A Helpful Tip

This is pretty amusing. After actively campaigning to end the right to marriage for a large group of people, including donating money, blackmailing businesses, and turning the issue into a religious crusade, people are absolutely mortified to find out to be publicly associated with the cause. There is, after all, a reason the Klan wears hoods.

Here is a pro-tip: If you do not want to be called a bigot or to be associated publicly with bigotry, stop spending so much of your time and money advancing bigotry.






246 replies
  1. 1
    telesilla says:

    Yeah, because these people aren’t already our enemies for life….

  2. 2
    Nylund says:

    I think this also pretty much sums up why CPAC was so sad when Mitt dropped out of the race.

  3. 3

    It’s no surprise the reaction has triggered a fresh outburst of WATBisheness from fReichtard bullies. Remember, no matter how awful they behave, they’re always the victim.

    Stupid fuckers.

  4. 4
    Joshua Norton says:

    "Some people are so heavenly bound, they’re no earthly good."

    That’s a keeper.

  5. 5
    Semanticleo says:

    Let it be said that few wish to denigrate religion, as a whole, or in part. I believe the primary criticism being promulgated in the last couple of posts has more to do with the fallible interpretations….in other words, the fools who carry the water, and CLAIM to be representatives.

    Few would ridicule the important message the historical person, Jesus, originated. He knew his disciples were imperfect, and at times, hypocritical. His recorded words condemn those who falsely CLAIM to be his followers with vigor.

    The HYPOCRITES, not the religion, are the focus of most attacks..

  6. 6
    JR says:

    Well said, Semanticleo.

    Right-wing conservatism is the most materialistic and earthly ideology on earth. Right-wing Christianists are hypocrites supplanting the love of Christ with their own personal animosities.

  7. 7

    No, it’s the religion that under attack. Lie-berals hate any kind of organized anything. That’s why they hate America and why they hate President Bush – because he had his ducks in a row and because he believes that Jesus is the only way to everlasting life. There is no other President that could of done the job President Bush did in winning this War on Terror and it’s the LIBERALS that wanna end it all. They don’t mind Islam because it’s got so many different sects and stuff that you might as well not even call it a religion since no one can agree on what it means!

    THAT’S the only religion liberals are gonna follow – a religion that AIN’T a religion!

  8. 8
    bago says:

    lolwut? Ask the Irish about sects and violence.

    And when do I get to go on and on about how much ass Gears of War 2 kicks? Because it is most certainly a prodigious quantity.

  9. 9
    ninerdave says:

    @bago:

    And when do I get to go on and on about how much ass Gears of War 2 kicks? Because it is most certainly a prodigious quantity.

    My Death Knight will kick your Gear of War’s ass.

    Thought: Where was all this "No on 8" energy, BEFORE the election? You know when it would have actually been useful.

  10. 10
    Eric U. says:

    I don’t see much wrong with ridiculing religion other than as a tactical political mistake. The argument for Prop 8 was ridiculous, and boiled down to "some authority figure thinks it’s icky, and he talks to god, so it should be illegal."

    When I was living in Utah, the Catholic church and the LDS Church were both going through a binge of excommunicating liberals. I noted at the time they were working up for a merger.

    Interestingly, the LDS church has their own child abuse problem. They are much better at convincing people it’s god’s will though. The Catholics were good at mind control at one time, but they’ve lost the ability.

  11. 11

    They don’t mind Islam because it’s got so many different sects and stuff that you might as well not even call it a religion since no one can agree on what it means!

    So, can you direct me to the nearest Protestant church? You know, the one that all Protestants attend?

  12. 12
    Walker says:

    That’s why they hate America and why they hate President Bush – because he had his ducks in a row and because he believes that Jesus is the only way to everlasting life.

    I have been gone a few days. Do we have a new spoof?

  13. 13
    Church Lady says:

    From my place on the sidelines, the opposition to same sex marriage seems to come only from the religious. Note that I said religious, not right wing religious. I don’t think that all of the African American churchgoers in California that voted yes on 8 can really be catagorized as "right wing".

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot think of a single organized religion as a whole, not counting some stray individual churches, that has expressed approval of same sex marriage. The opposition to same sex marriage seems to run across all major religions – Catholic, Jew, Muslim, and Protestants of all stripes. While some individual members of these religions might approve of same sex marriage, the religions themselves (of which many are considered quite liberal on social policies) remain firmly against it.

    It seems to me that until organized religion willingly accepts the concept of same sex marriage, it will always fail when put to a vote by the public. As to how to bring religious groups forward to approval of same sex marriage, I have no idea, but unless and until the government’s stamp of approval on marriage can be disentangled from the religious stamp of approval on marriage, it just won’t happen.

  14. 14
    Bob Barbaque says:

    Watch out, the Giant Mutant Homosexuals are attacking the trans-america building!

  15. 15
    MattF says:

    The new concept here is that actions have consequences. Something different for ‘conservatives’ to bear in mind.

  16. 16
    Eric U. says:

    Church Lady: they also felt compelled to lie about how ministers would be forced to perform gay marriage against their will. I’m sure there were other lies, that’s the one that sticks in my mind.

  17. 17
    Genine says:

    It seems to me that until organized religion willingly accepts the concept of same sex marriage, it will always fail when put to a vote by the public. As to how to bring religious groups forward to approval of same sex marriage, I have no idea, but unless and until the government’s stamp of approval on marriage can be disentangled from the religious stamp of approval on marriage, it just won’t happen.

    I said to a right-wing christian friend of mine that she was basically using her religion to deny people equal protection under the law.

    Anyway, she said she never thought of it that way and she is reconsidering her position. She said she might even talk to a few people at her church about it because no one really thought about it in those terms either.

    So there can be some light at the end of the tunnel.

  18. 18
    Jeff says:

    I wonder how soon until a ban divorce proposition gets some real signatures. I figure it would easily get signatures in Castro, West Hollywood and Hillcrest communities these days.

  19. 19

    Emmanuel Goldstein Wrote :

    “The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim — for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives — is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal.”

    It is not bigotry to judge behaviors, and grant them different legal statuses. Distinctions, in the case of gays, can be made based on biological realities and the well-being of children. I believe that the hysteria about the difference between ‘marriage’ and ‘civil unions’ boils down to insecurities and the desire to be equal.

    America is very tolerant with its gay Citizens. Divine law, and most human law, is far less tolerant. Targeting individuals who support the defining traditional marriage, I believe, is not in the gay community’s long-term interest. Neither is yelling at old ladies. I respectfully suggest that they give it a rest and enjoy the rights they have, as they are not scoring any points. That is my helpful tip.

  20. 20
    mattH says:

    What is the proposed law, a la Godwin’s, that there comes a point where you can’t differentiate between actual religious extremism and a satire of it? Follow links, I think it’ll help.

  21. 21
    Joshua Norton says:

    I’m sure there were other lies,

    Oh, there were some doozies – like how kindergarten classes would be forced to learn about gay marriage.

  22. 22
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    @Eric U.:
    Some of the other high spots on the Yes on 8 campaign:
    Stating that churches would lose their tax-exempt status if they failed to allow gay weddings.
    Stating that individuals could be sued for their anti-gay-marriage beliefs.
    Using video footage of a San Francisco elementary school children’s field trip to their teacher’s gay wedding to assert that the gay lifestyle would be taught in elementary school.
    That said, the No on 8 campaign was piss-poor, fragmented and never seemed to know what point it was trying to make.

    Edit: One thing the Yes on 8 people didn’t say was that their goal was to get their religious beliefs incorporated into civil law. I wonder why?

  23. 23

    Shorter Put ’em in the oven Bill: It could be worse so shut up or we’ll give you something to cry about.

    Amazing that the bullshit people blather today echoes the bullshit of the 50’s. If we could find and destroy the Ur-text for this crap the bigots would have to think on their own, which would soon lead to spontaneous cranial dissolution.

    @Jeff: There is actually a group in Virginia (surprise!) that supports serious limits on divorce when the couple has children. Not too surprisingly even the Republicans avoid them.

  24. 24

    Shorter B.O.B. – Shut up, fags.

    [edited to add: longer protected static: Damn you, kommrade reproductive vigor]

  25. 25

    So there can be some light at the end of the tunnel.

    or another tear on Jesus’ face

  26. 26

    Shorter Billy Bob No-neck: Beatitudes? Fuck ’em!

  27. 27
    Ash Can says:

    @Billy Bob Neck: LOL at the handle!

    "That is my helpful tip." LOL at the Jim Crow BS!

  28. 28

    shorter protected static – I don’t care about God or America or anything that promotes decency in this world because the only thing that matters in my life is sin and the culture of death and gay sex.

  29. 29

    Uh, no-neck? Shorter usually means, you know, shorter. But thanks for playing! You can pick up your lifetime supply of Rice-a-Roni as you leave.

    (Figured you could use an all-American San Francisco treat!)

  30. 30
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    @protected static:
    I’m thinking that Billy Bob might be yanking our chain. Take a look at his website.

  31. 31
    srv says:

    Reminds me of my favorite Jim Jones quote – If I’d hated you more, just a little bit more, we would have had a lot less trouble.

  32. 32
    Gold Star for Robot Boy says:

    @Bob Barbaque: Go go, Gay-zilla!

  33. 33
    John Cole says:

    Divine law, and most human law, is far less tolerant.

    All well and good, but why does the reality of my government have to be dictated by the fiction of your bible stories?

    So sick and tired of religion.

  34. 34

    @Dennis – SGMM: Oh, sure, everyone that believes in God and morality is just a great big joke to dumbocrats

  35. 35
    Dennis - SGMM says:

    @Billy Bob Neck:
    Perish the thought. It’s just that not everyone who believes in God and morality is a Christian – or a conservative.

  36. 36
  37. 37
    bago says:

    @ninerdave: Yeah, but then I’ll chainsaw my way out of your chest after I cut out your heart.

  38. 38

    I guess my answer to your question John is that mankind has a long and checkered track record. I believe that religion is hard-wired into our brains, be it in the form of Paganism, Christianity, Islam, Post-Modern Eco-Greenism, or whatever else.

    These belief systems, or at least the first three, reflect us, as they have shaped the breeding patterns of our ancestors. We’re only into the first generation of Post-Modern Eco-Greenies, and their breeding patterns are suicidal, making their views irrelevant in the long term.

    Based on the texts of the sustainable religions, ‘us’ don’t think too highly of gays. So I don’t think it is in their interest to make too big of a stink about the difference between civil unions and marriage. The Mormons I know have lots and lots of kids.

  39. 39
    BethanyAnne says:

    @Church Lady:

    United Church of Christ here

    Unitarian Universalists here

    I don’t know if the Quakers put out unified statements, but they are usually allies. (I’m UU, btw). Not sure if you want to count the MCC, but their statement is here.

    There’s a few :-)
    Bethany

  40. 40
    srv says:

    I believe that religion is hard-wired into our brains

    In other words, your faith is an STD.

  41. 41
    bago says:

    @Brick Oven Bill: Ah yes, the morality of Trout. They have hundreds of children per coupling, but most of them get eaten by the outside world. Now that’s pro-life/pro-sushi I can believe in.

  42. 42
    Krista says:

    why does the reality of my government have to be dictated by the fiction of your bible stories?

    That would make an excellent slogan. ‘Twould be lovely on a t-shirt, no?

  43. 43
    bago says:

    Howabout: "Crazy jews that get lost in a 1000 acre desert for 40 years mean more than science to me" shirt?

  44. 44

    The Mormons I know have lots and lots of kids.

    Surrender to the reproductive vigor of the Mormons!

    I do believe Put ’em in the Oven Bill only hangs out here when it is too cold or he is too drunk to stalk refugees.

  45. 45
    D. Mason says:

    Based on some of the discussion here I think I need a little clarification. Is prop 8 a ban on gay marriage or is it also a ban on civil-unions? I thought it was the latter which I find abhorrent. If however it is only a ban on the use of the word marriage to describe their love contract I don’t have so much trouble with it. Marriage is a religious term and as such the religion that spawned it gets to define it – that’s the perk of making something up. The functionalities of love contracts are governed by the state and should be available to all without discrimination. Someone please clarify this for me so I can decide whether or not to be outraged here.

  46. 46
    Comrade Nikolita says:

    @Church Lady:

    On the contrary. Anglican (Christian) churches in Canada are split almost 50-50. Those who don’t want to participate in performing sam-sex marriages don’t have to, while the rest are free to do so. Roughly 75% of Canadians approve of same-sex marriage.

    What needs to be done in the US is a Constitutional ammendment, with a clause stating that churches and faiths who don’t want to perform same-sex marriages don’t have to.

    It needs to stop being about religion and start being about equality. Church and state need to be seperated.

    So yes, it can be done. The public voted in Canada and chose to accept same-sex marriages as being allowed and considered equal.

  47. 47
    Joshua Norton says:

    Marriage is a religious term and as such the religion that spawned it gets to define it

    Nice try, but no cigar. There’s over 1,000 laws that specifically state the term "marriage" is entitled to special rights. It’s not a "religious" term, it’s a LEGAL one.

  48. 48

    @D. Mason: If only.

    Marriage is not a religious term, in this case, but a legal one. Spouses have special rights concerning taxation, adoption, death benefits, court testimony, and the like. Domestic partnerships do not convey those benefits (e.g. a DP’s health benefits are taxable, while a spouse’s are not.)

    Now, you could try to suggest making domestic partnership a separate, but equal, formulation for spouses. Problem is, there’s a long history of what happens to "separate but equal" solutions — they are "inherently unequal". (cf. _Plessy v. Ferguson_, ff., including _Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas")

  49. 49
    gex says:

    @D. Mason: When a plethora of federal and state laws include the word marriage in the statute it is no longer a religious term, it is a civil term. Get over it, share the goddamn noun. Or work to eliminate marriage from our statutes.

  50. 50
    Church Lady says:

    @BethanyAnne

    Thanks for the info. 2 down, many, many to go.

    @Comrade Nikolita

    I made an exception to individual churches, instead pointing to overall church doctrine. The Anglican church is opposed to ordination of gay clergy (hence the schism in the Episcopal Church) and to gay marriage. What individual churches/parishes do is not refletive of the overall stance of the organizing body itself. Instead, it is reflective of each individual church’s membership.

  51. 51
  52. 52
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Roughly 75% of Canadians approve of same-sex marriage.

    You wily bastards settled an area relatively safe from a vengeful God.

  53. 53

    Marriage is a religious term and as such the religion that spawned it gets to define it

    Could you provide a cite or something? I’ve never seen this theory of etymology.

  54. 54

    @Dennis – SGMM: Yeah, I went and looked – it’s hard to tell… If it’s satire, the problem with it is that the only over-the-top part is the fake hick dialect. Everything else is well within a standard deviation of Teh Wingnut Crazy.

  55. 55
    D. Mason says:

    It’s not a "religious" term, it’s a LEGAL one.

    Only because of a failure in the separation of church in state. Legally speaking marriage is simply a contract, a business partnership of sorts. The word marriage is the brand name of the love contract vendors down at your local church offer. That’s my view from the outside anyway.

    Marriage is a word and the agreement that it refers to is the function of law. Every individual should have access to those legal functions but in the end I think the word is mostly irrelevant to the law. I regard it as unfortunate that the law recognizes the religious terminology, a relic leftover from a time when the church and state were fully intertwined.. but that doesn’t change the fact that it is religious terminology.

    As a side note on this, why can’t straight couples have civil-unions? I would be a lot more comfortable with the idea of marriage if I could snub the church by having a civil-union instead.

  56. 56
    Genine says:

    Marriage is a religious term and as such the religion that spawned it gets to define it – that’s the perk of making something up. The functionalities of love contracts are governed by the state and should be available to all without discrimination. Someone please clarify this for me so I can decide whether or not to be outraged here.

    Unfortunately, many laws and statutes use the word "marriage". Civil Unions do not have the same protections. For example, I’ve read a few stories of insurance companies not covering a civil union partner because that partner is not a "spouse". That term is protected under "marriage".

    Basically, people need to get over themselves and realize its not all about them and their views. That’s why we have a separation of church and state, so people can have whatever religion they want and we have laws that are made to govern the all.

  57. 57
    JGabriel says:

    John Cole:

    Here is a pro-tip: If you do not want to be called a bigot or to be associated publicly with bigotry, stop spending so much of your time and money advancing bigotry.

    But if you must, at least wear the white hoods and make only anonymous donations.

    .

  58. 58
    D. Mason says:

    @gex: Look at a Law dictionary from the 1800’s and you will recognize that legal terminology changes just like all other terminology. My point is simply that if all of the legal benefits of marriage are conveyed through civil-unions I don’t have a problem with it.

    Also, I am all for the idea of government not recognizing marriage at all. I have never understood why It would be a function of the law outside of their desire to meddle in peoples relationships.

  59. 59

    @kommrade reproductive vigor: I’ve used the argument myself when discussing the term "theist" versus "atheist" — "atheist" is an intrinsically religious term, and to try to define it without a religious context is kind of silly.

    That, and it’s kind of self-defeating. Why use one of my terms when you’re arguing with me? Why not reclaim a perfectly good word like, say, "godless". "I’m godless" is a lot more direct than "I’m an atheist", and it takes the whole argument out of some kind of bone-headed ontology ("Is there a god?") and into a phenomenological debate ("Is there anything which you would do differently if there were no God?"). Rationalists typically win that debate.

  60. 60
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    So a quick google reveals that the etymology of the word "marriage" is French, from the 14th century and was "a verb used, the Oxford English Dictionary tantalizingly notes, ‘of people and animals and in viticulture.’" The original source of the quote is no longer net-accessible so I didn’t include a link.

  61. 61

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Sigh. And so goeth a perfectly good trademark.

  62. 62
    John Cole says:

    Based on the texts of the sustainable religions, ‘us’ don’t think too highly of gays. So I don’t think it is in their interest to make too big of a stink about the difference between civil unions and marriage. The Mormons I know have lots and lots of kids.

    Morality through superior breeding. Keep defending this stuff, Brick.

    BTW- I know a lot of Mormons, and wish you all would stop speaking for them. You are making ’em look dumb.

  63. 63

    As a side note on this, why can’t straight couples have civil-unions? I would be a lot more comfortable with the idea of marriage if I could snub the church by having a civil-union instead.

    You don’t have to go to a church to get married. In fact, you can’t get married unless you get a government issued marriage license. Then you can go back to the courthouse and have a civil marriage ceremony performed by a government employee. Note the complete lack of the involvement of any religion in this process.

  64. 64
    Genine says:

    Marriage is a word and the agreement that it refers to is the function of law. Every individual should have access to those legal functions but in the end I think the word is mostly irrelevant to the law. I regard it as unfortunate that the law recognizes the religious terminology, a relic leftover from a time when the church and state were fully intertwined.. but that doesn’t change the fact that it is religious terminology.

    Actually, its more like the other way around.

    Marriage was a legal contract. For milinnea people got married via "civil unions" (matters of the state) and also some priests (pagan and otherwise) performed ceremonies. But it was more about joining of families and property.

    In fact, the early Christian church refused to perform marriage ceremonies because it was believed crude and sacrilegious to bring God into legal and mundanes matters such as the transference of property.

    In fact, it wasn’t until roughly 500 years ago that you could get married in a church. As late as the 1400 and early 1500’s people got married on the grounds of the church and not in the actual sanctuary. (Usually, the Nobility)

    Obviously Protestantism came about and that changed. Also the Catholic Church changed its position. (I am not sure on the date). So really, the "Holy Sanctity of Marriage" that the AFA and Dobson and co. whine about, is only about 500 years old.

  65. 65
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    We need a better word for marriage anyway. Something that captures the full essence of a life lived with regret for choices not made, sex with machine-like precision and passion and otherwise an existence so hideous that fully fifty percent of it’s participants would face financial ruin before continuing in such an endeavor.

    And I have one of the good ones, mind you.

  66. 66
    Krista says:

    Marriage is a religious term and as such the religion that spawned it gets to define it

    Well, considering that the first recorded marriage ceremony, binding one woman and one man, took place around 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia, and considering that the word "marriage" originated from Old French, and considering that marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans (with same-sex marriage also being legal for awhile), which exact religion would you say now gets to define what marriage is?

    And that argument notwithstanding, marriage has anthropological, sociological, cultural, economical, political, religious and romantic origins. It has evolved over many centuries, and those aforementioned origins have been present in different concentrations during various historical eras. Marriage has been for survival, for the gain of land, for political alliances, for religious reasons, and purely for love.

    So for Christians to say that the Bible is the be-all and end-all when it comes to the definition of marriage…well, it’s not only historically ignorant and simplistic, it’s insulting.

  67. 67
    jrg says:

    Who could have anticipated a boycott over a civil rights issue? This is totally unprecedented.

    My heart goes out to these poor people who provided financial support to proposition 8. It’s time for them to stand up, and tell their stories about gays that have made marriage so difficult.

  68. 68
    D. Mason says:

    @kommrade reproductive vigor: I am well aware of the courthouse marriage. I’m talking about civil-unions for straight people.

  69. 69
    gex says:

    @D. Mason: You seem to be arguing for some parallel universe. The passage of Prop 8 isn’t going to suddenly change the word "marriage" in all our statutes to "civil unions". That legal terms have changed since 1800 reflects changes in legislation. So again, I ask: how do you suppose the word marriage will be replaced by the phrase civil union in all these statutes? Are we going to put to a popular vote, to the same populace that has passed anti-gay marriage amendments, the elimination of their cherished institution of marriage in favor of the more inclusive civil unions? And do you think that this is a politically realistic approach for gay people to achieve full civil rights? By doing something that will be largely perceived as taking marriage away from everyone else? What, were you a consultant on the anti-8 campaign?

  70. 70
    bago says:

    Exactly. How much in dowry did you pay for your traditional marriage? Oh, wait, you have no example of tradition? Poor you.

  71. 71

    So really, the "Holy Sanctity of Marriage" that the AFA and Dobson and co. whine about, is only about 500 years old.

    Well, if you believe the entire universe is only 6,000 years old, 500 years is a pretty good chunk of time.

  72. 72

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Not just physically precise sex, in fact, but sex which obeys Moore’s law, and consumes half as much energy with every passing eighteen months.

  73. 73
    D. Mason says:

    @Genine: Fair enough, I admittedly only explored it a few hundred years back because my interest only lies in the definition of marriage in America.

  74. 74
    TenguPhule says:

    The Mormons I know have lots and lots of kids.

    I welcome the Population Controls of our New Chinese Overlords.

  75. 75

    @D. Mason: What, in your opinion, is the difference between marriage as it currently exists and a civil union? (You don’t need a hyphen in there btw.)

  76. 76
    TenguPhule says:

    Marriage is a religious term and as such the religion that spawned it gets to define it

    Then the Christians/Jews/Muslims obviously owe the pagans about 2,000+ years of back royalties.

  77. 77
    JGabriel says:

    Just Some Fuckhead:

    We need a better word for marriage anyway. Something that captures the full essence of a life lived with regret for choices not made…

    Oubliette:

    An oubliette (from the French oubliettes (noun plural)) was a form of dungeon which was accessible only from a hatch in a high ceiling.

    To exit an oubliette was nearly impossible without outside help. The word comes from the same root as the French oublier, "to forget," as it was used for those prisoners the captors wished to forget…

  78. 78
    D. Mason says:

    @gex: Really I just hate to see something this important to so many millions of people come down to little more than semantics. I want gay couples to be extended all of the benefits that straight couples receive but I just can’t get too hung up on what it’s called.

  79. 79
    Krista says:

    As a side note on this, why can’t straight couples have civil-unions? I would be a lot more comfortable with the idea of marriage if I could snub the church by having a civil-union instead.

    No. Fuck that. There is a romance and a cultural history to the term "marriage" that the cold-sounding "civil union" simply lacks. Why should only the religious get to use the term "marriage" when marriage itself has only had a loosey-goosey association with religion throughout all of recorded history?

    Marriage is marriage is marriage. Why the flying fuck can’t you guys just do it like we do it? Churches can marry (or not marry) whoever the hell they want to. But if you have the paperwork, and if a legally authorized individual performs the ceremony, then you are married — it doesn’t matter if it’s two guys getting married in a hot-air balloon or a straight couple getting married in a cathedral. At the end of the day, they’re married. Full stop.

    I wish you folks would just do it that way already. It’s simple, it’s uncomplicated, and everybody’s equal.

  80. 80
    D. Mason says:

    @kommrade reproductive vigor: It is my understanding that civil unions convey all of the privileges that a traditional marriage does under the law except for access to the word marriage. That the statues enacting recognition of civil unions would reasonably clarify the definition of a legal marriage to include civil unions. In fairness to my lack of total understanding here, I did ask for clarification in my original post.

  81. 81

    @Krista: It is very difficult to convince a man to simplify something when his livelihood depends on its complexity.

  82. 82

    @Krista: It is what we do. Or some of us can do. Anyway, the TalEvan has created a 500′ straw man, nailed it to a cross and confused enough people by waving it about. Again.

  83. 83

    @D. Mason: That understanding is incorrect. As several posters have explained to you, the word "marriage" is unique, and is enshrined in the law.

    More than that, there are states in which even civil unions are banned, such as Michigan. But even if that were not the case, no, they are not the same thing; not even close.

  84. 84
    Xenos says:

    @Church Lady:

    Please correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot think of a single organized religion as a whole, not counting some stray individual churches, that has expressed approval of same sex marriage

    Why do I have to do your research for you? I will give you a hint though: there is a well established protestant sect that derives from puritanism that allows for gay marriage. How about a second hint? The president-elect is a member of that denomination.

  85. 85
    South of I-10 says:

    I’m talking about civil-unions for straight people

    Some time ago, a judge showed up at my parents house said a couple of words and then everyone had champagne. We were married according to the certificate, issued by the state government. No religion involved. A civil union offers less benefit than a "marriage". DOMA defined "marriage" as between a man and a woman, so any benefit of the civil union in a particular state does not apply federally, nor does it even cross into the state next to you. Why would hetero couples want to "settle" for a civil union with less benefits and why should same sex couples who want to be married be denied those benefits? The terminology is important. It is a civil rights issue.

  86. 86
    Genine says:

    @D. Mason:

    I understand. And I understand that you thought Civil Unions had the same rights and protections as marriage, but it doesn’t.

    Yes, I suppose they could rewrite all the laws making marriage a purely religious matter. But, in terms of efficiency, it would be simpler to just reaffirm equal protection under the law. (Except some anti-gay zealots are making it difficult)

  87. 87
    D. Mason says:

    @demimondian: Fair enough. I base my understanding on the ways I see it used and also on the legal ramifications I’ve seen discussed in various places though I admit to not having read the specific laws. It seems that some laws even vary on it? Though it’s not my issue I do try to have compassion for people who do have a more personal stake in it. It seems to be a rather tangled mess of legality though so I won’t feel too bad for not having a full understanding.

  88. 88
    LiberalTarian says:

    Well, in response to my disappointment about Prop 8 passing I started going to my local UCC church. I’d say about a quarter of the congregation are gay women. I don’t know where the gay men are, but lots and lots of gay women. The rest are elderly people and families with young children.

    I’m loving going there. I’m agnostic, not given to religion specifically. I heard a comedian knocking people for saying they were spiritual but not religious–but for the last 20 years I’ve been knocking churches for being religious but not spiritual. The UCC model is more spiritual than religious, so I feel very happy there. I’m getting hugged all the time too, which is really pretty wonderful and unexpected.

    I feel very sad for the Mormons and Catholics who are on this crusade to marginalize the evil doers–not the greedy, nor the hateful, nor the violent–but teh gay. They’re painting themselves into a corner. How can you talk about the love of Christ when all you offer is retribution, hate and the purposeful infliction of pain on others? Well, I guess talk is cheap. That really actually "loving" people no matter what is a real burden for them.

    I’m very happy being part of the faithful left–and having someone like Tucker Carlson call me annoying is just icing on the cake. I am going to enjoy killing him with kindness. Heh. I’ll put in a good word for you with God, Tucker!

  89. 89

    It is my understanding that civil unions convey all of the privileges that a traditional marriage does under the law except for access to the word marriage.

    Access? What does that mean? If Maryland allowed me to civil unionize with the SO would cops bust us for trespassing if we said we were married?

    But seriously, let’s look at these two scenarios and attempt to answer your question:

    1. Dave and Mark have a civil union in Vermont and a year later they move to Virginia.

    2. Steve and Linda get married in Vermont on the same day and a year later they move to Virginia.

    Question: Which couple is now SoL?

  90. 90
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Question: Which couple is now SoL?

    Both, but for different reasons!

    (Gotta be a Virginian to get that.)

  91. 91
    telesilla says:

    But if you have the paperwork, and if a legally authorized individual performs the ceremony, then you are married—it doesn’t matter if it’s two guys getting married in a hot-air balloon or a straight couple getting married in a cathedral. At the end of the day, they’re married. Full stop.

    Thank you!

    When Darkrose and I got married on September 5, 2008 we went to the Sacramento County Clerk’s office, filled out some paperwork and then went into the wedding room, which is a fairly nondescript room with a little arch thingie with fake greens and flowers and a pair of those paper wedding bells.

    It was exactly the same procedure my ex-husband and I went through over twenty years earlier. In the exact same room, with the same damn arch.

    No religion was involved whatsoever but it was a legal marriage. Both times.

  92. 92
    gex says:

    @D. Mason: I see that. I believe you when you say you want civil unions to be equivalent to marriage. You don’t want to get caught up in semantics. It is perfectly sensible.

    But you must ask yourself why people want to keep the word marriage away from gays. We already inherently understand there is a civil marriage and a religious marriage. Why a separate term for civil marriage for gays? When the Mormon church says they oppose same sex marriage but they support equal rights, do you really believe they want equal rights for gays?

    It is my understanding that civil unions convey all of the privileges that a traditional marriage does under the law except for access to the word marriage.

    Then you apparently do not understand the whole fucking point of Defense of Marriage laws. Their whole purpose is to ensure that parallel arrangements cannot provide the same rights as marriage. You seem reasonable. But you never seem to reconcile yourself to the fact that when an unliked minority group is being singled out for a separate but equal institution, it is usually to skimp on the "equal" part.

    The people fighting equal marriage weren’t happy to just keep the word marriage, as evidenced by DOMAs. Now everyone pretends to support equal rights as long as we don’t share a noun. I see none of those opponents of marriage/supporters of equal rights (like the LDS) actually advocating equal rights. Quit providing safe haven. If the bigots can point out that even moderates on the issue don’t want equal marriage, then it is harder to point them out for what they are.

  93. 93
    D. Mason says:

    But you must ask yourself why people want to keep the word marriage away from gays.

    Well I always just assumed they did it for the same reasons religious fanatics always want to tell other people what to do and how to do it. Because they’re meddlesome assholes. That’s the assumption I work from whenever dealing with church people and it has worked pretty well for me so far.

  94. 94
    Bob Barbaque says:

    Gay Couples should have the same right to be miserable as the rest of Us!
    Why all this favoritism?

  95. 95
    KG says:

    The part that absolutely pisses me off about this, is that there were reports here in California that the Yes on 8 assholes were threatening businesses who donated to the No Campaign saying, "it’s only fair that you donate to us too, and if you don’t after the election we are going to start a campaign against you, telling everyone that you don’t support traditional marriage."

    So: good for us, not good enough for you. I see a pattern developing here.

  96. 96
    telesilla says:

    It is my understanding that civil unions convey all of the privileges that a traditional marriage does under the law except for access to the word marriage.

    Wouldn’t that be nice. Neither my CA domestic partnership, nor my CA marriage license means a good goddamn to the Federal Government, which in turn means it means nothing to the IRS. Not only can we not file married and get the Federal tax breaks, but the insurance I have through her job with the State of CA? For straight couples whose marriage is recognized by the Federal government, the amount of money both the employer and the employee pays for the spouse’s insurance is non-taxable; that money is not part of the employee’s taxable income. The amount of money the employer and employee pay for insurance pays for the partner is taxable; that money is part of your taxable income.

    Neither of us will be eligible for survivor’s benefits from the other’s Social Security.

    And those are just a couple of tangible, hard-cash, financial advantages, just the ones I can think of off the top of my head, that straight married people have over people in civil unions/domestic partnerships. Or you know…our legal same-sex marriage here in California.

  97. 97
    gex says:

    @D. Mason: A good first step. Now ask yourself why they passed defense of marriage laws that stipulated that no other legal arrangements could be treated as though they were civil marriages?

  98. 98
    gex says:

    Isn’t it interesting that the people posting who are so reluctant for gays to have equal marriage rights ask all these innocent sounding questions, want you to do their research for them (aren’t civil unions equal? are there churches that support equal marriage?), and default to the traditional definition of marriage (but only the most recent 500 years of it)? They act as though they are persuadable, but reject every counter argument you give.

    It’s a weird twist on concern trolling, no? I hope I’m wrong, but I’m just going to call them homophobes, even if they themselves are sort of tolerant. There’s just something about gay people that they think is so different, that the laws and words that cover other Americans, just shouldn’t apply. But, ya know, no offense or anything. Just go stand over in that other line.

  99. 99
    LiberalTarian says:

    @gex:

    Amen to that.

    Oh dude! You should have left it up. It was an excellent point, and too short on the board for people who needed to see it to see it …

    Alternate gex, and he was talking about the apparently sympathetic people who refuse to understand why marriage and civil unions are not the same, but not as well said:

    "I have nothing against you personally, but this line is for white (straight) people and that line is for black (gay) people. This is the good line cuz all the benefits are here, sorry about that, but this is how it is and it sucks to be you.

    But really, I have nothing against you personally."

  100. 100
    passerby says:

    And those are just a couple of tangible, hard-cash, financial advantages, just the ones I can think of off the top of my head, that straight married people have over people in civil unions/domestic partnerships. Or you know…our legal same-sex marriage here in California.

    This points to yet another facet of the whole idea of "equality".

    As an unmarried American, these tax schemes don’t benefit me. Why should I have to get married to benefit from a tax break at all?

    Abolish the current ridiculous tax schemes that usher in absurd hoop jumping and give us something rational and fair.

  101. 101
    D. Mason says:

    @gex: I noted earlier that I hadn’t read all of the laws so I wouldn’t really know how to answer your question. I guess the best I can do is to reiterate that I already work from an assumption that they act out of their desire to meddle and be assholes.

  102. 102
  103. 103

    By the way, if anyone thinks that if we dropped this today; if every single gay person stood up and apologized for the most vile and brutal assault on marriage, the fRighties would shut up and play nice, you are D-R-E-A-M-I-N-G.

    We are talking about the same group of people who howled like mad dogs at the idea that GLBTs would be protected by the federal Hate Crimes laws.

  104. 104
    gex says:

    @passerby: Well the argument is that the family is the first line of social safety net. Strengthening families means that the government is called upon less to help those suffering hardships if they have these familial protections than if there weren’t those protections in the first place. For instance, if my partner suffers a terrible medical tragedy right now, it is on the government’s dime after she’s out of dough. Out of work and with no health insurance, I can not be forced to pay any part of her care because we are not considered a legal family. There’s a lot that is messed up about our taxation system, and what sort of social functions we support financially (sports franchises piss me off more than this issue). But I can totally see where you would take issue with this.

  105. 105
  106. 106
    Tymannosourus says:

    It’s just so much easier to hate people than to try to understand them.

  107. 107
    Jeff says:

    To those who doubt marriage is historically not a legal contract I give you the Ketubah.

  108. 108
    gex says:

    @D. Mason:

    Shorter D.Mason: Gee, you and other posters have responded to my question whether civil unions give the same protections as marriage. Despite compelling factual evidence (like DOMA laws, Michigan’s invalidation of civil unions, crossing state lines invalidates a civil union, and IRS penalties) as well a compelling logical arguments (but don’t we already implicitly acknowledge there is such thing as civil versus religious marriage), but I still just don’t know whether relegating gays to separate but equal is unfair.

    Listen dude, if you will not be able to make up your mind whether this is an outrage or not because you haven’t read the laws, then JUST READ THE FUCKING LAWS and quit all this dithering.

    If you are unable to look at DOMA laws that SPECIFICALLY say that no other arrangement can be given the rights and privileges marriage has, and are STILL unable to determine whether civil unions grant all the same rights and privileges of marriage or say that this is unequal treatment you are really just obtuse.

  109. 109
    Comrade Stuck says:

    Gay marriage will come to this country someday, and more importantly, it will be accepted socially by a large majority. We’re not there yet, so the question is how best to get there. Civil union definition disparities with the terms of marriage can be easily dealt with as a matter of law, to make certain words interchangeable.

    The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and there should be relentless pursuit to achieve this for gay legal rights, whatever they be. But the constitution does not guarantee cultural or social acceptance to anyone. That is wholly a private matter, and one of individual choice. So, is direct confrontation with legal referendums insisting on all or nothing legal and social recognition and an equal right of use of a word (marriage), the way to go. Or are incremental changes with the legal substance of gay rights, including pursuit of parity for actual legal rights a better course? Food for thought.

  110. 110
    Grendel72 says:

    Really I just hate to see something this important to so many millions of people come down to little more than semantics. I want gay couples to be extended all of the benefits that straight couples receive but I just can’t get too hung up on what it’s called.
    You’re giving the bigots a benefit of the doubt they haven’t earned when you pretend their stupid semantic arguments are their real reason for opposing the happiness of gay families.

  111. 111
    passerby says:

    For instance, if my partner suffers a terrible medical tragedy right now, it is on the government’s dime after she’s out of dough. Out of work and with no health insurance, I can not be forced to pay any part of her care because we are not considered a legal family.

    I understand.

    But "health" insurance, in my view, is yet another means by which behemoth institutions control societies.

    Is health care a human right in the 21st century? I point to the profit taking done by Insurance Big Wigs while denying coverage, raising premiums, and raising co-pay to illustrate that its merely big business making a few people very wealthy.

    And as a side note: When politicians talk about "health care", they’re really talking about Health Insurance. Health Care and Health Insurance have become mutually exclusive entities.

    p.s. I am not an anarchist. But, I do hope that one day soon we will see the restructuring of the money machinery in this country. The money changers are in the temple and their god is the US Dollar.

  112. 112
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Not to be all difficult and stuff but Obama was against gay marriage, as well as Kerry and Gore and Clinton. Clinton signed DOMA into law which was a major backwards sally in a one step forward two steps backwards process. Christ only knows what Hillary Clinton is for or against because she wouldn’t tell us because she had the nomination wrapped up pretty early and didn’t want to jeapordize that.

    And now a big majority of Californians, the voting kind anyway, have said, we ain’t ready for it either.

    Opposition to gay marriage isn’t the provenance of the bigoted or intolerent or religious. It’s simply an artifact of traditionalism and even exists where there is no real clear and overarching religious dogma, such as China. A billion chinese people can’t be wrong, so the saying goes.

    A majority of parents still freak out when their kids come out to them and a large number of those don’t ever come to terms with it so it isn’t surprising that a collection of these individuals called society might have an issue with teh gay.

    So just keep all that in mind when yer hatin on religion. Churches in America are simply the main repositories for traditionalist dogma. If every church decided tomorrow that gay marriage was the total bomb, traditionalists would simply form new churches that reflected their worldview.

  113. 113
    John Cole says:

    You know what, for those of you talking about civil unions, I used to feel that way- civil unions for everyone, save marriage for the religions. Not anymore. To hell with the religious jackasses who are running around stigmatizing people. Gay marriage, or no marriage at all is my position these days.

    If this really was about making society better, I might listen t them. But it is not. It is about stigmatizing people, and control, and making themselves feel better at someone else’s expense. If it was not gay marriage, it would be something else- like sex before marriage, interracial marriage, dancing, ungodly music, selling liquor on sundays- oh, wait. The same assholes have already pushed all that shit.

    Fuck them. I am sick of them. If they want to believe in crazy made up bullshit, more power to them. But get out of my face, get out of my government, and leave people alone.

  114. 114

    So, is direct confrontation with legal referendums insisting on all or nothing legal and social recognition and an equal right of use of a word (marriage), the way to go. Or are incremental changes with the legal substance of gay rights, including pursuit of parity for actual legal rights a better course? Food for thought.

    How does one get the exact rights of straight married couples in increments without setting off the wing nuts?

  115. 115
    Tymannosourus says:

    I love this argument about the sanctity of marriage. Our current society has proved out that a marriage’s blessedness is completely in the hands of the two people, not in the thing "marriage" itself.

    In a day where we have reality TV shows like "who wants to marry a millionaire" and "the littlest groom," I think it is safe to say that the "sanctity" of the institution is about as intact as Roethlesberger’s shoulder.

    As a married man, if I felt that my marriage was threatened by a couple of dudes in Palo Alto, then rather than attacking other people whom I’ve never met, I would probably just ask for more BJs.

  116. 116
    Krista says:

    I love you guys, I really do. But certain aspects of your society are really weird, between this phobia against "socialism", which is used as a bludgeon against universal healthcare, and then this whole "civil union"/"civil marriage"/"marriage" bullshit.

    I guess I just can’t understand a) the mindset of individuals who love to deny other people basic rights and b) a government that kowtows to those individuals.

    Whatever happened to just doing the right thing, and telling people who don’t like it to go piss up a stump?

  117. 117
    Beej says:

    @Church Lady: Here is the argument for same-sex marriage, religion or no religion:

    1. The U.S. Constitution advocates that the government shall not "respect an establishment of religion. This is a 2-way street. It not only divides government from religion, it also divides religion from government.
    2. This means that government cannot force churches, synagogues (sp) ,or mosques to perform same-sex marriages.
    3. It also means that churches, etc. cannot tell the government whether or not to sanction same-sex marriage.

    In other words, this is not a religious issue. It is a civil rights issue. If religious groups wish to make it a religious issue, they need to explain why they should retain their tax-exempt status when they are, unquestionably, engaging in political action.

  118. 118
    John Cole says:

    And another thing that is even more appalling is that ina time of global economic distress, in which billions are underfed, hundreds of millions aresuffering from disease, wars are breaking out all over, and there general, a lot of human misery, the fact that some in the hierarchy of the Mormon Church decided that priority #1 for tens of millions of dollars was to attack someone else’s happiness says everything.

    Fuck them with a two-by-four. They deserve everything they get, and if there was a God, they would not understand his teachings.

  119. 119
    Krista says:

    As a married man, if I felt that my marriage was threatened by a couple of dudes in Palo Alto, then rather than attacking other people whom I’ve never met, I would probably just ask for more BJs.

    /shakes head and rolls eyes in company with all of the other women on this blog.

  120. 120

    My favorite stupidity in the Prop. 8 campaign was the lie that "gay marriage" would be taught in schools, which the head of public schools said was bogus. I mean, if they don’t teach straight marriages in school why would they teach gay marriages?

    There was a commericial where two "concerned parents" (actors) who were portraying citizens of Massachusetts claiming that their little Johnny came home after learning that two boys can get married.

    Well, now in Massachusetts two men can get married. But if the kid didn’t know that imagine his surprise and his parents’ shock when he learns that the earth isn’t flat.

    +++

    Okay, enough venting. The Niners are blowing out the Rams, 35-3 at half. Maybe I took too much of my medicine or something.

  121. 121
    Comrade Stuck says:

    @kommrade reproductive vigor:

    How does one get the exact rights of straight married couples in increments without setting off the wing nuts?

    I was talking about pure legal rights. The culture war is fought in a different arena and has more to do with tradition, religious dogma, and individual and group fears. The hardcore wingnut core of the religious right and tribal nutter corp, are never going to be pleased with civil unions, gay marriage or even liberals existing on the earth. But the fact is, in most of these gay marriage referendums, the vote has been no for about 70 or so percent of voters. They are obviously not all of the 28 percenter wingnuts. These legal rights are already enshrined in the founding document. It is not up for a vote, or shouldn’t be, it is already codified and more and more judges are saying so. And any state referendums must be consistent with the Constitution, so in the long run they are just temporary, albeit painful for those directly affected. Most people in America are just not ready to accept social parity with traditional marriage, and by fighting it on those terms may just mean more refer. and more animosity all around, and more delay for the inevitable acceptance. Just my opinion.

    **And as for the Mormon’s sticking their noses into CA business, they can go suck on an egg until their personal space ship arrives.

  122. 122
    Ash Can says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: IIRC, Obama’s position is that, while he doesn’t personally support same-sex marriage (we can’t have everything, I guess), he doesn’t believe it should be legislated against.

  123. 123
    raff says:

    I don’t really have a dog in the gay-marriage fight, but I am goddam sick & tired of the moral posturing by certain people when it comes to the "sanctity of marriage". Gay marriage poses exactly zero threat to "traditional" marriage. And I’m not even going to dignify the ludicrous arguement that after Gay Marriage, court-sanctioned beastiality is sure to follow.

    Not to be glib, but the main cause of divorce is… marriage. Which is to say: getting married too early in life (people change, grow apart), getting married for the wrong reason (unexpected pregnancy, money, etc.), getting married because it’s "expected" of you… the list goes on.

    But, beyond that, there’s a very simple reason divorce rates have sky-rocketed in the last 4 decades & it has nothing to do with the ‘threat’ of gay marriage, "liberal values", or, back in the day, the ‘threat’ of interracial marriage (which sparked the same sort of debates we see today with gay marriage). Simply put, after 1970, people got more divorces because it was easier to get a divorce.

    Prior to 1970, it was much harder to get divorced. You couldn’t get a divorce just because you fell out of love, you had to prove in a court of law that one (or both) of the partners committed ‘adultery, abandonment, felony, or other similarly culpable acts’. Even then, the judge could still deny the divorce (if the husband was the one committing adultery, the judge would likely deny the wife’s petition for divorce).

    That changed in 1970 (technically 1969), when "No Fault" divorce (better known as "irreconcilible differences") came into being with the signing of California’s "Family Law Act". If you want to point to any one thing contributing to the decay of "tradtional marriage’, it would be the signing into law of the "Family Law Act".

    And just who signed off on this marriage-destroying piece of law? Some liberal, pinko California elitist? Close. It was Cali’s governor at the time: … Ronald Reagan.

    Thanks for destroying "traditional" marriage, Ronnie. Well challenged,

  124. 124
    Comrade Stuck says:

    And any state referendums must be consistent with the Constitution, so in the long run they are just temporary

    And also DOMA

  125. 125
    AnneLaurie says:

    Interestingly, the LDS church has their own child abuse problem. They are much better at convincing people it’s god’s will though. The Catholics were good at mind control at one time, but they’ve lost the ability.

    The Catholics snuck off the reservation & started using birth control. It’s much easier to miss the signs that a kid is being abused by an authority figure when parents are juggling jobs & shifts in an effort to provide for six, eight, or twelve little "blessings"… and a kid who’s always thought of themselves as one fraction of a fungible mob is more liable to be grateful for individual attention, however negative, from a grownup (especially an "important" authority-figure grownup).

    Here in Massachusetts, when you apply for a marriage license, there’s a check-off list of "authorized" celebrants including ‘Clerk of the County’, ‘Justice of the Peace’, and a dozen or so different religious denominations. *However*, for a small additional fee ($25 in 1993), you could obtain a signed letter from the governor giving anybody a one-use-only legal authorization — an "irregular" religious authority (the dear friend & Archpriest in the Church of the Goddess who performed our ceremony is still bitter about that clerk’s thoughtless adjective), your mutual best friend, somebody’s parent, one of the applicants’ grown kids, anybody legally competent to sign the certificate. I don’t see why the "regular" churches shouldn’t be required to pony up as well; just change the list to County Clerk, JP, or Other. Because, yeah, the legal concept of MARRIAGE needs to be disentangled from all the romantic/religious theories about marriage, so that we can stop mistaking our personal prejudices for some kind of natural "law".

  126. 126

    @kommrade reproductive vigor:

    How does one get the exact rights of straight married couples in increments without setting off the wing nuts?

    By using their own words against them when they try to prove that they aren’t really about hating on The Gay, such as the recent pronouncement by the LDS that they aren’t against equal protection for gays – they just don’t want the term ‘marriage’ applied. Okay, then; put your money where your mouth is, and make Utah the most queer-friendly state in the Union under law. I’m sure they won’t object – after all, they’ve already publicly stated as much, right?

  127. 127
    kay says:

    I am so tired of religious using children to advance mean-spirited ideas.

    They’re cute, most people have some or know some they care about…. it’s an easy emotional trigger to sell something.

    It’s such a cowardly dodge. If they’re reaching for the "kid card" to defend opposition to gay marriage they probably don’t have a real argument, at least one they’re willing to share, publicly. They’re cloaking whatever that real argument is in "public policy, child welfare" and that’s pretty reprehensible.

  128. 128
    Tymannosourus says:

    @Krista,

    Your eye rolling was in tandem with every other guy’s head nodding.

  129. 129
    malraux says:

    I’d also take the religious right more serious if they’d stop actively harming kids to "defend" marriage. In MI, they got a gay marriage ban in place that screws children of same sex partners employed by the state. Now that I live in AR, they’ve now said that its better for kids to die inside the foster care system than to be adopted by gay parents. If by their fruits you shall know them, then I’d say I’ve got a pretty good idea of what the religious right is about.

  130. 130
    Xenos says:

    @Krista:

    I guess I just can’t understand a) the mindset of individuals who love to deny other people basic rights and b) a government that kowtows to those individuals.

    It all goes back to original sin. Which in this context means slavery. The overpowering need to blame the victims of slavery in order to psychologically deal with the fact that at least some of your ancestors were genocidal maniacs and torturers who engaged in rape for sport means that you can never see the underclass as ‘one of us’ and deserving of indefinite, unlimited social support.

    There is no equivalent to this in Canadian culture, although I got a hint of this when I was living in Montreal and the Mohawks blocked off a major bridge and shot and killed a Surete officer. Boy did those Quebecers hate them tory indians! The idea that these people lived in Quebec, were unrepentant historical enemies of the Quebecois, and had a right to the tax money of the Quebecois was just outrageous to them. They could not wrap their heads around subsidizing a hostile race and culture.

    To conclude the somewhat tortured analysis, in the same way that you could never convince some Quebecois that the Mohawk deserved to be subsidized, you can’t convince some Americans that the poorest of the poor (translation: the niggers) deserve to be subsidized. It goes against their whole conception of what it means to be American.

  131. 131
    Delia says:

    @Church Lady:

    The World Wide Anglican Communion is not a single denomination. Each national church sets its own policy through its bishops and the the Communion comes together once every ten years at the Lambeth COnvention in Canterbury, England. But it can’t really control what a national church does. The American church has been ordaining gay priests for many years now. What brought the whole issue to a head was the ordination of a gay bishop, Gene Robinson, who is in a committed long-term relationship. In the US, it’s the clergy and representative lay people of a diocese who select a bishop. In this case it was New Hampshire, which is not exactly known as a hotbed of avant garde thinking. They seem to still be quite happy with him.

    In general, the Anglophone churches, as well as those in Western Europe, are sympathetic to issues which advance gay rights in the church. The Anglican churches in Latin American, Asia, and Africa tend to be much more conservative. The US church, of course, has elements in both camps.

  132. 132
    JL says:

    @John Cole: The ultimate goal is to overturn Griswold vs CT. Maybe then twin beds would make a comeback.

  133. 133
    kay says:

    @malraux:

    They’re defending a sentimental abstract concept,"the children", rather than the flesh and bone actual children you are fretting about.

  134. 134

    If the history of one State’s experience with gay marriage is a guide, I’ll offer up OR’s.

    The group that proposed redefining marriage as between one man and one woman specifically promised they weren’t opposed to Civil Union. I voted against them, it passed.

    Civil Unions were prompltly put to referendum, said "definers" promptly went into opposition. I voted for and it passed.

    "Definers promptly attempted ballot initiative to nullify, SoS office threw it out on legal groundes, "definers" promptly sued in Fed court to block institution of CU, lost earlier this year.

    No, their agenda is not to "protect" the word marriage. The OR law was pretty carefully crafted but still comes up short. This is absolutely a religious issue impacting civil rights, it is in no way government impacting the conduct of religion. I have no patience for those who say the institutions are the same or CU is "good enough." Neither is true and I am forced by fuckheads to participate in the denial of civil liberty to my fellows and that makes me pretty furious.

  135. 135

    @Delia: Oh, of course! Half of the Episcopal Church isn’t Anglophone! That explains our pre-1976 prayerbook language!

    — demi "Me, I prefer Cramner’s Intercession" mondian

  136. 136
    Xenos says:

    @kay: Well put. "The Children" that they are citing have as much basis in reality as the glorious Aryan civilization or the righteous proletariat,

  137. 137

    Regarding tax benefits and assorted others granted to marriage and the "fairness" of it:

    There are certain arenas in which the government has a stake and no legal authority to pass laws or even any possible laws that could be remotely reasonable. That leaves the government with a few tools to encourage or discourage behavior. Taxes are one of the biggest levers available to them. Thus the benefits of marriage and the cost of an Automatic Weapon Tax Stamp.

    If it is required to explain the benefits to government and the social contract of stable unions and inheritance and etc, that person needs to learn how to read and study even the most superficial sociological writings. Child deductions fall into the same kind of matrix.

  138. 138

    @protected static: Well, I am so sorry that I don’t fit what you think is talking good.

  139. 139

    @JL: Maybe that wouldn’t be too bad a thing. The point of marriage (and you probably forgot it) is pro-creation not rutting like pigs. I know that don’t fit with your "morality" but that’s the way it’s always been for 6000 years. What makes you think you can just change because you don’t like it?

  140. 140
    PaulB says:

    So for Christians to say that the Bible is the be-all and end-all when it comes to the definition of marriage…well, it’s not only historically ignorant and simplistic, it’s insulting.

    It’s also inaccurate, since the Bible has, by some counts, eight different types of "marriage," including polygamy. It’s always fun to ask those idiots just which Biblical definition they are referring to.

  141. 141
    PaulB says:

    The point of marriage (and you probably forgot it) is pro-creation not rutting like pigs.

    ROFL… You really don’t know any history, do you? In any case, it should be simple for you to point me to the part of the traditional wedding vows that talk about procreation and children, right? Or that part of the marriage license that mentions that? Or the questionnaire that I have to fill out where it asks me whether or not I want to, or even am capable of, having children?

    Free clue: "traditional" marriage had very little to do with procreation.

    I know that don’t fit with your "morality" but that’s the way it’s always been for 6000 years.

    Yup, you *really* don’t know any history. Another free clue: the definition of marriage has changed dramatically from one time to another and from one culture to another. Even the Bible doesn’t provide just one universal definition of "marriage," but half a dozen or more.

    What makes you think you can just change because you don’t like it?

    Because that’s what societies have always done, and will continue to do.

  142. 142
    gex says:

    @raff:

    I don’t really have a dog in the gay-marriage fight

    Really? You think that you have no stake in whether the religious beliefs of some Christian denominations become articles of the Constitutions or rules of law governing your liberty? Interesting.

  143. 143
    Tymannosourus says:

    I know that don’t fit with your "morality" but that’s the way it’s always been for 6000 years.

    Yep, Greeks hated gay sex.

  144. 144
    Tymannosourus says:

    The point of marriage (and you probably forgot it) is pro-creation not rutting like pigs.

    Better start bachelorizing all the sterile guys that are married, I guess.

  145. 145
    Don says:

    It’s nice to see that Joe the Plumber isn’t the only retard voting against his own interests in favor of social issues. Check out this line item from the linked donation list.

    Lisa Myler / Wedding Planner, Myler Weddings / American Fork, UT / $10,000

    How much dumber can you be than to deny yourself yet another sector of the population? The gays have money, fool, and they like stuff to look snazzy!

  146. 146
    JL says:

    @Billy Bob Neck: It doesn’t sound like I’m the one who forgot what sharing a bed with one you love is like.

  147. 147

    @Tymannosourus: …and forcibly divorcing any woman who has reached menopause or any man who needs a certain widely-spammed product that will send this comment into moderation if I type it out.

  148. 148

    I have found in politics or social issues that there are these categories – for simplicity’s sake:

    Allies – think you’re good and back you
    Associates – think you’re reasonable
    Neutral – don’t give a damn
    Opponents – think you’re unreasonable
    Enemies – think you’re bad and fight and demean you

    (I know there are more permutations)

    I’m careful in my designation of "Enemies" because that one you don’t get to come back from, except maybe at very high cost because you should engage all all the others in discourse. Enemies you need to crush, there is no possible gain or reconcilliation there. You may be careful in your ethics of doing the crushing, but you do so unrelentingly and with absolute determination. There are about a gadzillion tactics to use in that crushing, generally you’d pick the ones with the least blow-back from the other 4 categories.

    Social issues are one of the most tactically challenging of all, determining who is what category is hard enough and doing so while in a state of outrage is even harder. Keeping Allies is a matter of staying a course they can get along with, winning Associates over to a position of Allies is generally a matter of having good facts and charm, winning the Neutral is a bit stickier, you have to search out something in them that your facts can reach and touch and do so with charm. Opponents aren’t likely candidates for Alliance and iffy for Associates, but if you can’t get them that far, moving them to Neutral is a net gain and generally facts and charm will move them. All of that involves discourse and particularly respect for their reasons to be in their category.

    Enemies are hopeless, the best you can do with them is cut their influence or remove them from the picture. This is why you don’t make them unnecessarily.

    I think this has some relevance to this discussion and some of its tone.

  149. 149
    Josh Hueco says:

    OT heresy, but re: the Iggles-Bengals tie today. I think there should be more ties in football. Get rid of the sudden-death stuff. If both teams are playing so awfully they’re deadlocked after 60 minutes of regulation and say, 10 minutes of overtime, just call it a tie and go home.

    Of course, being a Cowboys fan has no influence on my opinion.

    Plus, more ties would create more drama and intrigue in the near-end-of-season ‘Team X must…to make the playoffs’ scenarios.

  150. 150
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    More spoofs on parade!

  151. 151

    Done arguing about this subject, a long time ago, for reasons already stated, debated, and hated ad nauseam.

    But today, "gay marriage" or whatever you choose to call the issue is about as far down the list of things that are really important as we can go. Wars, economic tranwrecks, healthcare calamities ….. DOMA is just not that important, on the grand scheme of things. No matter which side you are on.

    This is what happens when, among other things, people cannot fathom political realities and cannot learn how to pick their fights. DOMA is a fight over words, not rights, despite some of the crap you read here, and right now, the refuseniks are winning that fight. They are even winning it with me, probably the most liberal person around here.

    If you can’t win with me, and you can’t win in California, of all places, then maybe you should consider that your chosen fight is stupidly stuck in the mud and try another approach?

    Will that happen? I bet that it will not, and that that is the way both sides want it. So be it. Fight. Fight forever until hell freezes over. When you get tired of fighting, try something different. Or, not, I don’t give a shit.

  152. 152
    LiberalTarian says:

    Listen, we have arguments over religion and government all the time … this time it is gay marriage, another time it is about the right to withhold medical treatment from a dying family member.

    Organized religion is about control of wealth and power. Now, I am one of those that likes to worship with other people. But, I steadfastly believe that worship and governance should be separate, because I don’t want people using my spiritual ideals as a bludgeon against my rights and behavior. We have both freedom OF religion, and freedom FROM religion in this country. Well, at least we like to think we do.

    But, if something like Prop 8 gets passed, we start to see how much power people who reject secular values have on our society as a matter of government. As long as the talibaptists have this much control in our society, we are not really free.

    Troll prophylactic: this is not moral relativism–pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc. are crimes against children, animals, and to the extent possible, dead people (or more reasonably their families). The tendency to hyperbole in the discussion is a tactic to shout down others, and not real, so STFU already before you even get started.

  153. 153

    @Billy Bob Neck: your faux hick ‘voice’ is like Palin’s accent – it comes and goes. An’ typin’ like you’re some kinda down-home cracker, y’all, ain’t the same thing as talkin’ in dialect… all those extra apostrophes take time to think about and to type correctly.

    So whatever. Better trolls, please. Parody trolls included.

  154. 154
    raff says:

    @gex

    Really? You think that you have no stake in whether the religious beliefs of some Christian denominations become articles of the Constitutions or rules of law governing your liberty? Interesting.

    I should have been more precise… I meant that I have no personal stake in the gay marriage debate in the US. Mainly because I’m Canadian & we already allow gay marriage. However you Yanks see fit to treat each other is of no concern to me.

  155. 155
    TR says:

    Marriage is a religious term and as such the religion that spawned it gets to define it

    Right! And if English was good enough for Jesus Christ, we shouldn’t have kids learning foreign languages either!

  156. 156
    Delia says:

    I should have been more precise… I meant that I have no personal stake in the gay marriage debate in the US. Mainly because I’m Canadian & we already allow gay marriage. However you Yanks see fit to treat each other is of no concern to me.

    HAH! Wait until our numerous inflamed wingnuts who are waiting for Obama to try to take their guns and put them into socialist Muslim concentration camps spill over their borders and start shrieking "54-40 or fight!" again. See if you have a dog in the fight then. Where will you go to make all the scifi teevee shows that we all spend our Friday nights watching once British Columbia falls to the loonies?

  157. 157
    PaulB says:

    Done arguing about this subject, a long time ago, for reasons already stated, debated, and hated ad nauseam.

    Then why did you post?

    But today, "gay marriage" or whatever you choose to call the issue is about as far down the list of things that are really important as we can go.

    Except to those who are affected by it. In any case, fundamental civil rights are never "as for down the list of things that are really important as we can go."

    This is what happens when, among other things, people cannot fathom political realities and cannot learn how to pick their fights.

    Oh, garbage. This fight was inevitable. Nor do you have *any* evidence that other tactics would have been preferable or yielded better results.

    DOMA is a fight over words, not rights, despite some of the crap you read here

    Total bullshit, and it’s bullshit you’ve been called on before, so you know damn well it’s bullshit.

    and right now, the refuseniks are winning that fight.

    They are winning some battles. They will lose the war. That’s not even remotely in doubt.

    They are even winning it with me, probably the most liberal person around here.

    And, once again, bullshit. You’re not even close to being "the most liberal person around here."

    If you can’t win with me, and you can’t win in California, of all places, then maybe you should consider that your chosen fight is stupidly stuck in the mud and try another approach?

    Why? This approach appears to be working. Or have you only been paying attention to the defeats and not to the victories?

    Or, not, I don’t give a shit.

    Yes, you do, or you wouldn’t have posted the same old tired crap you’ve posted over and over again, ad nauseam.

  158. 158
    Helena Handbag says:

    The point of marriage (and you probably forgot it) is pro-creation not rutting like pigs.

    No, the point of marriage is the orderly legal transfer of property. It used to mean that the woman herself became the property of the man, as did any property she owned before the marriage. It also used to be the best way our society had to determine which kid belonged to which man and thus was required to feed and house him or her. We have changed those legal definitions and requirements over the centuries to line up with the realities of our culture.

    Nowhere in the government documents I signed or the marriage vows I took did it mention anything about making babies (well, not in Cook County, anyway). If the only point of marriage is procreation, does that mean the elderly should be restricted from the benefits of marriage? My teen son who was made sterile by cancer treatments should have to prove to the government that he can produce adequate baby seeds before he can marry a woman?

    Step outside your little box of fear and think about it in terms of real people. We love who we love and we want to share our little piece of this world and all we’ve worked for with them. No church can be made to perform any religious ceremony they don’t want to perform, but neither can they deny other citizens equal legal rights and protections.

  159. 159

    @raff: I think you underestimate the power that the Talevangelists actually hold up there, though.

  160. 160
    Xenos says:

    Marriage is a religious term and as such the religion that spawned it gets to define it

    I have no idea where to find a paleolithic shaman to sanctify my marriage. So maybe it is a good thing I got married by an atheist, as the missing links probably did not have organized religion.

  161. 161
    Michael D. says:

    @D. Mason:

    It is my understanding that civil unions convey all of the privileges that a traditional marriage does under the law except for access to the word marriage.

    And, most importantly for me, if I lose my job, I have TEN days to get the hell out of the country – leaving my partner behind. ‘Cause to the Federal Government, we’re strangers with no particular important relationship to one another.

  162. 162

    @Xenos: Technically, the sacrament of marriage is actually performed by the couple involved. The priest/rabbi/paleolithic shaman/neolithic herb woman merely officiates. So, you were married by an atheist if your spouse is an atheist.

    As to missing links and organized religion…if it served the goals of the tribal leaders, you can bet they had highly organized religion.

  163. 163

    Eighteen years and change ago my wife and I had a pretty good party down at the Elks lodge with a bunch of family and friends and Justice Court Judge and the State of Oregon said we were married. We filled out the application in the County Courthouse in another County where I was putting the roof on the Courthouse. The Clerk was pretty amused, she’d had the opportunity to see me at my very best: half-naked and filthy and my wife was a total stranger (in a small town). One hundred year old three story buildings can involve alot of very dirty hot and noticable work carrying a large decibel count.

    The word "God" had no entry into the discussion at any time and we’ve not had any off-spring since so I guess we’re complete failures at it, other than the 18 years. If she finds the keys to the cell…

  164. 164

    Yes, you do, or you wouldn’t have posted the same old tired crap you’ve posted over and over again, ad nauseam.

    Damn, you are one bitter fucking asshole, aren’t you?

    You wanna a piece of me, you cranky stupid piece of shit?

    Come on! LETS GO!

    Fuck you, man. Seriously, just fuck you. Get the fuck away from me.

  165. 165

    Total bullshit, and it’s bullshit you’ve been called on before, so you know damn well it’s bullshit.

    Um, it may surprise you to know that your calling it bullshit does not make it bullshit. You and I disagree, and that’s fine with me, but uh, unless I missed a meeting, you aren’t the final word on this subject.

    They will lose the war. That’s not even remotely in doubt.

    Sure. That explains the thread, then. Victory. I get it.

    You’re not even close to being "the most liberal person around here."

    How would you presume to know how liberal I am, you punk-assed fuckhead? You don’t know anything about me, you only know what you read of a persona I write for your befuddlement. Maybe you are suprised to learn that there is no such person as TheHatOnMyCat? Maybe my Hawaiian birth certificate would set you straight? You stupid prick.

    Yes, you do, or you wouldn’t

    No, actually I don’t, you easily confused asshole. I don’t give a flying fuck about the gay marriage issue. Zip. Nada.
    But you, I care about. Deeply. Disturbingly, really.

    Shut your fucking pie hole you blithering idiot.

  166. 166
    PaulB says:

    Damn, you are one bitter fucking asshole, aren’t you?

    Pot. Kettle. Black. In any case, no, not really. Just tired of your bullshit.

    You wanna a piece of me, you cranky stupid piece of shit? Come on! LETS GO!

    ROFL…. Am I really supposed to take this posturing seriously? This is laughable. You have my response above. You actually want to debate this? Then start by responding to what I wrote instead of resorting to the same old tired ad hominem attacks. You got nothing and you know it.

    Fuck you, man. Seriously, just fuck you. Get the fuck away from me.

    ROFL…. This is hilarious. You are aware that this is a blog comments section, right? And that I’m nowhere near you? You are free to post here or not post here, to respond or to not respond. I called you on your bullshit and you got all pissy. That’s your right, of course, just as it’s mine to laugh at you and make fun of you, something that I fully intend to continue doing as long as you keep insisting on making a fool of yourself.

  167. 167
    Grendel72 says:

    How would you presume to know how liberal I am, you punk-assed fuckhead?
    Maybe based on the fact that treating gays as second class citizens is just peachy keen with you? Actual liberals tend to be in favor of personal liberty and equal justice.

  168. 168

    That’s your right, of course, just as it’s mine to laugh at you and make fun of you, something that I fully intend to continue doing as long as you keep insisting on making a fool of yourself.

    In lieu of having any actual argument or position to put forth and defend, I guess that’s the best you can do, right, you blog-stalking motherfucker?

    Your entire argument consists of shouting "you are full of shit" whenever you feel like it.

    I’m full of shit? Oh yeah? Well I say you are full of shit.

    Back to you, shit for brains.

  169. 169
    bago says:

    Your eye rolling was in tandem with every other guy’s head nodding.

    See, I always thought that BJ’s worked in the exact opposite manner.

  170. 170

    Maybe based on the fact that treating gays as second class citizens is just peachy keen with you?

    I’ve described my position on this subject at length, and none of it supports treating anyone as second class citizens.

    Sorry, your strawman argument fails. My argument is grounded in whether the government rightly should regulate who can marry, or have the rights that pertain thereto. My argument is that the government should leave people alone in this context, which in no way treats anyone like a second class citizen.

    However, that is not the reality in which we live. How that gets handled is a whole nother issue. How the fight gets fought, and by whom, and on what basis, a whole nother issue.

  171. 171
    PaulB says:

    Um, it may surprise you to know that your calling it bullshit does not make it bullshit.

    Which is why, in previous threads, I pointed out specifically why it was bullshit, with arguments that you never responded to, mostly because you were too busy issuing the same old lame ad hominem attacks, aghast at the thought that someone would actually have the temerity to disagree with you.

    Sure. That explains the thread, then. Victory. I get it.

    ROFL…. Um, do you really need me to explain the difference between a battle and a war? The outcome of this war is not in doubt.

    How would you presume to know how liberal I am, you punk-assed fuckhead?

    Well, a) mostly because this isn’t the first time you’ve posted here, and b) because you are so blithely willing to toss fundamental civil rights under the bus.

    No, actually I don’t, you easily confused asshole. I don’t give a flying fuck about the gay marriage issue. Zip. Nada.

    Which is why you’ve posted dozens of messages on this topic that you "don’t give a flying fuck about." Uh-huh. Right. Now pull the other one.

    But you, I care about. Deeply. Disturbingly, really.

    ROFL…. Then you’re taking yourself, and me, far too seriously.

    Shut your fucking pie hole you blithering idiot.

    Nope. Like I said, you got nothing.

  172. 172
    Adrienne says:

    The point of marriage (and you probably forgot it) is pro-creation not rutting like pigs.

    Um, last time I checked the "point" of marriage is whatever the hell the two people who want to get married agrees it is. What YOU think the point of marriage is has NOTHING to do with it. Being married does NOT guarantee pro-creation no more than being single stops procreation. Eggs and sperm don’t give a damn about the two peoples’ marriage status.

    Marriage is a religious term and as such the religion that spawned it gets to define it

    Whoo honey you are a special kind of stupid. You must get up pretty early in the morning to be that clever. No religion "spawned" the word ‘marriage’ since it is an English word and NO religions were spawned of the English language.

  173. 173

    because you are so blithely willing to toss fundamental civil rights under the bus.

    That’s your opinion. Mine is that challenging the government’s authority to regulate marriage, which is the root of the problem, doesn’t throw any rights under any bus, it in fact ensures the greatest protection of everyone’s rights.

    You are free to disagree with that assertion, but your disagreement does not make my assertion bullshit just because you say it is. It simply establishes a difference of opinion.

    When the government drops its ill-concieved obsession with who marries whom, everybody wins. Adults should be free to form families as they see fit. If you don’t like that point of view, fine with me, but as long as sit there and just throw your dumbass verbal rocks at it, I am going to throw bigger verbal rocks back at you. Like Popeye, I have large arms, and can throw rocks at you all day. Your choice.

    If you want to have an actual exchange on the subject I am talking about, feel free. Whatever floats your little tiny boat.

  174. 174
    PaulB says:

    I’ve described my position on this subject at length, and none of it supports treating anyone as second class citizens.

    Well, except for the fact that that is precisely what you are advocating.

    My argument is grounded in whether the government rightly should regulate who can marry, or have the rights that pertain thereto. My argument is that the government should leave people alone in this context, which in no way treats anyone like a second class citizen.

    That’s an even dumber argument than the "blame-the-victim" argument you continually trot out. Of course the government is in this business — it has to be! Because without that involvement, there are literally hundreds of legal issues for millions of relationships that would so thoroughly clog up the courts that not a damn thing could get accomplished.

    However, that is not the reality in which we live.

    Then why make foolish arguments that are divorced from reality?

    How that gets handled is a whole nother issue. How the fight gets fought, and by whom, and on what basis, a whole nother issue.

    Yeah, we’ve heard that before, too.

  175. 175

    Then you’re taking yourself, and me, far too seriously.

    I assure you Paul, you have no idea on earth what I take seriously and what I don’t.

    You just think you do. When you stop taking that seriously, then you will be on the right track.

  176. 176
    Comrade Stuck says:

    Maybe you are suprised to learn that there is no such person as TheHatOnMyCat?

    Next you’ll be saying that Santa isn’t real. What will the children think, you cruel bastard.

    @bago:

    Rolling Heads is what we do. Why? cause somebody has to, galldarnit.

  177. 177

    there are literally hundreds of legal issues for millions of relationships that would so thoroughly clog up the courts that not a damn thing could get accomplished.

    None of those legal issues depends upon the use of the word "marriage" in order to define them or to protect the rights of the stakeholders.

    There is not a single legal right that a married person has which depends upon the use of the word "marriage" in order to convey, define, regulate or protect the right.

    Lawmakers are free to construct, define and protect these rights as they see fit, with or without any particular word in the construction.

    Lawmakers toss out old language and write new and better laws that better frame rights and boundaries, all the time. It isn’t rocket science.

  178. 178
    PaulB says:

    Mine is that challenging the government’s authority to regulate marriage, which is the root of the problem, doesn’t throw any rights under any bus, it in fact ensures the greatest protection of everyone’s rights.

    Well, except that a) it’s not going to happen out here in the real world, b) there are damn good reasons why that’s not going to happen out here in the real world, and c) it’s not really relevant to this thread.

    When the government drops its ill-concieved obsession with who marries whom, everybody wins.

    Oh, garbage. You’re ignoring those more than 1000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities that come with a civil marriage — rights, privileges, and responsibilities that would have to be individually settled and adjudicated without the concept of a civil marriage.

    Adults should be free to form families as they see fit. If you don’t like that point of view, fine with me, but as long as sit there and just throw your dumbass verbal rocks at it, I am going to throw bigger verbal rocks back at you.

    ROFL…. All you can do is toss out the same old insults and ad hominem attacks you’ve tossed out before. We get that, you know; you really don’t have to do it again.

    Like Popeye, I have large arms, and can throw rocks at you all day. Your choice.

    I see… so you’re proud of your ability to toss out ad hominem attacks anonymously on a blog comments section? That’s just pathetic. You really are one sad little man.

    If you want to have an actual exchange on the subject I am talking about, feel free.

    ROFL…. Oh, the irony….

  179. 179
    PaulB says:

    None of those legal issues depends upon the use of the word "marriage" in order to define them or to protect the rights of the stakeholders.

    So what? All of them depend on official government recognition of a relationship, which is what you claim the government should not be doing.

  180. 180

    Next you’ll be saying that Santa isn’t real.

    Santa is real. Mrs. Santa is not real. And, Rudolph, quite real.

    Well, except for the fact that that (treating people as "second class citiznes") is precisely what you are advocating.

    Parentheses, mine.

    I am advocating that government leave people alone to form families .. and have the rights of families and kin … as they see fit, within reasonable limits (say, adulthood, as an example). That hardly tramples anyone’s rights, it does the opposite. Building a framework for rights and letting people decide for themselves how to employ them seems to me the essence of liberty. But that’s just me.

    You apparently disagree. Good for you. I have no particular interest in convincing you. Others can look at the two positions and think what they like.

  181. 181
    PaulB says:

    I assure you Paul, you have no idea on earth what I take seriously and what I don’t.

    ROFLMAO… Dear heart, I’m just going by what you write. If you want to play silly games, I’ll happily play along. If you want a serious debate, we can do that, too.

  182. 182

    I’m just going by what you write. If you want to play silly games

    What I write is right here, in my recent posts. Hasn’t changed, although I might be getting better at saying it than I used to be.

    If you want to characterize my argument as "silly games" then that’s up to you. I assert that it’s a rational and pretty libertarian view, light on the restrictions and generous in terms of letting people do what they want.

    What you are advocating, I have no idea, actually, you are always too busy yelling at me. I suppose you have a position but I have no idea what it is.

  183. 183
    PaulB says:

    I am advocating that government leave people alone to form families .. and have the rights of families and kin …

    Which means that the government does, in fact, have to officially define and recognize certain relationships and types of relationships, just as I’ve been claiming.

    In any case, we aren’t talking about that view of yours, of course; we’re talking about your other view.

  184. 184
    Michael D. says:

    Anyone have anything intelligent to say on this subject? I haven’t seen anything in the last, oh, 20 comments or so.

  185. 185
    PaulB says:

    If you want to characterize my argument as "silly games" then that’s up to you.

    Dear heart, I was referring to your silly little games, not your "argument," such as it is. I wouldn’t classify your argument as a silly game; I’d classify it as stupid, wholly disconnected from reality, and off-topic for this thread.

  186. 186

    If you want a serious debate, we can do that, too.

    When did what I want get on the table here?

    Okay, what I want is to state my position, you state yours, and let the agreement/disagreement fall wherever it naturally falls on its own merits. Not on the basis of whether you and I each seem to think the other is a jerk.

    I have stated my position. Perhaps I missed it but I don’t know what yours is.

    My position is: Mister Government, Leave People Alone. Establish the legal framework, and let us figure out how to employ it. We don’t need government telling us with whom we can make a family, or what a "marriage" is. We can decide those things for ourselves.

  187. 187
    PaulB says:

    Anyone have anything intelligent to say on this subject? I haven’t seen anything in the last, oh, 20 comments or so.

    More like 30 comments. It was pretty much inevitable once our dear little chum showed up. For someone who is "done arguing about this subject," he sure does do a lot of arguing, doesn’t he? This is what I wrote the last time this came up. I’ve seen little reason to change my mind since I wrote this months ago.

    In all seriousness, the evidence that the push for marriage enhanced the quest for gay civil rights is just as strong, if not stronger, as the evidence that it hampered it.

    Just a few short years ago, Vermont became the first state in the country to pass civil unions. The reaction at the time was “doom and gloom” all the way, with promises of reprisals, impeachment, and the zealots vowing never to stop until the bill was overturned. So what actually happened? A few legislators lost their bid for reelection … and that was it. Dean was reelected, no justices were impeached, and, seven years later, civil unions are a non-issue in Vermont. No one cares anymore.

    Moreover, there are now ten states that offer some recognition of same-sex relationships, including Massachusetts, where gay men and women can now marry. And the longer that state of affairs continues in Massachusetts, the less likely it is that it will be overturned and the more likely it is that other states will follow suit. As a spokesman for the Family Research Council stated: “The more states that do this, the less radical and more plausible the idea may appear in others.”

    That statement is precisely correct. Prior to this push for marriage, people were likely most aware of gay men and women from the coverage of annual Gay Pride events. Now, though, the coverage was about couples that had been together for years and just wanted recognition of that fact, not to mention stories about the heartbreaking events caused by lack of such recognition. In San Francisco, for example, usually notable for coverage of leather events in the Castro district, the coverage was about Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, a lesbian couple that had been together for 51 years.

    In my home state of Washington, the legislature just passed a domestic partnership law and recently passed a non-discrimination law, after years of trying. This is a setback? I pray that we continue to have such setbacks.

    In recent years, the opposition to gay marriage has dropped dramatically, after remaining stagnant for several decades. Look at the polls, year by year, since Vermont acted. Each year, the opposition had dropped and support has increased. Right now, most polls indicate that a majority of voters approve some recognition of same-sex relationships, something that would have been unthinkable just ten short years ago. This is a backlash? I hope it continues.

    The argument that there has been a setback largely rests on the fact that the majority of states passed legislation or amendments prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages. But same-sex marriages were already not recognized in those states, so how is this a setback? Over time, that legislation and those amendments will be overturned.

    Basically, people like TZ are saying that we should have remained in the back of the bus and kept quiet, on the assumption that if we behaved ourselves and didn’t make any noise that eventually the majority would have gotten around to recognizing our rights. Fuck that. It was lousy advice forty years ago; it’s lousy advice today.

  188. 188

    One thing I’m damn sure of about Prop 8, the two sides demostrated who took it real seriously and organized and threw money at it and NO on 8 has plenty to be sorry for. You treat every election fight as an uphill battle all the way through the ballot count. In some cases, like this, you are going to war – not having a goddam disagreement. In this type of thing you walk away the winner or you’ve been killed, it ain’t tiddley-winks. Being in the right is not an advantage, in fact it frequently is a drawback in an election.

    Sniping and defensive positions only win a very long war and an election isn’t one of those.

  189. 189
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    have anything intelligent to say on this subject? I haven’t seen anything in the last, oh, 20 comments or so.

    Haha. That’s rich coming from you, Michael.

  190. 190

    Cuss, cuss, cuss. That’s all the dumbo-crat argument comes down to – cussing

  191. 191
    PaulB says:

    And back on topic, if someone were advocating going after people solely because of their vote on the issue, I would agree that that was going a bit too far. But as far as I can tell, what people are actually doing is going after those who have donated money to the cause of denying someone their fundamental civil rights.

    It’s your right to be a bigot, just as it’s mine to publicize your bigotry, when it’s public knowledge, and to refuse to patronize your business because of your bigotry. If you don’t like that, don’t be a bigot.

    The notion that this is an inappropriate tactic and that you’re likely to alienate those who might otherwise be your allies is frankly, silly. If you’ve donated $1000 to the cause of bigotry, you’re not my ally and you almost certainly never will be. Why should I pretend otherwise?

  192. 192
    Michael D. says:

    Oh look! JSF made a funny!

  193. 193
    bago says:

    Rolling head? I don’t know. It sounds a bit… athletic.

  194. 194

    Which means that the government does, in fact, have to officially define and recognize certain relationships and types of relationships, just as I’ve been claiming.

    Yeah, I don’t get what you are saying. Suppose Cindy and MIndy are adults and want to form a family unit. The rights associated with a family unit are these, here, on this list that we agree on. They meet in front of some authority or another and sign the papers that say they are a family unit, now have the rights and responsibiities that pertain thereto, and go on their way.

    What does the government have to "officially define" here? If Cindy and Mindy meet the requirements of the thing, and behave accordingly after forming the family unit, why does the government have any more right to "officially define" their relationship than it should, say, to regulate their genders?

  195. 195
    Darkrose says:

    @Helena Handbag:

    Nowhere in the government documents I signed or the marriage vows I took did it mention anything about making babies (well, not in Cook County, anyway).

    Actually, in Sacramento they’re required to give you information about family planning when you get the license. Telesilla, the clerk, and I had a good laugh over that one. My wife’s butch enough to kill bugs and jumpstart the car, but she’s not that butch.

  196. 196
    Adrienne says:

    Which means that the government does, in fact, have to officially define and recognize certain relationships and types of relationships, just as I’ve been claiming.

    Well, defining certain relationships and types of relationships, and thus what rights and responsibilities come with such relationships, are wholly different actions than deciding WHO can choose to partake in or create such relationships (outside of the basic legal requirements of any other contract such as consent, etc).

    Marriage is basically a legally binding contract wherein both parties agree to form an entity and as such they are entitled to certain rights and have certain responsibilities (both interpersonally and under the law) toward one another. In this instance, the people against same sex marriage don’t want government just defining what rights and responsibilities come along with entering into the contract and forming the entity (the relationship), they want government to put arbitrary limits which are beyond the basic legal requirements for any other contract AND which are based largely on religion, a violation of the First Amendment, on who can enter into such a contract.

    Further, it is a violation of Equal Protection under the law. It is basically denying access to legal protection and recognition of what would be an otherwise legal contract btw two consenting adults who have a right to enter into any other contract with each other. They are denying Equal Protection by first denying equal access. As a black female who is very familiar with the Civil Rights movements this sounds eerily familiar to me.

  197. 197

    @Darkrose:

    My wife’s butch enough to kill bugs and jumpstart the car, but she’s not that butch.

    Actually I kind of lol over that one considering the hetero-honeys I’ve spent time with down at the drag strip who were wheeling 8 second monsters and could tear an engine down faster than I can. For the uninitiated, that’s 0-175 mph in 1320 feet (3+ medium density residential city blocks) or maybe my wife who loves shooting .45 Colt Auto and 30-06 Ruger MkIII and daily drove my 12 second ChevyII year around (0-105mph in full street trim). Roles are a funny thing.

  198. 198

    people like TZ are saying that we should have

    People like TZ are saying exactly what they are saying, neither more nor less. TZ is making a libertarian argument here and has never seen any rational reason why that argument should not prevail. Why government should first tell people that they can only form a family if they call it "marriage," and then can only have a "marriage" if they have government-approved genders, is beyond me.

    What’s even more beyond me is why the participants in the family proposal would agree to this state of affairs. I see no value added whatever, either to citizens, or to government.

  199. 199

    It is basically denying access to legal protection and recognition of what would be an otherwise legal contract btw two consenting adults who have a right to enter into any other contract with each other.

    That is pretty much my contention, except that you have stated it much better than I did.

    Calling that contract a "marriage" or for that matter a "bagel" seems to me to be just a conceit, with no actual value to the parties at all.

  200. 200
    Comrade Stuck says:

    Further, it is a violation of Equal Protection under the law. It is basically denying access to legal protection and recognition of what would be an otherwise legal contract btw two consenting adults who have a right to enter into any other contract with each other. They are denying Equal Protection by first denying equal access. As a black female who is very familiar with the Civil Rights movements this sounds eerily familiar to me.

    Superbly stated!

  201. 201

    @TheHatOnMyCat: I would like to stand up for the claim that the sexual pair-bond is different from all others. All humans, male or female, exhibit unique patterns of brain activity elicited by their sexual partners, and the resulting relationship is far closer than any other in some ways. In particular, it’s very different from the kinds of relationships which typically are centered around the workaday world.

    As a result, the special protections which are accorded to a pair-bonded couple have a solid phenomenological basis, even ignoring the presence of dependent children in such a relationship. We give those protections a one-word name: "marriage" when they involve a pair of people of different genders. As we currently know that same-gender and other-gender pair bonds behave similarly in regard to the phenomena, we should extend those protection to same-gender pair bonds.

  202. 202
    gex says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    What does the government have to "officially define" here? If Cindy and Mindy meet the requirements of the thing, and behave accordingly after forming the family unit, why does the government have any more right to "officially define" their relationship than it should, say, to regulate their genders?

    You seem to be saying that the requirements for the thing (set by someone presumably) are different than having a definition for that thing. This doesn’t make sense to me.

  203. 203
    Grendel72 says:

    If it doesn’t matter why should we accede to the demands of bigots?
    If it’s just semantics why is it that in every single motherfucking case the bigots decide on reflection, oh we’ll just go ahead and forbid civil unions while we’re at it?

    You don’t compromise with evil.

  204. 204
    CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII says:

    Maybe based on the fact that treating gays as second class citizens is just peachy keen with you? Actual liberals tend to be in favor of personal liberty and equal justice.

    Grendel, you have no proof that TZ treats anyone like a second class citizen. He is concerned about more pressing matters being addressed first, he isn’t saying he wants the rights of gays to be removed. He personally hates the idea of DOMA, but, go ahead and read what you want to believe into whatever he says. You are wrong about the assumptions your making.

  205. 205

    This doesn’t make sense to me.

    Well, it’s a contract, which is about the future.

    Why should the requirements for parties to the contract be limited to a particular mix of genders? How does that requirement serve either the parties, or the government?

  206. 206
    Laura W says:

    @demimondian: Did you just open up a big ol’ can of theoretical psych whoop ass on this thread?

  207. 207

    All humans, male or female, exhibit unique patterns of brain activity elicited by their sexual partners

    Under what authority does the government regulate the sexually stimualted brain activity of its citizens?

    Maybe Cindy and Mindy just want to form a family and have no sexual interest in each other at all. Why would you want the government to have an interest in something like that?

  208. 208
    Grendel72 says:

    Why should we compromise with people who have no reason for their beliefs, people who are flat out lying when they claim the argument is about semantics, considering those same people in-fucking-variably fight against any recognition of same sex couples. In Virginia, when they had to pass a special exemption to even allow for hospital visitation, guess who argued against it? The very same people who had been claiming, "Oh, we don’t want to hurt anyone we’re just concerned about the use of a stupid motherfucking word."

    You don’t compromise with them because they are not being honest about their reasons for opposing same sex marriage. You don’t compromise with them because they have no fucking reason other than sheer hatred for their stupid beliefs.

  209. 209
    CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII says:

    Why should the requirements for parties to the contract be limited to a particular mix of genders? How does that requirement serve either the parties, or the government?

    Only because Buy-Bull believers think that if marriage isn’t just between a man and a woman, the entire country is going to burn in hell.

    These are people who go to church on the first day of every week (not the sabbath), drink the blood of the bright and morning star, push their sick morality on everyone around them and then expect that if I have a same-sex partner I shouldn’t be involved in legal aspects of their life.

    Meddlesome self-righteous pricks.

  210. 210
    AnneLaurie says:

    And the longer that state of affairs continues in Massachusetts, the less likely it is that it will be overturned and the more likely it is that other states will follow suit. As a spokesman for the Family Research Council stated: “The more states that do this, the less radical and more plausible the idea may appear in others.”

    Especially when the local "man-in-the-streets" interviews all proceed along the lines of "Well, my pastor told us all sorts of horrible stuff would happen once Teh Gheys could get married, but the only change I’ve noticed is that my cousin’s catering business is up." It’s all about Control, and the steamy, unnatural desires of the Talivangelicals to *keep* that control — over their flocks, and over the rest of us too, just so the flock-ers don’t get any funny ideas via thought-contagion.

  211. 211
    Comrade Stuck says:

    Why should we compromise with people who have no reason for their beliefs, people who are flat out lying when they claim the argument is about semantics, considering those same people in-fucking-variably fight against any recognition of same sex couples.

    You don’t compromise with them. You fight smarter not harder. You are right that it isn’t just about a word for them. It’s primarily fear of a different lifestyle that involves the primal anxiety involving sex. For some, they use the bible as a shield and as a proxy for their fear. Others just don’t want to give in to what they see as liberal permissiveness, or to a liberal victory on the political and social battleground between competing ideologies.

    But in the end they cannot defeat the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. That’s why the relentless effort of right wingers to push for a Constitutional Amendment and putting wingnut judges on the bench, especially the Supreme Court. This is where the real fight is.

    And the danger of all out frontal assault to force complete acceptance of Gay "Marrriage" to a society not ready to accept it, is creating the possibility of a Constitutional Amendment getting passed. Then the cause is lost forever.

  212. 212

    @TheHatOnMyCat: It’s good to see you taking up the battle against straw with such…gusto. Now, go back to what I actually wrote, why don’t you, and speak to it, instead of to the voice of your personal sky-ghost.

  213. 213
    CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII says:

    It’s all about Control, and the steamy, unnatural desires of the Talivangelicals to keep that control—over their flocks, and over the rest of us too, just so the flock-ers don’t get any funny ideas via thought-contagion.

    Actually, those at the top of the Talibangelical structure are afraid of losing their source of income. It’s all about money for those at the top (oh, and fame, getting on television and becoming some big important blowhard which could drive MORE people to their church and make that collection plate even heavier).

  214. 214

    You don’t compromise with evil.

    I don’t see the need to demonize someone who has a semantic or cognitive disagreement with me.

    Unless you are going to argue that over half the voters in California are evil? Or under some evil spell? Sorry, no sale.

    Israel, meet the Palestinians. I think you can easily gin up years of political warfare with loaded slogans. If that’s what you want. If you came to me and said, can I have these rights, I’d say, sure. No problem. Glad you got ’em.

    If you said, can we have the law call it a "marriage" I’d say, you can try, but I won’t join you in that fight. I don’t see the point in it. It doesn’t enhance your rights, or protect them better. But hey, if that’s what you want to fight about, go ahead. But leave me out. Good luck.

    On that basis, which is a very simple matter of choosing what I want to fight over, I will get the kind of hysterical and nasty-assed crap that I take from PaulB in here as if I were the devil himself sending all the queers to the fiery furnace of hell. That attitude does not exactly help your cause. But hey, reasonable people might disagree with that too.

    Unreasonable people can turn it into a war. Which is their choice, but I don’t see how the war serves their purpose.

  215. 215

    It’s good to see you taking up the battle against straw

    Maybe if your middle name wasn’t "Alfalfa" I’d have an easier time of it?

  216. 216
    CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat: It’s good to see you taking up the battle against straw with such…gusto. Now, go back to what I actually wrote, why don’t you, and speak to it, instead of to the voice of your personal sky-ghost.

    I find it very entertaining when someone who professes to believe in Jesus insults another someone who doesn’t have any actual religious beliefs by invoking someone #2’s "personal sky ghost".

    Classic projection, demi.

  217. 217

    invoking someone #2’s "personal sky ghost".

    Here I come to save the day!
    Mighty Mouse is on his way!

    Nobody can take that away from me.

    Nobody.

    (deep apologies to Andy Kaufman).

  218. 218

    @TheHatOnMyCat: Perhaps, although it would help more if your stand had any rational basis.

  219. 219
    redbeardjim says:

    @TheHatOnMyCat:

    Maybe Cindy and Mindy just want to form a family and have no sexual interest in each other at all. Why would you want the government to have an interest in something like that?

    Cindy gets sick and has to be hospitalized. Mindy wants to visit Cindy in the hospital. The hospital says "Family only". Mindy says "But we are a family, we signed a contract saying so, see?" The hospital says "We aren’t a party to your contract. Go away."

    If, on the other hand, Mindy and Cindy’s "family contract" has been recognized as a "family contract" by the government, with a specific list of rights and responsibilities appurtaining to said "family contract", including, for example, hospital visitation rights, then Mindy can say "We are a family, see?" and the hospital has to say "Visit away, then."

  220. 220
    CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII says:

    Perhaps, although it would help more if your stand had any rational basis.

    And your explanation of brain-wave patterns between people of whichever gender having feelings of love for one another correlate to legal ramifications of civil unions/marriage HOW exactly?

  221. 221

    If, on the other hand, Mindy and Cindy’s "family contract" has been recognized as a "family contract" by the government, with a specific list of rights and responsibilities appurtaining to said "family contract", including, for example, hospital visitation rights, then Mindy can say "We are a family, see?" and the hospital has to say "Visit away, then."

    Exactly what I am saying.

    That is the way it should be. Next of kin, the whole ball of wax.

  222. 222

    it would help more if your stand had any rational basis.

    Try reading it while juggling running chain saws. I think this will help you.

    (Just trying to help).

  223. 223
    CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII says:

    If, on the other hand, Mindy and Cindy’s "family contract" has been recognized as a "family contract" by the government, with a specific list of rights and responsibilities appurtaining to said "family contract", including, for example, hospital visitation rights, then Mindy can say "We are a family, see?" and the hospital has to say "Visit away, then."

    The idea of this family contract is fine, the question is what the hell do you call that contract? Are you calling it a marriage contract, a civil union contract? If this sort of thing can be gotten in a civil union contract then why does one NEED to fight for "marriage" exactly?

    Personally, if I had a same-sex partner and wanted the benefits of our relationship being accepted legally, I’d take the civil union benefits if they are acceptable and not fight for the right to call it a marriage, but that’s just me.

  224. 224

    @TheHatOnMyCat: Rational basis, that isn’t.

  225. 225

    Rational basis, that isn’t.

    Amused, I am.

    Hey, don’t you owe me money?

  226. 226
    CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII says:

    Nobody can take that away from me.

    What rituals are involved in Mighty Mouse worship? I want to be ready. ;)

    I mean, should I wear yellow on every fifth Tuesday or something?

  227. 227
    Josh Hueco says:

    Worst. Thread. Ever.

  228. 228
    Church Lady says:

    What amazes me so much with this thread is that, with the exception of Billy Bob, or whatever his name is, no one here is actually against gay marriage. The only disagreement seems to be a matter of semantics (marriage vs. civil unions) or the best way to carry forward the arguement. Or, it could be, that everyone here just likes to take a contrary position in order to incite passions. :)

  229. 229
    CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII says:

    What amazes me so much with this thread is that, with the exception of Billy Bob, or whatever his name is, no one here is actually against gay marriage.

    Why should we be? How exactly does a gay relationship of one couple threaten a heterosexual relationship of another? It’s ridiculous to state it does.

  230. 230
    iluvsummr says:

    Wouldn’t pay too much attention to Billy Bob Neck, since it seems like he’s a Tufts University student trolling for material for his show (click on his name and you’ll eventually get to this lineup for a radio show on Tufts’ station):

    Billy Bob Neck’s Hour of Bein’ Good
    Days: Monday 10:00 am-12:00 pm
    Description: Christo-Facist Satire
    DJ’s OnAir Name: Billy Bob Neck

    As someone whose maternal great-aunt was married to a woman and whose paternal grandmother was one of four wives, I’m totally fascinated by what different societies consider traditional marriage (especially polyandry), and totally amused when I hear the yes on 8 folks blather on as if there has only ever been one definition worldwide since the dawn of time.

    I do believe that a rational practitioner of one religion (and there are some) can see that insisting that others’ civil rights be defined according to the rules of his/her religion could one day open the door to his/her civil rights being determined by the rules of a different religion that gains dominance in society. It really comes back to separation of church and state.

  231. 231
    Church Lady says:

    CIRCVS- you mistake my meaning. My amazement is at the vitriol being hurled back and forth between people that are basically all standing on the same side of the fence. IMHO, that’s just a waste of energy.

  232. 232

    I’ll go ahead and fan some fires, just because reality is always an issue.

    TheHatOnMyCat said:

    Unless you are going to argue that over half the voters in California are evil? Or under some evil spell?

    I think one has to confront that piece of the puzzle. It is a fact that very many people internalize exterior issues, they see it from a position of "me." Once you wander off into marriage you also wander into the issue of sex and many heterosexuals are going to have a bit of a problem with a personalized image of homosexual sex. This is the ground you start from, then you hang the panapoly of marriage images on that and problems are winging your way. If you don’t have problems keeping external issues in that frame you don’t understand the problem.

    I am perfectly aware that I do internalize and I make a conscious effort to ignore that and separate my internal from the external of other’s sexuality. I have a lot of LGBT friends and associates from political activities, I value them and I ‘religiously’ keep my sexuality out of the picture. It is not my business. I also recognize that I am not the defining characteristic of the general populace.

    The outcome of this kind of ballot measure is bad and it is wrong. This does not somehow make all the supporters evil, it makes them wrong – and to an extent for understandable reasons. I posted that bit about Allies and Enemies for a reason and if you want to win something like this you’d better get your head around the realities and not the rhetoric or the outrage.

    I don’t knee jerk for anybody, I think about it and take it apart and put it back together until I’m confident I have a good idea I know what I’m deciding, seems to work.

  233. 233

    @ Don: LOL. Do you fail to realize that the wedding planners that dare to acknowledge Sodomite marriages are forecasting their imminent doom? Do you realize that we of the pro-family movement will often demand that each wedding planner we contract provide a complete and governmentally legitimized list of who they contract?

    Understandably, many wedding planners are avoiding homosexuals for these reasons. OTOH, yours is also from Utah, where I’m sure that a verified list combined with word of mouth can really destroy your marriage organization.

    Then again, there are several wolves in sheep’s clothing that only support this legislation because they think it will spare them damnation; for example, ANY marriage planner in Las Vegas will be punished by Hellfire, since they are also sponsoring an anti-family, non-traditional vice: gambling.

  234. 234
    Grendel72 says:

    Those who voted in favor of discrimination may not be evil, they may be misguided or uneducated or simply unwilling to consider the effects of their actions.
    The people promoting the discriminatory laws, lying about gay people, knowingly lying about their own intentions… if they aren’t evil nothing is. Those are the people you would have us seek "compromise" with. They are fucking evil scum and nobody should ever even consider compromising my rights with lying bigots. It’s easy to compromise somebody else’s rights.

  235. 235
    CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII says:

    CIRCVS- you mistake my meaning. My amazement is at the vitriol being hurled back and forth between people that are basically all standing on the same side of the fence. IMHO, that’s just a waste of energy.

    Well, I stand corrected. But, apparently, even though we almost all seem to agree we don’t want to tear down the rights of gay people to have meaningful relationships with their preferred type of partner, we have varying degrees of how far we’ll go to see that happen. I, for one, am in the "it’s not necessary to call it marriage if they get the benefits they seek" camp.

  236. 236
    CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII says:

    Then again, there are several wolves in sheep’s clothing that only support this legislation because they think it will spare them damnation; for example, ANY marriage planner in Las Vegas will be punished by Hellfire, since they are also sponsoring an anti-family, non-traditional vice: gambling.

    Well, since I’m not afraid of Hellfire, and Vegas isn’t that far away, perhaps I should become a wedding planner. ;)

  237. 237
    Grendel72 says:

    Because of course the people who object to same sex marriage are so incredibly virtuous and honest that we should take them at their word even though their professed semantic argument is incredibly fucking stupid on it’s face, and they have a history of opposing gays time and time again that puts lie to their motives.

    If it’s "just a word" why should they be the ones to define it? We are supposed to bargain with people who never, ever bargain in good faith?

  238. 238

    @iluvsummr: Hm. Guess I didn’t click around on his site enough. Maybe his on-air delivery is better.

  239. 239
    Xenos says:

    @redbeardjim: I was ready to go with my whole canned screed about marriage being a primarily legal construct that is meaningless without state recognition, and then realized that I have had this same discussion with the same individual on several occasions. Don’t waste your breath. This guy (cat on hat, nutcutter, ppgaz, whatever) just does not get that his libertarian fantasies about personal relationships has nothing to do with the intersection of rights and legal recognition of personal relationships.

  240. 240
    gex says:

    @Church Lady: Yes. I think we can all agree to at a bare minimum treat gay people as second class citizens through civil unions.

    Fuck.You.

    I am done. I am done having RELIGIOUS views be thrust upon me because a lot of you are hostile towards, or merely luke warm for, gay marriage.

    They are passing Constitutional amendments to stop gay marriage laws. That is a GIANT FUCKING SIGNAL that what they want to do is, at heart, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The best reason you can give me for supporting civil unions is because other people are uncomfortable with gay marriage. But these people have no legitimate reason to refuse gay marriage. If all you dithering folks just realized that separate but equal has always, and will always fail on the equal part came to the marriage support side, we could do this democratically and not through the courts.

    I’m sorry. I know that you feel that, in your way, you are being supportive. But it is what it is. And I am just tired of it.

    What you see in this thread as those against us are not persuadable. Their visceral reaction to the though of gay people or their God tell them it is just wrong. They will not be convinced. So quit compromising with them via civil unions. THEY DO NOT SUPPORT CIVIL UNIONS EITHER. You are negotiating a price for your flexibility and are receiving $0.00. Look at Michigan. Their amendment barred civil unions.

    I know this is angry, and not persuasive. My thesis is however, that the antis are not persuadable. So the moderates that are holding us back in the name of compromise are actually the only ones holding us back.

  241. 241
    gex says:

    @CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII: Civil unions DO NOT GET THE SAME BENEFITS AS MARRIAGE. There are some really good posts on this thread that highlight this fact.

    Yours is a fine argument for a completely different universe. But in this one, civil unions != marriage. See DOMAs, state constitutional amendments that specifically disallow such equivalent treatment.

    You refuse to see the lie of the other sides team. They say they support equal rights, but they write the laws in ways that indicate they do not. Read up on the Michigan amendment. During the campaign the proponents claimed they did not want to eliminate domestic partnerships or domestic partner benefits. The second it passed, they sued one of the universities for providing partner benefits, which were now constitutionally banned.

    They lie. If you support our equal rights, stop being indifferent on what it is called and just support equal marriage. Separate but equal is never really intended to be equal. Marriage became a legal term the second it was enshrined in law. Perhaps the religious shouldn’t have been so careless with such a sacred word if they didn’t want it to become a civil term as well. They do not have to celebrate our marriages. They do not need to accept gays. The just need to allow us to live our lives as best we can as full citizens of the US.

  242. 242
    PaulB says:

    On that basis, which is a very simple matter of choosing what I want to fight over, I will get the kind of hysterical and nasty-assed crap that I take from PaulB

    You really don’t remember what you’ve said, do you? If all you had written was your rather self-evidently stupid libertarian argument, wholly disconnected from the real world, you’d simply get the laughter and obscurity you so richly deserve. You decided you needed to go further, though:

    This is what happens when, among other things, people cannot fathom political realities and cannot learn how to pick their fights.

    DOMA is a fight over words, not rights, despite some of the crap you read here

    And from other threads:

    I have long been convinced that the biggest obstacle to progress in gay rights … is not straight people opposing them, it’s gays screwing up their own political fortunes.

    I don’t know if it has ever ocurred to any of you that “We’re Here, We’re Queer” and “gay marriage”, when civil unions are really what are needed, are just … fucking stupid.

    Failing to see that, even when it was obviously derailing their progress, and still to this day failing to get it, is just stupidity as far as I am concerned.

    What’s telling to me is what happens when you say this in public. In my experience, what happens is the LGBT folks can’t wait to tell me to fuck off, they don’t want my advice or help, they are perfectly capable of fighting their own battles. [Free clue: There is a reason they are telling you this. You should listen to them.]

    Go fuck myself? Sure, been there and done that, compadres. Now, good luck with your equal rights. Don’t call me when you need support.

    You, and the LGBT world apprenly, are making the same foolish mistake. You are not content to have the equal rights….

    And this one was priceless:

    Had LGs adopted this sensible approach years ago they’d probably already have all the rights they should have….

    But, no, and here we are. Fuck it. I don’t care any more. I’m straight, I’m a Democrat, and I just don’t give a shit about this issue any more. The people most affected by it don’t want to tackle the real problem, they just want Government Jesus to make them all happy. Okay, good luck with that, I don’t care.

    In summation, the "hysterical and nasty-assed crap" began with you. What’s interesting is your obvious obsession with this topic, despite your repeatedly avowed lack of interest and your repeated assertions that you are "done with it."

    My first responses on this issue still stand:

    As for TZ’s approach, to try to redefine the civil institution of marriage such that it is no longer called “marriage,” since there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening any time in the next 100 years or so, forgive me if I find the argument pointless, not to mention more than a little silly in its denial of reality.

    There is only one problem with [TZ’s] argument: it will never happen. Those who are fighting same-sex marriage will fight just as hard any attempt to redefine the civil institution of marriage, even if all you’re doing is changing the word. This will not end until those dinosaurs die out, at which point it will no longer matter because same-sex marriage will already be accepted everywhere.

  243. 243
    PaulB says:

    Also from an earlier thread on this:

    I was mulling this over last night, a bit curious as to why I was reacting so strongly to TZ’s posts. The conclusion I reached was that not only did I believe his viewpoint to be borderline delusional but that his statements on this thread are insulting and offensive to the members of the gay community who have fought so long and so hard on this issue.

    Case in point:

    Had LGs adopted this sensible approach years ago they’d probably already have all the rights they should have

    Think about that statement. If the gay community had just adopted TZ’s approach of completely redefining the civil institution, they would “already have all the rights they should have.” This is the “delusional” part I mentioned above. More on that below.

    But that isn’t the worst of it, since TZ goes on to say:

    My hunch is that gays dont care about real reform, they just want to win a symbolic contest

    and:

    But, no, and here we are. Fuck it. I don’t care any more. I’m straight, I’m a Democrat, and I just don’t give a shit about this issue any more. The people most affected by it don’t want to tackle the real problem.

    Since the gay community doesn’t “care about real reform” and they “don’t want to tackle the real problem,” and they are more concerned with “symbolism” than they are with real civil rights, TZ is refusing to support them and he’s going to take his ball and go home. It’s their fault that they don’t yet have the full set of rights, privileges, and responsibilities associated with the civil institution of marriage, so fuck ‘em. I wonder if TZ really doesn’t understand just how ignorant and offensive that viewpoint is? It certainly irritated me.

  244. 244
    PaulB says:

    Regarding the “delusional” aspect I noted above, there are a few points worth considering. The first is the TZ’s assertion that all it takes to defeat the rightwing ideologues is to rename the civil institution to something else, that when we do so:

    they lose, their power is drained away and the truth is revealed

    That’s just delusional thinking, to pretend that those who currently oppose same-sex marriage are just going to stand by and let you redefine the civil institution state by state without a protest. Even if you could find a single state legislator, anywhere, willing to submit a bill doing this, it would be shot down in a heartbeat. And even if it weren’t, the very next step would be the submission of a DOMA equivalent referendum overturning the legislation.

    The arguments of the “Dobsonites” are completely bogus today and yet they’ve ridden those arguments to victory in quite a few states, unfortunately. Also unfortunately, there is absolutely no reason to believe that those bogus arguments would not equally apply and be equally powerful to TZ’s preferred solution.

    Hence, TZ’s proposed “solution” is nothing of the sort. It’s a non-starter anywhere in this country, which is why nobody is getting behind it and why the gay community has not adopted this approach. Even worse, the arguments that TZ has made about the current state of affairs apply equally to his own preferred solution:

    Patchwork of inconsistent laws? Check. You’d have to do this state by state, just as is being done with same-sex marriage.

    Overwhelming resistance to this change? Hell, yes! Even worse, you’d have to basically get two changes through in one go: redefining the civil institution and expanding it to include “non-traditional” relationships.

    Government definition of, and support for, various relationships? Check. It doesn’t matter whether you call it “foo” or “marriage.” The statute would still have to define precisely which relationships can and cannot be given “foo” status.

    A “decades-long pissing contest?” Check. There is just no way that you’re going to get every state legislature and the federal government to redefine the civil institution without it.

    Given all of this, none of which TZ has even tried to refute, why on earth should the gay community, or anyone else, for that matter, adopt TZ’s approach?

  245. 245
    PaulB says:

    CIRCVS- you mistake my meaning. My amazement is at the vitriol being hurled back and forth between people that are basically all standing on the same side of the fence. IMHO, that’s just a waste of energy.

    There’s some history on this. TZ, in particular, has been ranting on this topic for years. The hilarious part of that, by the way, is that *every time* he posts a rant in a new thread like this, he claims he’s tired of the subject and is done talking about it. And then he posts another 50 posts.

  246. 246
    charlotte says:

    Lots of dentists signed up for the hate fest, I noticed. Stupid people support stupid shit.

Comments are closed.