How Getting Married Made Me An Activist

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: NioSki @ 11/30/2008 5:53:45 PM

    Gays of color, transgender, and yes, even lesbians are missing from the larger discourse of the gay rights struggle???primarily the gay marriage issue. The gay right's movement was and remains the "gay, white, middle class" movement! The diversity within the gay community seems to be reconciled to Pride Parades-- and AIDS advertisement. HOWEVER, it never seems to extend to national or cultural images of Gay America???like Advocate and Out magazine???the central offenders in this area! Why you ask? Because the myth and mystique of San Francisco has extended to a larger culture that gay is white and it???s male. Forget the black Drag queens who started fights during Stonewall... Gay is San Fran and Harvey Milk! But the white male paradigm controls the discourse, media, politics and consequently the image of Gay America. Before the gay community can discuss civil rights it needs to look at the power positions and paradigms of privilege within its own community and ask why they exist!?

  • Posted By: 911SavesLives @ 11/29/2008 4:34:17 PM

    On October 10, when my girlfriend and I were visiting Winnipeg, Canada, we were at a wedding rehearsal dinner with 4 straight married couples and the couple who were to be married that weekend. The conversation came around to same-sex marriage.

    One guy asked this question that really opened my eyes: "What's with this 'justice and liberty for all' b.s. you Americans talk about?"

    Another guy added, "Yeah. You talk about the need for the separation of church and state, and at the same time you complain about the Taliban in Afghanistan shoving their Islamic beliefs down people's throats. Yet the Religious Right owns your government." (I couldn't disagree too much with that.)

    The day after the Presidential election, my longtime friend who got married wrote this in an email: "Congratulations to you guys for finally getting it right. But what's with the Prop. 8 deal? They give gay people the right to marry, then they take it away, then they give it back and then take it away again. When did "justice for all" become a football game? Come to Canada. We practice what we preach."

    Again, I could not argue with the perception (reality?) some non-Americans have of us.

  • Posted By: kadry15 @ 11/28/2008 10:06:55 PM

    It seems like gay people used to have more rights then women (before Prop 8). On Sept 3rd 08, Jay Leno sided with (joked) about gotopless.org saying something about it being time for women.

  • Posted By: rodetripper @ 11/26/2008 3:27:12 PM

    It's a total mystery to me - why do people care if gays get married? Of all the issues facing us now, why care about this one? And don't quote the Old Testament to me - we all know what Jesus would have done. Seriously, I just don't understand the furor. Is it because of the myth that gays are pedophiles?

  • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/22/2008 5:17:06 PM

    So Newsweak has a gay editor that is now the victim of something. Wow, imagine that!
    Suspicions confirmed.....

  • Posted By: unitethefight @ 11/20/2008 9:21:08 PM

    to Emilyam - Though I get your point, I think you should look up your history on marriage. Gay marriage has been around for thousands of years, dating before Christ. Read up on it. The Romans particularly had gay marriage, until guess what religion took over their culture by force? Literally. Christianity. Looks like a pattern to me. So I believe we also have years and years to back up our claim to have a right to marriage. Just because an EQUAL right (and not separate or a "special" right with a new institution set up just for us) has been denied us since our country was found, doesn't mean we haven't "put in the work" as you have said. We have the right to value marriage just as much as you. I also suggest your study your civil rights history.




    • Posted By: Jmon @ 11/21/2008 12:33:48 AM

      Yes. it's just like the Jim Crow era in the South. The blacks had to put up with separate drinking fountains, separate housing, separate busing, and separate education. And the gays have to deal with (gasp) civil unions!? A government recognized document that gurantees equal benefits just as regular marriage. Just because a majority of Californians decided that marriage is between a man and a woman, doesn't mean your are second class citizens. Consider that our contemporary media and culture (i.e the Television) seems to accept your lifestyle just fine.

      • Posted By: orangeandblue @ 11/21/2008 9:49:29 AM

        It's not a "lifestyle". "Lifestyle" indicates choice. A person is born gay, there is no choice.

        • Posted By: orangeandblue @ 11/21/2008 10:04:18 AM

          Jmon,

          Can you really not see the similarities between the AA struggle against discrimination and the gay struggle against discrimination? Gays have been beaten and murdered. They have been outcast by family members, have grown up being called ***, hearing that they are an abomination because of something they can not change. The real difference between these two communities is that one group can hide who they are and the other group can be instantly identified by the color of their skin. Think about it, in 1967 the ban against interracial marriage was finally struck down, should your community just have said, "we have come this far, but who really cares about our right to marry whoever we choose".

          • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 11:57:36 AM

            "Can you really not see the similarities between the AA struggle against discrimination and the gay struggle against discrimination?"

            Of course they can. It's an argument they can't answer, so they simply deny the obvious parallel.

            • Posted By: Jmon @ 11/22/2008 12:51:37 AM

              To answer the question, the simple fact is that Blacks were discriminated against for something that they could not control, their ethnicity. Whether or not gay people can control their sexuality is questionable. I happen to know two men who used to be homosexual and are now happily married to women. Secondly, you are delusional if you think having to accept civil unions is on par with being forced to sit in the back of a bus or drink from dilapitated drinking fountains. To compare this issue with the Civil Rights movement is an insult to MLK and Rosa Parks. Get over yourselves.

              • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/22/2008 1:50:13 PM

                "I happen to know two men who used to be homosexual and are now happily married to women."

                Ha ha ha! Just like Elton John used to be, right?

  • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 11:28:34 AM

    The people voted, they clearly made their choice on Prop 8, stick with the choice and move on. When something is voted in, I would suggest leaving it alone because that can leave room for whackos to come in and try to change the laws to do something evil. Once people vote, leave it alone.

    • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/20/2008 12:22:10 PM

      soo....if its voted in just leave it alone huh....i dont think the america you know and love would exist if we just left everything "alone" like you wish...your not leaving roe vs. wade alone...that was shown to be a constitutional decision made by our supreme courts. but you dont leave that alone...stop being a hypocrite.

      • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 12:27:32 PM

        Once again, its done, Leave it alone.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 12:38:35 PM

          No, it's not done. The CA supreme court has decided to hear the issue, on article VI grounds.

          • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 12:53:28 PM

            When i hear that people voted for something, I consider it done. I try not to change what people desire, no matter what the issue.

            • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 1:20:37 PM

              corection- I try not to change what people desire as long as it does not cross what God has told me to do or the cause he has told me to address.

              • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 1:31:44 PM

                So, God speaks directly to you?

                • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 1:38:17 PM

                  I am speaking directly to you, do you put your trust in the Supreme Court?

                  • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 5:37:12 PM

                    More than I trust religious people who "just want what's best" for everyone.

                    • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 11:19:01 AM

                      Religious people like who? So many religions, all of them are against you?

                      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/22/2008 11:13:13 AM

                        Nope. Just the mouth-breathers that spend all their time panicking about gays.

                  • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/20/2008 3:38:12 PM

                    i do, they uphold the constitution, they have made alot of great decisions in regards to human and civil rights.. so yes i trust them, to a point. i trust them more than a bunch of bible thumpers preaching from soap boxes attempting to bring everyone under the will of they're god through means of fear mongering...

                    you must forgive me if some of my comments are aggrevated, i have very, VERY few genuinley good experiences with people of faith. why? because (in my opinion) very, VERY few actually are true christians and actually act like christ and take the ENTIRE bible literally and align it with the lives they lead...what a novel idea that would be... so i dont mean to offend even though i most likely already have...

                    i like christ, he was a good man, i dont like most christians, they are so unlike christ.

                    and for the records, im straight...

                    • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 11:24:05 AM

                      Comment: it amazes me how humans treat eachother...with so much hate, agression, pent up anger and disrespect...

                      Look at who is being mean, disrespectful, angry.

            • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/20/2008 1:06:57 PM

              than your no better than a robot...eating and crapping the same garbage thats fed to you, and the worst part, your OK with it... this country is built on change, hardship and freedom. and we the people are free to change that vote. so its going to change through hardship, it wont be left alone, i and millions of americans can promise you that...

              • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 1:12:16 PM

                You do not have to promise me anything, because God is in contriol and he will have the final say in all things. I will fight for what God has told me to fight for, but I do not try to change a majority in most cases, if it does not concern children.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 12:59:52 PM

              Then you think more like a "pure democracy" advocate, rather than an advocate for a republic.

              Try reading up on what the citizens of ancient Athens did to each other with the vote, given that they were unbound by a constitution. It gets pretty grim.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 12:37:51 PM

      " The people voted, they clearly made their choice on Prop 8, stick with the choice and move on."

      No.

      "When something is voted in, I would suggest leaving it alone because that can leave room for whackos to come in and try to change the laws to do something evil."

      They just did.

    • Posted By: kshortSD @ 11/20/2008 11:59:45 AM

      Do you think "the people" got to vote on whether to give voting rights to African Americans? Or whether to let interracial couples marry? No, of course not. And they shouldn't get to vote on the equal rights issues of a minority group that has been ridiculed and discriminated against in the past. That is why the court in Connecticut decided that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. Each state should follow, within time.

  • Posted By: mcopley @ 11/20/2008 2:20:15 PM

    I scratch my head and try to figure out why anyone would care if I marry a male or a female. How does this affect their lives.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 5:34:11 PM

      Some people are just obsessed with other peoples' business.

      • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 10:32:22 AM

        Look who is asking all of the questions, seems like you are in people's business too. Pot call the kettle black.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 10:35:57 AM

          Equal protection under law is everyone's business. Once one person has their rights stripped by fiat, then everyone else's rights revert to mere privilege.

          • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 11:43:18 AM

            Just saying what you said above, so its okay to be in other's people's business if it concerns you, correct?

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 12:02:49 PM

              "Just saying what you said above, so its okay to be in other's people's business if it concerns you, correct?"

              If it impacts my rights, yes. If it just hurts my feelings, no.

              • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 12:36:09 PM

                You are used to being in charge on the blog, so anybody that comes up agaisnt you; they are a jerk and a troll. Okay, you made my day!

                • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/22/2008 11:11:44 AM

                  In charge? I am not a moderator, Ma'am.

  • Posted By: Fabreeze @ 11/20/2008 6:09:18 PM

    Stop running these crap articles/essays. Yeah, everyone know you have a homosexual agenda. Lifestyle choices of your editors are not newsworthy no matter how hard you try putting them into cultural context.

    • Posted By: unitethefight @ 11/20/2008 9:29:00 PM

      Agenda, You make that sound so ominous. If by "agenda" you mean protect my relationship, my kids and my rights as a tax-paying citizen of this country, then yes, it is an agenda. And I will fight for that agenda which is my right to do so.

      • Posted By: Fabreeze @ 11/21/2008 8:51:56 AM

        Would you want to open Newsweek and read about an editor's faith conversion? Maybe a nice, life altering, indulgent glimpse into the life of a Newsweek editor who converted to Mormonism complete with gushing details of how great it is to follow Joseph Smith and oppose Prop 8. Do you think running that kind of crap would be agenda free? No it wouldn't and neither is this essay.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 11/21/2008 10:17:24 AM

          No one is truly agenda free. This is a news magazine that includes op-ed pieces like pretty much every other media source. They published things about Obama, McCain, the financial crisis, etc. News almost always contains and underlying agenda.

          • Posted By: Fabreeze @ 11/21/2008 7:15:21 PM

            Absolutely. You cannot communicate through mags or even blogs and be agenda-free. Everyone has an agenda, bias, whatever you want to call it. Just read all these posts. But having an editor of a news magazine write about his homosexual marriage --even as an essay -- is insanity. It blurs the imaginary line of reporters, editors and a magazine being unbiased. If Newsweek is going to let their editors write about their lifestyle choices they should let their religious editors profess their faiths unashamedly...but who would want to read that? Keep your bedroom deeds and religion out [they already do that to Christians] of the newsroom.

            • Posted By: unitethefight @ 11/21/2008 9:40:02 PM

              Actually, I'm always eager to hear someone's point of view who is different from me. I would have no issue reading about his conversion to Mormonism. The more we learn about each other, the better. We can disagree, but doesn't mean we should be intolerant. There's a difference, and I love that difference.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 9:25:23 AM

          So, what legal constraints do you feel should be put on editorials?

          • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 10:30:46 AM

            In people's business, too.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 12:08:45 PM

              Gee, Trell. You keep responding to posts. Is this an "acceptance" thing?

              • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 12:22:19 PM

                Nope, no sireee! I can assure you I have already been accepted into the beloved.

                • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 12:29:22 PM

                  Which cult is that?

                  • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 12:43:06 PM

                    Is not yours.

                    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 12:53:06 PM

                      Well, obviously. If it was MY cult, you would have said "I can assure you I have already been accepted into the asshats."

                      Now that we've established that, which cult WERE you referring to?

                      • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 1:16:18 PM

                        OOOh! That sounds naasty!! By the way I am not in a cult, go figure.

                        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 2:57:41 PM

                          "Accepted by the beloved". Sounds like a cult to me.

  • Posted By: ok4u @ 11/21/2008 8:01:16 PM

    If only 'same-sex marriage' weren't an oxymoron, it might be more readily acceptable. It would be more accurately called same-gender marriage. But that's an oxymoron, too. Trying to make something so that is not so is kind of like insisting that your dog is a cat. You can call it a cat all you want, but a dog is always a dog, and will never be a cat. The dog, and the cat, are already defined, and have been for thousands of years. If a judge redefines a dog and calls it a cat, the people who still know it's a dog certainly have the right to democratically overrule the confused judge, and take back the original definition.

  • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 10:41:14 AM

    nimodahooligan, First of all get a grip.. Secondly are you implying all parents put there children in front of TV and INternets? Really this is off topic, war?

    • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/21/2008 10:52:19 AM

      you get a grip...i was talking about all the other BS people could be worrying about instead of 2 people that want to be married and see the benefts of that marraige be a reality.... i was talking about how people are so concerned with THIS topic when there are bigger problems...its pretty relevent if YOU could get a grip...

      or did one of those comments offend you??

      and yes, a VAST majority of people put they're kids in front of a TV and give them free unlimited access to INTERNET and let them get exposed to all kinds of stuff thats worse than being exposed to homosexuality... if you had the ability of reading comprehension you might have connected the dots and realized that my post is right ON TOPIC.

      • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 10:56:27 AM

        or did one of those comments offend you??

        I think you are offended by me saying get a grip.

        • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 10:58:31 AM

          English Major

          • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/21/2008 11:40:52 AM

            good, now go write me a thesis paper about how i was off topic and how my comments didnt relate to the article at hand in correlation to your viewpoints in regards to religion, war, society, and homosexuality and how each point relate to eachother. 20,000 words, 12 point font, single space.

            • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 11:46:21 AM

              Four words--where is your thesis?

              • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 11:54:14 AM

                This OT or off topic: It is not a research paper it is a comment, because if you did your research you would find out that most parents do not sit there kids in front of the TV, many of them work. They are taken care of by relatives, childcare centers, and family day care. These places have structured activities, they may include some TV, but it is limited. Then please research the Waldorf doctrine or philosophy, they believe in no TV for children.

                • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/21/2008 1:41:19 PM

                  ummm...yea, i understand that...i went to daycare growing up and guess what, we watched alot of TV.

                  what about when mommy and daddy get home from work?

                  i do think that your the one that needs to get a grip...

                  well research american life...TV's and computers and video-games are babysitters. i see it all the time.

                  "oh hunny just go watch TV"

                  "if i put a movie on will you leave mommy alone for awhile? im really busy..."

                  "here, heres a video game, i dont know what its all about but you like it so play away to your cute little hearts desire and i have to go run errands for awhile"

                  "hmm, family guy, its a cartoon right? how bad can it be?"

                  "2 girls one cup? sounds like a game, yea thats fine go ahead and watch that"

                  "here ya go honey, i just hooked up the satellite TV in your room, dont stay up too late now! kisses!"

                  "grand theft auto? how bad can it be, i mean its just a video game...here ya go tommy!! remember tomorrow is finger painting at school!"

                  thats american life for many childeren.

                  SOOOO....be exposed to to gay men that care for eachother? or sex, drugs, violence, and overstimluation all in hi-def quality viewing with surround sound?

                  let them get married, they pay taxes, they are citizens of america. PERIOD.

                  there are literally a million other things i would keep my kids from being exposed to over men and women kissing and loving eachother in public, much less ACTUALLY honoring they're vows and commitments to eachother unlike, ohhh say, over 50% of heterosexual couples in the whole nation...

                  • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 1:55:13 PM

                    much less ACTUALLY honoring they're vows and commitments to eachother unlike, ohhh say, over 50% of heterosexual couples in the whole nation.


                    Okay Statistics Bureau, and there are a lot of happily married heterosexual couples, I might add. Where do you get you statistics about children and marriages? Stick with statistics that are up to date.

                    • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/21/2008 2:33:34 PM

                      uh....ok? up to date huh...how bout this... i alone have witnessed 6 divorces.

                      1: when my mom and dad split
                      2: when my dad and his second wife split which left me with a couple of siblings ive never met
                      3: when my mom divorced her second husband
                      4: when my dad split with yet another wife
                      5:my grandparents split after 40 years of marriage
                      6: my father is currently divorcing another wife...

                      im just one person.

                      i dont think i have more than a handful of friends or even aquantinces that dont have a broken home. AND, they are all heterosexual couples.

                      maybe my statistics arent spot on but there is still a very high number of HETEROSEXUAL divorces going on. the rates HAVE dropped steadily since the 70's but more and more people are comfortable with living together before marriage, or couples just dont get married at all and live together. again, getting back to the topic at hand, in relation to homosexuals getting married i would honestly say from the homosexuals i know, many of them are genuinley in love and i would even go so far to say they have a better understanding of their "spouses" than a hetero couple would. they seem much happier than many married couples i know...

                      • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/21/2008 5:18:54 PM

                        Let me add to that.

                        My mother has been married 5 times (so far). Three of those times were before she turned 30.
                        Her mother was married 7 times.
                        And my grandmother's mother was married 8 times.

                        How is it that heterosexuals sanctify marriage more than homosexuals could? How about facts instead of religious regurgitation, k?

                    • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 2:11:46 PM

                      Just because TV was normal to some, it does not mean it was normal childrearing for others. Sometimes we did not have a TV, if the other one blew out, so I guess you are not used to hearing "Go read a book' or "go play outside". That's how you do it.

                      • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/21/2008 2:36:09 PM

                        hahaha ok, i had more books in my house than the elementary school i attended. i read daily from books (currently re-reading heart of darkness) to news, to newspaper, i dont own a tv or a gaming system. happy? and im 22. go find me some 22 year olds that can say that.

                    • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 2:07:53 PM

                      Where is you clear cut thesis, no rambling.

                • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/21/2008 1:42:36 PM

                  wow...english major and a child developemental expert AND a day care expert...your an american hero.

                  clapclapclapclap....

                  • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 1:48:00 PM

                    No clap, clap to you, you are getting it right.

                    • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/21/2008 1:54:58 PM

                      im more of a back patter myself...


                      ::PAT PAT::

                      a job well done Nimo...now go find yourself...

                      • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 1:58:43 PM

                        How humans treat each other, angry disrespectful, that is what you said, find yourself.

                        • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/21/2008 2:54:44 PM

                          and im not being disrespectful to you. we are discussing on a free discussion board in the land of america, land of the free, land of free to say what i want on the internet just as much on the street. and im not speaking to you any differently than i would a stranger...wait a minute...YOU ARE A STRANGER!

                          if you for one minute think that how im speaking is disrespectful you must not get out much...

                        • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/21/2008 2:39:27 PM

                          i was trying to be funny with a crack about "finding nemo" but that flew over your head. i was speaking in the first person... comprehension is kind of a big deal if your an english major i might add...

        • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/21/2008 11:46:33 AM

          yes i was offended by that. i have a grip. im seeing the world and connecting our complex network of societal problems and issues to the topic at hand as i see it.

          • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 12:20:07 PM

            I lke you, you are real, even though I missed your unclear thesis. You alright.

            • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 12:27:59 PM

              I like you, I left the I out of like, don't let my professor know.

              • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/21/2008 1:47:49 PM

                hahaha im emailing him as we speak...

      • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/21/2008 10:56:35 AM

        its a writing tactic called that goes

        -thesis
        -body
        -conclusion

        or did you miss english class?

        • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 11:39:16 AM

          Okay, trying to be funny, you are loosening up a little.

  • Posted By: joe 6pack @ 11/21/2008 4:23:54 PM

    This story is about the sexually depraved and the effort to force acceptance of said depravity. (homosexulity)

    The Democrat party enables this depravity.

    So,

    VOTING FOR A DEMOCRAT IS GAY

    DON'T BE G A Y.

  • Posted By: knorton @ 11/21/2008 4:20:15 PM

    Even as a heterosexual living on the other side of the country, I was shocked at the passage of Prop 8. I think all of these religious conservatives are forgetting that God tells us "Thou shalt not judge". I can't imagine how anyone can be threatened by others choosing to publicly profess their love & devotion to one another. I am Catholic, happily married, and do not feel as though the sanctity of my marriage has in any way been diminished by the legalization of same-sex marriage in my home state of Massachusetts.

  • Posted By: sean.douglas @ 11/21/2008 12:25:12 AM

    No, First Marriage is not just a binding contract between two people, it is God`s plan for us, a man and a woman. Unfortunately this society is on the downfall from God because of it`s great disobedience, tolerating sin, first we comfort homosexuals, next we will be comforting drug addicts and alcoholics, saying that`s ok, go ahead and smoke more crack and take another shot. We are seeing god`s judgment upon us, just look at hurricane kartina, it wouldn`t be too far off to speculate.

    • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/21/2008 3:07:55 PM

      Hurricane Katrina is no more catastrophic than other natural disasters going on around the world. Are the people in those foreign lands being punished to? For what?

      Also, there are many countries around the world that have expanded marriage to same-sex couples, including Great Britain and Canada. I have not heard of any disasters going on with them. Or is God just biding his time and going to destroy them in his own time? I am asking you because you seem to have bestowed yourself to be God's spokesman.

    • Posted By: GabeVA @ 11/21/2008 1:16:39 PM

      That is, without a doubt, the DUMBEST thing I've heard all day... and I teach elementary school. Hurricane Katrina? Really? Do still burn witches at the stake and try to convert little pagan babies?

  • Posted By: GabeVA @ 11/20/2008 12:32:12 PM

    I find it interesting that so many people posting anti-gay sentiments are speaking in such a dramatic doomsday fashion. They speak of sins and abominations, fights and perversions. I wonder if these people, who are speaking in such harsh, black and white terms live their lives 100% according to The Bible. Multiple posters have mentioned Leviticus et al. But what about the other passeges that condone murder, slavery, the selling off of daughters? How can you follow one passage so fervently, but ignore others? It's hypocritical.

    People are afraid of homosexuals in schools pushing their gay agenda. Well, as a gay man AND a teacher, I have but one agenda... to teach my kids. I teach what is in the Virginia State Curriculum and nothing else. I believe that I have no right to try and force children into believing what I believe. I trust their parents will teach them right and wrong, and so forth.

    But, when people call it a choice, I have to ask when THEY made the choice to be straight. When did you circle that on the calendar? Was a list made showing the pros and cons? Did you agonize over such a profound decision? Or did you just live your life and let it unfold as it was intended. Guess what? I did the same thing. I grew up in a large, devoutly Catholic home. Both my parents loved me, as well as my 9 brothers and sisters. We had the exact same upbringing. I'm the gay one. I never chose it. It chose me. When I was in the process of coming out to my family, my mom simply said that this was how God made me. And he made me gay for a reason.

    Regarding marriage though. I have to say that there is a distinct difference between the sacrament of matrimony and a civil marriage. Most gays I know, myself included, wouldn't want to get married in a church. This country was founded upon the tenet of Separation of Church and State. I don't want to get married in the eyes of God. I want to get married in the eyes of my govenment so I can someday provide for my husband and have a life together. I don't think that's wrong. The trouble with religious states is pretty clear... look at Iran. You are TOLD what to think. This country has evolved as a direct result of civil change. I pray that that trend will continue. Obviously, Prop 8 was a setback, but a temprary setback nonetheless. It'll happen.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 11/20/2008 1:46:16 PM

      Excellent comments, couldn't agree with you more. I can't understand why people keep bringing religion into it when all you want are equal rights. You don't want to bring down the entire Christian religion (although after seeing some of the religious zealots out there, it might not be a bad thing) but rather just want equal civil rights. I fully agree that it will happen someday. Society in general becomes more progressive with each generation. One day this will be a thing of the past and looked upon the same way we (most of us) look at segregation. I'm sorry that it hasn't come sooner.

      • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 1:59:33 PM

        This is not to be compared to segregation, signs were not put up stating that a same sex couple not drink out of the same water fountain as everyone else, or ride the bus like everyone else, or use a different bathroom like everyone else. Totally different and I really dislike these type of comments. Segregation was based on race, and not gender.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 11/20/2008 2:23:17 PM

          No, but they can be denied the right to be with their loved one in their last hours and if they name their partner as a beneficiary, the family can overturn it in the blink of an eye. They can't be on their partner's health plan, even though hetero common law couples can. So yes, they are being denied the same rights.

          • Posted By: emilyam @ 11/20/2008 4:45:35 PM

            You're wrong. Gays in domestic partnerships in CA already have all the rights you just mentioned here.

            All of them.

            • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/21/2008 2:53:51 PM

              Domestic Partnership does not have the same rights as Marriage. There is no reason why law abiding tax paying citizens of any sexual orientation should be denied the opportunity to marry their mate.

            • Posted By: Mollis0 @ 11/20/2008 5:09:59 PM

              No, actually they do not. If they happen to be in a different state and something happens to one of them, their partner can do nothing. They cannot see them in the hospital, and they cannot make decisions for them. That is just one example of the rights they do not have.

    • Posted By: emilyam @ 11/20/2008 2:01:23 PM

      As a supporter of Prop 8, I am pleased to see a viewpoint from the opposing side presented so eloquently, without name-calling, attacking, or overgeneralizing, so thank you for that. While I don't agree with all of your viewpoints, it seems you might be someone who can give me a clearer understanding regarding your position on the following question. To me it's the central issue here, but I have yet to find a thoughtful response on the matter.

      Since a law enacted in 2007 gave gays with domestic partnerships or civil unions in the state of CA all the same rights and responsibilities of married couples, why is it that they want to call their unions marriages? Why the insistence on using the same term to define two institutions that are different in practice? Why not call it something different? What is it about the word marriage that makes it so nothing else will do, again keeping in mind that all rights and responsibilities are already equal in this state. Can you enlighten me on this?

      As a supporter of prop 8, I do not fit many of the generalizations that are thrown around by those who opposed it about everything else I must be and everything else I must therefore believe. I simply don't have a problem calling two different types of relationships by two different names, and haven't heard anything (yet) to change my mind about this.

      I'd appreciate your insight. Thanks.


      • Posted By: GabeVA @ 11/21/2008 1:07:29 PM

        "Why the insistence on using the same term to define two institutions that are different in practice? Why not call it something different?"

        In all honesty, emilyam, I don't believe them to be different. To ask a very simple question, why do two people want to get married? In my opinion, I think that people want to get married to show their love and devotion to one another, to build a life together, and to start a family. Well, at the end of the day, I think we have a common goal. My parents have been married for 41 years. I grew up watching them. Learning how to be in a relationship of that scope and intensity. I saw from a very early age just how devoted two people can be to one another. That, to me, is marriage. That is what I want. And that is why I'm not going to settle for anything less. I want a husband, not a domestic partner.

        I know that we're most likely not going to see eye to eye about this, but it's my opinion that no one (church or governement) should be able to limit the rights of individuals. Regardless of whether or not you agree with, or approve of, my life, I am still entitled to the SAME rights of priveleges afforded to you by the Constitution. I don't know if I she any light on that or not, but thanks for asking regardless.

        • Posted By: emilyam @ 11/21/2008 2:45:40 PM

          I do appreciate the thoughtful response. Thanks for presenting a human side of this issue. I think your cause will advance more quickly and become more acceptable as people like you do the talking.

          Best wishes.


      • Posted By: kshortSD @ 11/20/2008 4:45:36 PM

        Maybe you can understand that even though YOU don't have a problem with two different terms for "marriage (one for straight and one for gay), I'm sure you can understand how demeaning it must feel to gay couples that they are "allowed" the same rights but can't use the term "marriage". It is discrimination, plain and simple.

        • Posted By: emilyam @ 11/20/2008 4:58:53 PM

          This still doesn't answer why they want to use the same term, though. It goes against logic.

          In truth, no, I don't understand why that feels demeaning. I can see feeling demeaned over not having equal rights, but asking to extend the definition of marriage to include institutions that up until now have not been defined as such is a linguistic matter - why take offense over it? It's not like heterosexuals are saying that gays can't use the word love, or commitment, or devotion, or any other number of terms that both kinds of unions obviously share in abundance. But the word that defines WHAT IT IS, that should be left alone, for no other reason than that domestic partnerships and marriage are not the same thing.

          Apples shouldn't be called oranges. Cows shouldn't be called horses. Daisies shouldn't be called tulips. They aren't the same.

          Domestic partnerships shouldn't be called marriages. They are constitutionally different.


          • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 5:35:14 PM

            "Domestic partnerships shouldn't be called marriages. They are constitutionally different."

            Then they aren't equal.

            • Posted By: emilyam @ 11/20/2008 8:02:15 PM

              Are apples and oranges equal? It's an irrelevant question, because they are different things.

              As was stated in the court opinion by KshortSD (even though a different point was being made), marriage is an "institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance." Give domestic partnerships enough time, and they can build their own rich meaning, but quit trying to shortcut the process by stealing all that marriage has come to stand for just because it makes you feel good. Marriage has earned the significance the title represents.

              The substantive question (for the duration of time it takes for "domestic partnerships" to be regarded with the same reverence as marriage) is whether they (marriages and domestic partnerships) receive equal rights. And they do. So the proper context is in place for that process to happen, and though it could take longer than your lifetime, I think ultimately it would be a greater legacy for those gays who follow. Because while you may ultimately succeed in hijacking the term of marriage, it will not immediately garner the same respect, significance, and intangibles that you seem to think you'll suddenly gain if you just wrest the title away and apply it to yourself. And based on the results of the prop 8 vote, you won't get those intangibles from the majority of other Americans either. So put in the work to make a meaningful title for yourself. And then a hundred years down the road, when old men want to take child brides and call it a "domestic partnership" or "eternal envowment" or whatever term you decide to use, see if others like you don't rise up to defend the institution you've come to value.

              • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 10:39:25 AM

                "Are apples and oranges equal?"

                Are homosexuals not people?

          • Posted By: kshortSD @ 11/20/2008 5:52:13 PM

            From the Connecticut Supreme Court - Accordingly, we reject the trial court???s conclusion
            that marriage and civil unions are ??????separate?????? but ??????equal??????
            legal entities; Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public
            Health, supra, 49 Conn. Sup. 664; and that it therefore
            ??????would be the elevation of form over substance??????; id.,
            667; to conclude that the constitutional rights of same
            sex couples are implicated by a statutory scheme that
            restricts them to civil unions. Although marriage and
            civil unions do embody the same legal rights under
            our law, they are by no means ??????equal.?????? As we have
            explained, the former is an institution of transcendent
            historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the
            latter most surely is not. Even though the classifications
            created under our statutory scheme result in a type of
            differential treatment that generally may be characterized
            as symbolic or intangible, this court correctly has
            stated that such treatment nevertheless ??????is every bit as
            restrictive as naked exclusions??????; Evening Sentinel v.
            National Organization for Women, 168 Conn. 26, 35,
            357 A.2d 498 (1975); because it is no less real than more
            tangible forms of discrimination, at least when, as in
            the present case, the statute singles out a group that
            historically has been the object of scorn, intolerance,
            ridicule or worse.

          • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 11/20/2008 5:46:15 PM

            I am an out lesbian who was born in California and has lived in California my entire life. My wife and I are legal domestic partners, only because that is the best this state will offer us. We would gladly trade our domestic partnership certificate for a marriage certificate. Why? Because they are not EXACTLY the same. We have much of the same entitlements, but not all of the same. Our domestic partnership is only valid in California. Domestic partnership does not carry the same social recognition, therefore it is less than equal. Why should any law abiding, tax paying citizen have to accept less than equality? They should not. Also, domestic partnership is not exclusively for homosexuals. It is a way to legalize a relationship between consenting adults. Retired couples may opt for this because it does not jeopardize retirement benefits or social security benefits. But the fact is heterosexuals have the choice. Homosexuals do not.

    • Posted By: nyborn @ 11/21/2008 6:46:44 AM

      I just have one question, can you read back in history and show me one society that accepted the gay lifestyle and ended up surviving?

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 10:38:43 AM

        Canada, recently. Doesn't look like they're going anywhere.

        Rome survived for 750 years with homosexuals among them. Ancient greece for 500-1000 years, depending on how you define the Greek culture.

    • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 12:40:08 PM

      The teacher statement is to be applauded. That's all I was trying to say when it comes to children. Let the parents teach their children outside of academcs. You are a real teacher, I can see that.

      • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 1:47:16 PM

        I applaud only the statement made about teaching the children the Virginia cirriculum and allowing the parents to do the rest.

        • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 11/20/2008 4:10:41 PM

          just had to make sure we all knew you werent tolerant of the rest of the post? thats very christian of you.

          got it.

  • Posted By: SYWanda @ 11/21/2008 12:42:02 PM

    Outside of age restrictions, I think this eventually has to be resolved beyond each state. I think its ridiculous that one state passes something, while another state does the opposite. Those that are able to get married should have the protection of the federal law behind them, not just a particular state law.
    Equal rights to be recognized under the law, excluding the churches and what they decide to do. I have no idea how you resolve it with the church, but I do know whats right under federal civil law, and that is that gays should have equal rights in partner recognition.

    • Posted By: orangeandblue @ 11/21/2008 2:47:31 PM

      It will happen on a Federal level at some point. With an Obama presidency probably sooner rather than later. The gay community hasn't brought cases to the Federal courts because they know right now the Supreme Court would probably shut them down and set the cause back a few steps. After some new blood is in the court, the S.C. will hear a case on this issue and they will find in favor of equality.

  • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 10:54:23 AM

    I think the agenda is to make people accept it no matter what their beliefs are. I don't like saying GAy because it means happy. Noone seems happy on here, but a few people. You can get married, but that does not mean people will accept it. I know it will not change how I feel about marriage, marriage has always been to me, between a woman and a man and always will be. Marriage to a lot of people has nothing to do with religion, but the way things are and will always be, change is envitable, but it does not change everybody. Social norms have always existed, that is the truth. That's life, we will all have to live with the decisions we make without trying to get others to agree with it.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 11:54:45 AM

      "You can get married, but that does not mean people will accept it."

      Nobody cares if you accept it. This isn't about whether or not you LIKE it...this is about equal protection under law.

      • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 11:56:26 AM

        I think it is about acceptance or you would not keep commenting on everybody's comment.

        • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 12:00:25 PM

          Then let the law work itself out, but I can tell you this it will not be overturned. I know.

          • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 12:07:22 PM

            We'll see. The CA supreme court has agreed to hear the case.

            • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 12:11:19 PM

              I already see.

              • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 12:50:49 PM

                Did Baby Jesus tell you?

                • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 1:04:54 PM


                  Enquiring minds would like to know, pay close attention to CNN, real soon.

                  • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 1:13:59 PM

                    Okay, you turned out to be a waste of time.

                    • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 1:21:56 PM

                      So if there is good time you are it? My time was not wasted because some people just have to be in control and they need someone to tell them so.

                • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 1:07:58 PM

                  The thing about blogs is that you never know who you are talkin to, this is so great.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 12:06:37 PM

          Take a hike, jerk. This is an open blog, and I'll post the way I please.

          Thanks.

          • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 12:13:58 PM

            Name calling, never called you a name. Not acceptable. It's all good because I am not offended, I can get on people's last nerve.

            • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 12:26:17 PM

              "Name calling, never called you a name. "

              Name calling is not required to be a troll. But you knew that.

              • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 12:30:17 PM

                And you are not a troll? Could have fooled me.

                • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 12:50:09 PM

                  Your opinion has been given all the consideration it merits.

                  • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 12:58:25 PM

                    Control, nerver gonna stop.

              • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 12:40:13 PM

                Name calling is what jerks do, however, I am not a jerk.

          • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 12:10:15 PM

            Oooh the Doc can't take the heat so he wants me to get out of the kitchen. Please you talk someone else can too, same here.

    • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 11:08:07 AM

      I meant to say change is inevitable.

  • Posted By: BrunsKluns @ 11/20/2008 11:59:21 AM

    "Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this." Very well, now I understand why Dan White was convicted of voluntary manslaughter using the "Twinkie defense". This is an extract of an article from Wikipedia: 'Noted psychiatrist Martin Blinder testified that White had been depressed at the time of the crime, and pointed to several factors indicating White's depression: he had quit his job; he shunned his wife; and although normally clean-cut, he had become slovenly in appearance. Furthermore, White had previously been a fitness fanatic and health food advocate, but had begun consuming Twinkies and Coca-Cola. As an incidental note, Blinder mentioned theories that elements of diet could worsen existing mood swings.[2] Another psychiatrist, George Solomon, testified that White had "exploded" and was "sort of on automatic pilot" at the time of the killings.[3] The fact that White had killed Moscone and Milk was not challenged, but ??? in part because of the testimony from Blinder and other psychiatrists ??? the defense successfully argued for a ruling of diminished capacity. White was thus judged incapable of the premeditation required for a murder conviction....'

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 11/20/2008 1:49:15 PM

      Take a psychology class. Seriously. I took several psych courses in college and all of them contained several studies and research pointing more and more to the fact that sexual preference is biologically predetermined. Look at pretty much any other species and you will see homosexuality. I think you can agree that most animals act on instinct, not choice.

      • Posted By: nyborn @ 11/20/2008 8:11:23 PM

        Summer I would challenge you to show us something factual that shows all species are moving more to homosexuality.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 11/21/2008 10:48:39 AM

          Here: http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718 Are 1500 different kinds of animals enough for you?

          • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 11:37:14 AM

            I think galileo would be more sufficient than that website, you will find research that does not coincide with your analysis.

            • Posted By: summer4077 @ 11/21/2008 12:40:45 PM

              Google "homosexuality in animals" and you will find hundreds of articles and studies. It exists and is absolutely irrefutable. Now, whether you want to argue that it doesn't apply to humans because of our advanced brains that give us the ability to think rationally, well sure there are a bunch of studies on that. But the fact is that homosexuality, and asexuality, is a given in nature.

      • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 2:03:02 PM

        ???

    • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 12:02:38 PM

      Colleges will not let you use Wikipedia for a research paper, most of it is not accurate.

      • Posted By: pwhitechurch @ 11/20/2008 12:18:10 PM

        There is a college book that we use as a handbook in early childhood education called the DAP, it is the "bible" for using developmentally appropriate practices for children. Most teachers know this or you would not pass your state exam. Read it and it will help you understand children and how the learn and develop. Most psychologist agree with this book when it comes to children.

  • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 12:26:12 PM

    Peace, and Happy Thanksgiving to all.

  • Posted By: Siobhan Black @ 11/21/2008 12:52:30 AM

    I am a straight, married, Christian, 49-year-old working mother. How, exactly, does gay marriage threaten my family (or anyone else's)? Don't you think that God has better things to do -- much, much bigger problems to solve -- than worrying about who loves whom?

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 11/21/2008 11:00:50 AM

      Agreed. With all the hate, war, and death in the world you'd think people would welcome love and happiness.

    • Posted By: trell @ 11/21/2008 10:29:45 AM

      Many other problems to worry about, but this blog is not about them, it is about a specific issue.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse