invalidate the cultural values that arose over 5000 years of history.
I am for some structure of rights to address the issues that they do face in terms of their alternative lifestyle. I am not in favor of passing legislation to make them a protected class nor am I in favor of their moves to “invalidate” the cultural traditions of every culture on the planet.
You found out that the your desire to frame this as a civil rights issue is not washing with the Black Community so you have turned on them them. You deny the rights of other to have a difference of opinion on this and dismiss them as “hateful”, or you devolve to the “FUCK YOU” state.
If you really wish to make progress for the legitimate issues speak of, pick your battles and rethink the fallacy of trying to frame this as a civil rights issue. I will tell you that outside of Beverly Hills, that argument is not winning your friends in the heartland, whether that heartland lives in California, of Florida of the 38 other states that have moved to prevent the “one” right that will make you equal.
The reality is that with every formalization of your victim hood with some legislation or court ruling that acknowledges your “right” to marry, you erode what good will you may have built up over the years by participating in the larger society in a productive civil manner. Identity Politics does nothing to free the identified, is seeks to enslave them further. You would be better served to realize that.
I don’t understand how you can say it’s not demonizing to not consider gay love the same as straight love.
By saying you want the American family defined a certain way is bigoted.
It’s no different than saying you want the American family to be homogenous and not racially mixed.
It’s ok to have your beliefs, everyone does, but your beliefs should not prevent someone else from enjoying the same rights as everyone else (it is demeaning to say gay relationships are lesser than, it’s always very dehumanizing to say I (gays) are not worth the right of adopting a child or having a family).
If you take those things away from someone, then what’s the purpose of living? How are you living, or how are you free, if you can only live your life behind closed doors?
What’s the point of working, having a career, if you don’t have the right to start a family of your own?
Do people just expect Gays and Lesbians to be single and not enjoy the same love between two people as everyone else?
That is VERY dehumanizing, and unless your gay you probably wouldn’t understand.
You gave me a serious response so I will give you one. You are entitled to your own opinions, however you are not entitled to your own facts.
“Anyway- stable and loving is relative, and many would question how stable and loving a gay relationship is, especially for a child.
Do they not have a right to be concerned?”
No they don’t have a right to be concerned (on that specific point) because there is no evidence that families made up of gay parents are any less stable or loving. Period. Unlike say, for alcoholic parents or criminal parents. So saying “don’t they have the right to be concerned” is ridiculous.
“And, your all or nothing argument that seems to imply that if they don’t get adopted by gays, well then, they are doomed to foster care or single family households has two problems.
1. It’s simply not true.
2. You are insulting foster parents and single parents everywhere, jussssssssst like you feel your gay parents were slighted because of my article.”
You obviously do not understand how many children are currently in foster care. I am insulting no one except people who honestly have no idea what they are talking about.
“I have known in my life some AMAZING foster parents… one coupe I knew took care of about 15 kids in a huge house. And they were amazing people.”
I don’t doubt these are amazing people and I take nothing away from them. If however you think that it should be preferable, EVER, to have kids in foster care long term instead of loving family then sir I can’t even argue intelligently with you.
“And lastly, I prefer the single hetero parent for kids if the only other choice is gay parents, as you imply.”
Again, I like to go on data. And the data shows that kids raised by single parents do poorer in life then those raised by two parents. So you can prefer that kids be placed in a situation where the data suggests they will do poorer in life over one that you find strange but then you can’t argue based on facts.
“Yes there are some wonderful gay people. Good decent gay people. I just don’t think we should be farming out kids to them based on any argument you fumbled out here.”
Farming out? Thats what you think adoption by gay parents would be? Society farming out the children.. Do you know what adoption procedures involve? Do you have any idea how many parents want to adopt children and can’t (straight or gay)?
The truth is you don’t know what you are talking about. You think a family with two gay parents is strange and so you would rather
a. not allow gay parents, solely on the criteria of being gay, from adopting children
b. prefer that a child be raised by 1 parent over 2 or placed into foster care over a stable family if that family involved gay people. Effectively you would prefer ANY situation to one involving gay parents.
I really think you should go talk to a gay couple who has kids or even talk to some kids who have gay parents. You’ll probably find that you find it much more “confusing” than the kids do.
And regarding DOMA specifically, maybe you would be interested in what it’s original authors thinks of it now
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/newsletter/la-oe-barr5-2009jan05,0,2810156.story?track=newslettertext
DO you think that allowing two gay people the right to marry will create MORE gays? Just ask Ted Haggard…when you’re gay…you’re gay. You don’t “become” gay…you either are or are not. Ask Larry Craig as well. Those two should get a room!
Yes, Sam, you appear very well adjusted.
Anyway- stable and loving is relative, and many would question how stable and loving a gay relationship is, especially for a child.
Do they not have a right to be concerned?
And, your all or nothing argument that seems to imply that if they don’t get adopted by gays, well then, they are doomed to foster care or single family households has two problems.
1. It’s simply not true.
2. You are insulting foster parents and single parents everywhere, jussssssssst like you feel your gay parents were slighted because of my article.
I have known in my life some AMAZING foster parents… one coupe I knew took care of about 15 kids in a huge house. And they were amazing people.
And lastly, I prefer the single hetero parent for kids if the only other choice is gay parents, as you imply.
Yes there are some wonderful gay people. Good decent gay people. I just don’t think we should be farming out kids to them based on any argument you fumbled out here.
“When we get to the point of making it so you can adopt children, I draw the line. ”
As someone who has a gay parent (and my parents partner is also a gay parent himself) I say FUCK YOU.
I agree, children raised in single parent households or by foster care do much better, you fucking moron.
You are trying to stop children from being able to be in stable and loving homes based on some bullshit dogma where you have hand picked which parts you actually care to observe (ignoring the parts you feel are ridiculous), so you are about as evil as it gets.
But hey just look how confused these kids are! – http://www.flickr.com/photos/couragecampaign/sets/72157611501972510/
Justify it however you want, you are a bad person.
Mike, WELL SAID.
Welcome to Socialism 101 with your student teacher, B. Hussein Obama, with the support of the puppet master, Mr Biden.
First on the agenda, remove states’ rights to ban abortion and make it a federal requirement that all states be forced to allow abortions, regardless of what the voters have done to ban it. Also use the people’s (aka taxpayer) money to pay for abortions elsewhere in the world, even if it has no impact on this country. “Sacrifice morals for the greater good of man” is the mantra.
Second on the agenda, there will be provisions, executive orders and legislature taking gay marriage out of the hands of the voters and States, and put it into the hands of the federal government, “in the name of public well being”.
Third is a little known bill different than the others that is floating around now that will equate anti-gay comments (even if stated in a church or private home) that will carry a legal weight similar to sentences of murders. All in the name of “preventing hate crimes”.
Fourth and last, no man should ever need a gun of any kind for any purpose so lets just scratch off this little unnecessary phrase in the Bill of Rights.
Animals have feelings and rights so hunters need their guns taken away.
If someone wants to rob you, just talk it out with them, I am sure they will understand if you do not wish to give them your car, money and credit cards.
If a person has a gun, then he is capable of using it to cause damage. Oh no cars aren’t weapons to kill people, they are transportation so lets legalize drunk driving.
/end sarcasm/
Stand up and fight for this, a majority of people have voted and outlawed abortion and gay marriage in quite a few states, do not let this one man and his cronies overturn millions and millions of voters’ voices just to support some tiny group without morals.
If you think I really think that Jim Crow is the same as being against Gay Marriage, you really missed my sarcasm, and point. I am implying the left gets so emotionally distraught over such things that you would would THINK that denying marriage to gays is akin to some of the biggest atrocities of world history.
Obama said some who support DOMA are really intent on “demonizing” gays… hardly. And his choice of words is an eexample of the over-reaction that I am implying the left utilizes to make their points.
Well, let’s make room for the REAL Barack Hussein Obama to stand up.
What we witnessed before the final vote was one of the biggest deceptions ever. All the right words, all the right promises, all the right moments of just enough indignation to show that he was for the peoples best interests. Now that he has taken his place as king of the liberal wing-nuts, this country is heading straight to Hell. Hopefully his cult followers will be able to wise up in time to be saved from the madness…but I have my doubts.
Only God…who, by the way should have never been taken out of HIS rightful place, where has that REALLY gotten us….can help us now.
The federal government has a special interest in two individuals who can produce a child. Namely, a man and a woman. Comparing the plight of gays not being able to marry to the Jim Crow laws is insulting to African-Americans and their accomplishments over the better part of a century.
Rather than focusing on bereft homosexuals, some of which seem to have a serious case of “heterophobia”, we should be punctuating that homosexuals enjoy a standard of living far superior to any country on the planet, especially amongst the religions of the country.
Individuals who come together and take part in democracy are not homophobes, they’re the largest majority of individuals who have a belief in something that’s been around for some five millenniums.
so let’s forbid marriage to heterosexuals if they do not produce a child.