Quantcast
 
 
 
Top Story
Group Lobbies for Reform of Funeral Industry
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
Crikey! 'Crocodile Hunter' daughter gets own doll
 
 
expand
SOCIETY

Altered Lives

Kate Fleming drowned at home in her flooded basement. One year later, her tragic death could reshape the gay-marriage debate.

Newsweek Web Exclusive
Dec 21, 2007 | Updated: 12:02  p.m. ET Dec 21, 2007

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: ayeshakapoorpr @ 02/01/2008 5:19:00 AM

    Comment: everyone is talking about the first BOLLYWOOD lesbian film





    NEW* - 'WHEN KIRAN MET KAREN' TEASER 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVyC0AQK07Q


    WHEN KIRAN MET KAREN - TEASER 1 on YOUTUBE/REDIFF
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Au8B8K06og (HITS 11,308 / 34 days)
    http://ishare.rediff.com/filevideo.php?id=89609 (HITS 22,718 / 27 days)



    Regards, Jai Mata Di - Manan Singh Katohora
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1355459/
    http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/manansinghkatohora/
    http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldwideFilmDistribution/



    For more about me - Please GOOGLE 'Manan Katohora'
    Or Check #39 TOP 50 Indian-Americans http://www.desiclub.com/community/culture/culture_article.cfm?id=242


    WHEN KIRAN MET KAREN - MAINSTREAM AMERICA BUZZ
    http://in.movies.yahoo.com/news-detail/17639/Safe-no-fun-says-actress-portraying-lesbian.html
    http://www.businessofcinema.com/boc/?file=story&id=6551
    http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080114/aqm096.html?.v=30
    http://www.sunherald.com/447/story/298349.html
    http://www.moviescopemag.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=448&Itemid=10046
    http://digitalproducer.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=277378
    http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=277378
    http://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/prnewswire/press_releases/national/India/2008/01/14/AQM096
    http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/crosscultural-lesbian-bollywood-film--wkmk-completes-production,255438.shtml
    http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080114/aqm096.html?.v=30
    http://www.launchingfilms.com/cgi-bin/newsfeed.pl?s=200801141000PR_NEWS_USPR_____AQM096.anp
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20080114.AQM096&show_article=1
    http://www.bolsamania.com/internacional/noticia.php?origen=feed_prnews.noticias&id=AQM09614012008-1&isin=
    http://www.mywire.com/pubs/PRNewswire/2008/01/14/5397609?&pbl=7
    http://www.naachgaana.com/2008/01/15/lesbian-film-wkmk-completes-production/
    http://www.nowrunning.com/news/news.aspx?it=13514
    http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1146505


    NEW* - 'WHEN KIRAN MET KAREN' TEASER 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVyC0AQK07Q


    WHEN KIRAN MET KAREN - TEASER 1 on YOUTUBE/REDIFF
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Au8B8K06og (HITS 11,308 / 34 days)
    http://ishare.rediff.com/filevideo.php?id=89609 (HITS 22,718 / 27 days)

  • Posted By: dzychase @ 01/08/2008 8:55:42 PM

    Comment: I am not gay, but I am human. It is none of my business, nor that of anyone else, what people do in the privacy of their own lives as long as it harms no one else. This includes their sexual orientation. People who care for one another should have the same rights. By making their union "legal" everyone must have the same rights as well as responsibilities. I am so sorry for the hateful and puny minds that believe it is some sort of threat to them personally. I am also sorry for the sad circumstance that brought Charlene to her activist role, but it is one of those instances where good comes out of tragedy. You go, Charlene. You may sign me: An Activist For Human Lib.

  • Posted By: dzychase @ 01/08/2008 8:54:11 PM

    Comment: I am not gay, but I am human. It is none of my business, nor that of anyone else, what people do in the privacy of their own lives as long as it harms no one else. This includes their sexual orientation. People who care for one another should have the same rights. By making their union "legal" everyone must have the same rights as well as responsibilities. I am so sorry for the hateful and puny minds that believe it is some sort of threat to them personally. I am also sorry for the sad circumstance that brought Charlene to her activist role, but it is one of those instances where good comes out of tragedy. You go, Charlene. You may sign me: An Activist For Human Lib.

  • Posted By: Santa @ 01/08/2008 12:17:32 PM

    Comment: I am sick and tired of *** lickers and *** suckers trying to manipulate main stream, logical thinking Americans to buy into the notion that same sex couples just want the same things as hetrosexual couples. Let me make the point more clearly....next time you find yourself at Home Depot, try this experiment to help me to make my point: First..pick up a bolt..next, find a matching nut. Take the nut, and place it on theblunt end of the bolt. start twisting until the thread picks up the bolt and twist until it reaches the top.
    Now, I want you to try the same thing, however thsi time I want you to discard the bolt, and replace it with another nut, so that you have two nuts. Now, gently start twisting the two together (tip: give yourself plent of time..like the REST OF YOUR LIFE, BECAUSE YOU WILL NEVER GET THE TWO PIECES TO COMBINE...DO YOU GET THE MESSAGE NOW? One less *** to worry about..that what I get from this story.

  • Posted By: humanrights4all @ 01/01/2008 5:40:50 PM

    Comment: Bentonsta...she was in a studio within her basement which was blocked, is what the story says. She had said on the phone that she was stuck in the studio because the door was blocked or something. That was her own story on the phone in panic. I doubt her own panicked phone calls would be lies. As for the main basement door, I think your analysis of it is spot on due to the sheer pressure of the water. Bottom line here is that she (Strong) had no access to her life partner in a critical situation due to horrible laws that need to be changed. Whatever your really trying to say is mute because it basically calls this womans tragic ending a lie or conspiracy. Your a dick!

  • Posted By: bentonsta @ 01/01/2008 1:07:01 AM

    Comment: I just have a question. How could she not get out of the basement? The report said that Strong couldn't get in because the force of the water was holding the door shut which means the door had to have opened into the basement. But earlier on it also said that Fleming couldn't open the door because something was blocking it. How can this be if the door opened into where she was? How can it block the inside of the door but not be able to be moved by Fleming? Or on the flip side, if it was on the outside and the door opened into the house, not into the basement; why couldn???t Strong simply open the door allowing the water to flood out of the basement and save her partner? Sounds fishy to me???.

  • Posted By: bentonsta @ 01/01/2008 1:06:44 AM

    Comment: I just have a question. How could she not get out of the basement? The report said that Strong couldn't get in because the force of the water was holding the door shut which means the door had to have opened into the basement. But earlier on it also said that Fleming couldn't open the door because something was blocking it. How can this be if the door opened into where she was? How can it block the inside of the door but not be able to be moved by Fleming? Or on the flip side, if it was on the outside and the door opened into the house, not into the basement; why couldn???t Strong simply open the door allowing the water to flood out of the basement and save her partner? Sounds fishy to me???.

  • Posted By: tpofp @ 12/28/2007 4:40:23 PM

    Comment: No offence to America, but I am a straight Canadian and I am so very thankful and proud that our country and our society has put this cruel and insane issue behind us. It is just plain wrong not to allow two people who love each other to not have the same rights as the rest!

  • Posted By: phiomalibumalibu @ 12/26/2007 10:50:31 PM

    Comment: So interesting, I found some great info on gaymarraiges at gaysonlydate.com

  • Posted By: plgnyc @ 12/26/2007 5:30:14 PM

    Comment: Having lived through similar, yet strikingly different, circumstances, I'm somewhat conflicted on my feelings about what happened to Ms. Strong. Certainly, as a gay man who enjoyed a wonderful, if not legally sanctioned, marriage for 18 ?? years till death did us part, I believe that any two adults who love each other and wish to share their lives should have the option of doing so in a manner that our society and government recognize. However, in the meantime, I also feel that those of us who are deprived of these rights, must take steps to insure that we can do right by our partners/spouses in such circumstances.

    I met and ???married??? my husband in 1978 when he was 17 and I was 18. When he became ill in 1996, we had already made sure we would have no troubles in exercising the same rights as legally married spouses by having executed wills naming each other as executors and health proxy statements naming each other as our health proxy. With the health proxy, I legally became the equivalent of his ???Next-to-kin??? and as his executor, I was legally entitled to make all funeral arrangements when he passed away in 1997.

    Of course, we also had the advantage of living in Manhattan. When in 1986 I was injured and rushed to the emergency room at St. Vincent???s Hospital ??? a catholic hospital ??? there was no hesitation by the staff to allow my husband to join me in the emergency room when he arrived 30 minutes later.

    Sadly, there will always be those who are afraid of what they do not understand. And for many Americans, affection, love, and commitment between two members of the same gender is something they still do not understand. Caring for my husband during the final year of his life as he fought the disease that eventually took him when he was just 36 was one of the most painful, yet moving, experiences of my life. Ten years later I realize how much I grew as a person from this and how much it meant to him to have me by his side. I will always be grateful that the doctors, nurses, administrators, nuns, and priests who worked at St. Vincent???s treated us with the same respect and dignity as any legally married couple, recognizing that we shared the love and commitment that are the foundation of every good marriage. Thanks to them, our last year together, though overshadowed by his physical suffering, was not in any way marred by the sort of unnecessary additional emotional suffering that Charlene Strong went through.

    Until such a day as we live in a more tolerant, understanding, and accepting society in which we are not judged by who we love, but how much and how deeply we love, I would urge all unmarried couples to seek out the legal protections that are available to them. Though we may agree that they should not be necessary, the reality is that they are and to not avail ourselves of them is as wrong as are the statues and laws that deny us of them automatically through marriage.

  • Posted By: plgnyc @ 12/26/2007 4:18:52 PM

    Comment: Having lived through similar, yet strikingly different, circumstances, I'm somewhat conflicted on my feelings about what happened to Ms. Strong. Certainly, as a gay man, I believe that any two adults who love each other and wish to unite and share their lives should have the option of doing so in a manner that our society, government, and laws recognize. However, until such time as that is true, I also feel that those of us who are deprived of thes rights, must take steps to insure that we can do right by our partneres. whowhdepric

  • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 12/26/2007 2:19:55 PM

    Comment:
    This issue is both simple and complex. At the root of it is the question of societal norms and who establishes them. Regrettably both sides of this one leave me uncomfortable.

    I do not believe that the social and religious covenant that has been marriage should be modified to suit the interest of a minority. If marriage is to be "in flux" then any aspect of it is debatable, from polygamy to pedophilia, and based on current values the changes could reflect on existing unions. In addition, the institution as it exists now is already clearly broken and a drain on our legal system.

    I also do not believe that morality based on scripture can be justified by mere religious dogma, and anyone who bases an argument of rejection on solely religious rhetoric has no rational leg to stand on.

    Perhaps a legal cooperation framework could be established built on the lessons learned from failed heterosexual marriages that might suit the participants as well as society as a whole? In truth, if it were simple and logical, the framework might ultimately supplant marriage in the coming decades, and return marriage to the Church from whence it came.

  • Posted By: Lilly @ 12/26/2007 4:34:26 AM

    Comment: Ms. Fleming's experience is nothing more than a continuous effort on the part of society to punish people for being gay. If society can't stop you from having a life together- then society will make sure that your relationship is considered unworthy of our sympathy and compassion in death. It isn't a moral issue - but unfortunately there are those with a geat deal of political power and influence that have made it so. Whatever happened to the moral highground of accepting people for who they are - and not hating and discriminating against others simply because you disagree with their perspective or life choices? If a gay couple does not infringe upon my freedoms and rights simply by being gay - then who am I to pass judgement? Do people really believe that by embracing a gay couple that have committed to each other that we will erode straight society? That somehow, over time, we will become a society of gays? It is a ridiculous notion at best and a paranoid one at worst.

  • Posted By: Gillis @ 12/23/2007 7:00:59 PM

    Comment: Since the world begin marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman. Nobody ever argue about that till the last few years. Christians get married before God by a priest, rabbi or a minister. Others get married before a justice of the peace. So what's the problem?
    Gay people cannot get married before God in a Christian Church, so let them get united by a justice of the peacepeace.

  • Posted By: CorbinB2 @ 12/23/2007 3:56:37 PM

    Comment: SO this is obviously an emotional topic from both sides, but at the root of it is discrimnation with regard to marriage in general. How long does something have to be common practice in this world before people wake up and realize people's lives are being affected by not appropriately addressing it within the laws that govern this country.

    Perhaps the better solution would be to lose the word marriage all together, call them all civil unions as they are anyway and require all people who perform this process to do so in front of a judge who would then issue them an ID card stating there intent to be committed to the other person as their spouse. Oh wait we already have that...It's called a wedding license.

    If couples want to have their own religious ceremony that is their individual right to do so outside the confines of government rule. From a civic perspective there needs to be a neutral process by which people can commit to another person as being their significant other for the legal purpose of living in this society.

    I am not gay or whatever the political correct term is now, but uniting with another person should be the encouraged and be the choice of the two people involved. In doing so, they should be afforded the rights that go along with any other union of two people. Religion should play no part in these matters and any society that says a committed relationship is wrong is not setting any kind of example for our children to follow in the future.

    When we all become people, free to live how we choose in a free society with special rules for one or the other, we will ALL be better off and perhpaps can make real progress as a society. Temporary fixes for certain groups, ethnic or otherwise who have been 'persecuted in the past, may be required in the short term to help create a free and neutral society, but the ultimate goal should be for there to be no laws or requirements for special groups, because everyone will be treated and afforded the same rights as privileges.

    • Posted By: CorbinB2 @ 12/23/2007 16:23:10

      Comment: correction....meant to say 'without special rules...' in the last paragraph

  • Posted By: robotex @ 12/23/2007 2:34:04 PM

    Comment: This woman lost the love of her life and all you can talk about is whether being gay is right or wrong? If you feel so strongly that the bible is the be-all and end-all of all things moral and true, then why has your daughter not been sold into slavery? I'm sure she must've mouthed off to you at some point in her life. The bible DOES say that "if your daughter is disrespectful to you, then you should sell her...", doesn't it? Why do you ignore this passage of the bible yet obsess about the "man shall not lie with another man" passage? I'll tell you why -- because you pick and choose statements from the bible to suit your purposes. The bottom line is that the bible was written 2000 years ago when our clergy wanted to keep us ignorant and under their control. Most of the passages that you read in the old testament no longer apply to a modern and enlightened people. What do you say if we turn down the anti-gay rhetoric and just say for once, "I am truly sorry for your loss"?

    • Posted By: dzychase @ 01/08/2008 21:04:44

      Comment: 2000 years ago? They still try to maintain the same control. I highly recommend Zeitgeist the Movie. You can view it over the Internet. The first portion (it's in 3 parts) regards the formation of the religions of the world and is very revealing.

  • Posted By: royalred @ 12/23/2007 5:00:48 AM

    Comment: I'm amazed that a lot of this discussion is about Christianity. What does that have to do with anything? The religion of the couple is never discussed in the article, so how does anybody know if they're Christian?

    For those who state that we are a Christian nation, they need to read up on their history. In fact, the founding fathers debated this very issue -- whether we should be a Christian nation, a theistic nation, or a nation with religious freedom -- both before the Constitution was written and in the very first session of Congress. You know the decision they made -- we have freedom of religion, which means freedom to practice whatever religion you want, or none at all, and the freedom to not have laws imposed on you based on the faith of others. We have a lot of government officials (including the current President) who wish that wasn't the case because they'd like to impose their faith on the rest of us.

    Many people stated that the problem could have been avoided by having Power of Attorney documents. That is simply not true. Firstly, my wedding ring fits on my finger and is taken as instant authority. I don't need my marriage license (which I don't even have a copy of). I don't even have to present a driver's license. But, if my partner were a man instead of a woman, I suddenly need to carry a complex legal document with me everywhere just in case? That's ridiculous on the face of it. You could argue it's all in a central database, but what if they're traveling? Does every ambulance in the country have access to it? In the world?

    Secondly, the vast majority of people in this country have no idea what a Power of Attorney document is. And, amazingly, even those who should know (like staff at hospitals) question them. The time it takes to get a Power of Attorney recognized is time wasted when someone is dying in the emergency room.

    The time has clearly come for the state to get out of the marriage business. This discussion shows that it is a religious issue. If you don't believe in gay marriage, fine -- don't marry someone who is the same sex as you. And any laws that the state has regarding taxes, rights in hospitals, etc., should apply to all people equally.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 3:10:29 AM

    Comment: Homosexuality: What Does the Bible Really Say?

    O

    ne of the major controversies in modern Christianity revolves around the issue of homosexuality. For centuries, we have been taught from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin and that, for a gay man or woman to enter heaven, he or she must first repent of this sinful lifestyle. This is a teaching that we have long accepted, but now some voices are raising some very real questions about the accuracy of such a position.

    Of course, to determine which position is correct--homosexuality is a sin or homosexuality is not a sin--it is important to consider what the scriptures actually say and not just rely on the words we may have heard at church. Some churches may have preached one way and some other churches may have preached something different. The honest question is, what does God's Word say?

    The Bible is the main source that determines how homosexuality and homosexual relationships are regarded in the United States. If the Bible is the Word of God and if it is infallible, then its message on homosexuality is the final law. The question is, not is the Bible right, but are we right in our interpretation of its passages on gay relationships?

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 3:10:06 AM

    Comment: The fact is, our understanding, our translation, of the Bible does change from year to year. Even when we stay with the same translation of the Bible, we change our understanding as the times change. In the past, people used the Bible to justify slavery and then segregation. The Bible was used to justify treating women as second class citizens. Now, if someone were to use the Bible to justify slavery or segregation, others would know that they are not doing so in the spirit of God.

    Even in the twenty-first century gay men and lesbian women face discrimination from their Christian brethren on the basis of what people believe the Bible says. A prime example of that, here in Colorado Springs, is the case involving Pastor Ted Haggard, formerly of New Life Church. Haggard was an influential leader in the evangelical movement and even has been suggested to have the ear of President George W. Bush. In November 2005, when it came to light that he may have used illegal drugs (crystal methamphetamine) and may have been involved with a Denver male escort, there was an uproar in the mass media across the country.

    Because of the seeming hypocrisy of a pastor in an evangelical church being involved with drugs and a prostitute, it would seem only natural that there would be an outcry, right? The only problem with that line of reasoning is that when Haggard was fired from his ministry at the church, the main reason given to the local news was not because of his drug use, but because of the sexual immorality of his possibly having been involved with a male escort. Even his friend, James Dobson of Focus On The Family, managed to turn his back on Haggard in his hour of need because of the nature of his "sin." In other words, the church was more concerned about the possible homosexuality than they were about the illegal drug use. Homosexuality is not illegal, but such drug use and, yet, the church was more worried about the legal behavior than the illegal behavior.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 3:09:30 AM

    Comment: Let's be honest here. When a church is more worried about a member engaging in legal behavior than illegal behavior, that implies a value judgment on the part of the church that may be prejudicial. This is what happened to Pastor Haggard. It is a prime example of gays and lesbians being subjected to discrimination of certain social or group norms, group norms which do not concern themselves with legality, justice, or fairness. These are the types of attitudes which may be taught by some churches and which politicians attempt to justify on the basis that these churches should be allowed to teach their own peculiar brand of bigotry and hatred simply because their religious beliefs tell them to do so.

    These churches, such as New Life Church, and organizations, such as Focus On The Family, use the Bible, not as the Word of God, but as a weapon to hurt and wound millions of people daily! They then expect society to elect political officials who will mandate their peculiar hatred and sickness as law for all others to have to follow. Fortunately for us, such sickness and hatred are not truly reflections of God's love or of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. This usage of the Bible as a weapon is not how God or Christ want their Church to be structured.

    I have to wonder why so many churches are so obsessed about gay sex. God doesn't seem to be so obsessed. Indeed, in the sixty-six books of the Christian Bible, a total of six books make any reference to same sex sexual activity--not to homosexuality as it is understood today. For that matter, Jesus of Nazareth spoke about divorce, adultery, paying taxes, taking care of the poor, Hell, and many other topics, but somehow He seemed to have missed the issue of homosexuality. It seems that He wasn't overly worried about issue, either. Jesus managed to avoid the topic of homosexuality and sixty of the sixty-six books in the Bible managed to avoid the topic, but many "Christians" managed to seize upon those six books as their reason for existence and justify discrimination, homophobia, gay bashing, murder, and condemnation--even to the extent that they are willing to judge for God that His children are not worthy of heaven while they make their plans for heaven.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 3:08:52 AM

    Comment: Modern psychology shows us that homosexuality is about the intrinsic need to love--and be love by--a member of the same gender. Biology is suggesting that there may be a physical difference in brain structure that causes homosexuality and heterosexuality. Other studies show that children raised by homosexual or lesbian parents are no more likely to turn out gay or lesbian than the general population. The homosexuality described in the Bible works differently from the above simply because, 2,000 to 3,000 years ago, sex was about power and domination, not love. Homosexuality in this day and age does not fit that description.

    One thing has to be asserted right now about what the Bible has to say about homosexuality specifically. There are relatively few references in the entire Book about gays and lesbians. There is much more about being greedy and showing a lack of concern for one's neighbor. There is much more in the Bible about love and human relationships than gay relationships in particular. Indeed, what we now understand as homosexuality in the twenty-first century is not referred to at all in the Bible!

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 3:08:24 AM

    Comment: What is taught by many Christian churches (and some Jewish synagogues) about homosexuality is actually inferred rather than stated outright. One prime example of this can be read in the modern protest signs of some anti-gay individuals which read "Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve!" Adam and Eve are considered to be the example of how a human sexual and romantic relationship is to be because Adam and Eve were created first (with Eve created from one of Adam's ribs). This seems reasonable, so what is the problem with this logic? Simply put, the Bible also lists other relationships that clearly fall away from this model, such as Solomon and his wives and concubines. Somehow, these protestors fail to carry signs saying, "Solomon and Wife #1 and Wife #2 and Wife #3 and ..., Not Adam and Steve!" They also fail to consider the fact that not all heterosexual couples have children, either, such as those when one or the other is sterile.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 3:06:52 AM

    Comment: Our Bible was written by a culture that saw sexual relations radically differently from how we do today. In the ancient world, sex involved domination and submission; it was never an act of equals. The person who was the penetrator was the dominant one and the person who was penetrated was the submissive one. There was no equality in this setup. This fit into the worldview of the patriarchal society of the ancient Mediterranean.

    Initially, sex was seen as necessary to procreate. It was not seen as an act of love and affection. It was the tool "to be fruitful and multiply." Women were property in order to ensure the propagation of the species. men owned women and used the ability to penetrate as a form of power and control. Women (and offspring) were simply property.

    Such a culture was not conducive to a gay culture. Gay culture would have been unheard of back then. Rather, sex between men was a game of power, not love. The man who was dominant--whether in sex with other men or with women--had the higher status.

    This mindset of sex as dominance is a major factor in the story about Sodom (????????????) from Genesis, chapter nineteen. In this story, we are told that God had already wanted to destroy the city because of its sins of pride, gluttony, and lack of generosity to the poor (Luke, chapter seventeen, verses 28 through 29). Lot made a deal with God to spare the city, but when God's angels entered the city, the inhabitants wanted to know (yadah, sexual intercourse) the angelic visitors. They wanted to rape them. Such a crime would show social and cultural dominance over the angels.







    Many people point out that the desired rape of the angels is proof of the rampant homosexuality of the city. There is an obvious problem here, however. Consider this simple fact: Lot offered up his daughters for the people of the city to rape. If the people in this city were homosexual, then why would Lot offer up his daughters, knowing good and well that they would have no sexual interests in any females? The interpretation offered by so many people is inconsistent with the reality depicted here. The fact is that he could only have offered up his daughters if he felt that the men in the city would have the possibility of being turned aside from their plans to rape the angels! Furthermore, after is destroyed, Lot has sex with his daughters. Somehow, many churches seem to force an interpretation of homosexuality on Sodom and condemn the city while saying nothing about Lot's incest.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 3:06:19 AM

    Comment: If homosexuality is not the sin of Sodom, then why did God destroy that city? Ezekiel provides with a more authoritative answer than many of today's preachers. According to Ezekiel, chapter sixteen, verses 48 through 50,



    48. As I live, says the Lord God, Sodom your sister has not done, she nor her daughters, as you have done, you and your daughters. 49. Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride, overabundance of food, prosperous ease, and idleness were hers and her daughters'; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50. And they were haughty and committed abominable offenses before Me; therefore I removed them when I saw fit.



    Somehow, the Prophet Ezekiel missed out on what Jerry Falwell, Dr. James Dobson, and President George W. Bush see as being obvious. To them, homosexuality was the obviouss problem, but Ezekiel seems to have had a different opinion. Not once did her refer to homosexuality as the cause of the destruction of Sodom. Rather, he argues that pride and the lack of concern for the poor as being the reason God destroyed the city (this may be a Biblical warning for our government and its constant attempts to get rid of programs to help the poor).

    Luke also makes plain that Sodom's fault was not homosexuality, but greed and violence. To further support Luke's observations, Genesis points out that Lot offered his daughters to the men of the city to be raped instead of his angelic guests. If the men of the city were gay, why would Lot offer his daughters to them, knowing that these men would have no sexual interest in females? It wouldn't make sense. As such, it makes no sense for people to suggest that the sin was homosexuality instead of greed and lack of generosity to the poor.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 3:05:34 AM

    Comment: Now, Jude, chapter one, verse 7, does refer to the fact that sexual immorality was a part of the reason that Sodom was destroyed by God. This does not mean, however, that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality. The verse in question states sexual immorality and not just homosexuality. In other words, heterosexual rape, heterosexual pedophilia, heterosexual prostitution could all have contributed to the destruction of this city as well as greed and haughtiness.

    In other words, Sodom is an example of extreme sinfulness. This does not mean, however, that it is an example of any one sexual behavior or orientation! The charges leveled against gays and lesbians by so many churches cannot stand based on the book of Genesis alone. A story which promotes the father offering his daughters to the town to be raped, the mother being killed by God for looking at her old town, and incest cannot be a reliable witness to convict a group of people just for being gay.

    Leviticus adds another challenge. Chapter eighteen, verse 22, and chapter twenty, verse 13 offer the holiness code which seems to criticize homosexuality. Of course, this same code forbids eating shrimp, combining dairy with meat, and sex with a woman who is menstruating. More importantly, this holiness code was written for the Levites and the holy priesthood to separate them from the priests of other religions.

    Many modern Christians rely on Leviticus and its Holiness Code in order to condemn homosexuality. How many of them, however, agree with the prohibitions listed in the same book about mixing meat with dairy (think of bacon cheeseburgers), mixing wool with cotton, eating shellfish, or having sex while a woman is menstruating? If they argue that Jesus freed them from these laws, then how can they argue that the law against homosexuality is still in force? This is following the law a la carte.

    The fact is that Leviticus does not condemn homosexuality. Rather, in the language it is written in, being a gadesh is condemned. Yes, this has been translated as homosexual, but that is not an accurate translation. Rather, it condemns a practice that was fairly common in that part of the world when the Hebrews entered Canaan. It condemns temple prostitution. Prostitution and homosexuality are not the same thing and, as such, it is important to remember what is really being condemned here.

    The fact is that the eighteenth and twentieth chapters of Leviticus strive to break away from the cultural norm of its time and region. Sex had often been used as a weapon and dominance was seen as a way to demonstrate power. Leviticus sought to break from this and forbid the use of sex as a form of control.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 3:04:50 AM

    Comment: In modern times, or relatively more recent times, the Apostle Paul has been cited as a resource to condemn gays and lesbians. The three most famous passages of Paul's that have been used to condemn gays and lesbians have been I Corinthians (chapter six, verses 9 through 10), I Timothy (chapter one, verses 9 through 11), and Romans (chapter one, verses 26 and 27). By the way, Romans, chapter one, is the only passage in the whole Bible that makes any references to lesbians whatsoever.

    In I Corinthians, chapter six, verses 9 and 10, we are told,



    9. Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, 10. Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.



    and I Timothy, chapter one, verses 9 through 11, asserts,

    9. Knowing and understanding this: that the Law is not enacted for the righteous (the upright and just, who are in right standing with God), but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, for the irreverent and profane, for those who strike and beat and [even] murder fathers and strike and beat and [even] murder mothers, for manslayers, 10. [For] impure and immoral persons, those who abuse themselves with men, kidnappers, liars, perjurers--and whatever else is opposed to wholesome teaching and sound doctrine. 11. As laid down by the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.



    When reading the above passages, we have to keep a simple fact in mind. If we look at them in modern English, it is too easy to conclude the following premise: straight, good; gay, bad. Unfortunately, such a translation is too simplistic. Paul wrote those words at a time when, in that part of the world, sex equaled power. In other words, he wrote those words about relationships which would not be considered loving relationships by today's understanding. As such, these relationships did not--could not--reflect the love of Christ for His Church, a relationship that we are all encouraged to emulate.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 3:04:10 AM

    Comment: Paul addressed these relationships very clearly in Greek. He referred to arsenokoitai (perverts, child molesters, sodomites (remember the references to the crimes of the people of Sodom)) and malakoi (male prostitutes, effeminate men (again, the power structure is a part of this meaning as this would refer to the man who is submissive and is not the penetrator)). Malakoi also refers to being spiritually undisciplined and arsenokoitai can also refer to having sex with male prostitutes.

    Both of these words describe relationships which demonstrated power. The man who had sex with the male prostitute demonstrates his power by [a] being the penetrator and [b] by "buying" the prostitute and the instance where arsenokoitai may refer to child molester, we have the example of a man abusing a child. Neither of these behaviors are the norm of a typical gay relationship. They allow no room for love and commitment.

    Perhaps, the most famous (infamous?) verses to be used from the New Testament to condemn homosexuality can be found in Romans, chapter one, verses 26 through 27. Here, Paul writes,



    26. For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural functioned for an unnatural and abnormal one, 27. And the the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.



    These verses complement rather will the ones from I Corinthians and I Timothy in pointing the obvious wrongness of the socially accepted relationships based on power. They are unnatural and degrading. They are not a part of God's plan, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

    The fact is, God is concerned with our being true to ourselves. Paul writes in these verses about people going against their nature, para physin. For a homosexual to engage in a sexual relationship with a member of their opposite sex would be dishonest and against their nature; thus, they would committing a sin by such a deception. It would be unnatural. Likewise, a straight person engaging in homosexual acts would be doing something unnatural.

    Paul wrote these words for a very simple purpose. He was reaching out to the Gentile population in the Roman Empire and he was arguing that their social norm of power-based relationships could keep them from the God that they were just beginning to try to know.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 3:03:25 AM

    Comment: Christianity is concerned with the teachings and example of Jesus of Nazareth. If this is true, then it seems obvious that if we want to know what the original Christian thought about homosexuality, we should investigate His words. Jesus' words are the true and only blueprint for true Christianity.

    The first verse that I am going to quote here was not about homosexuality, but about all people in this world. They come from John, chapter three, verse 16. Jesus stated,



    For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.



    This verse is meant for everyone and not just for the heterosexual. Jesus said nothing about that being a qualified invitation to believing in Him. It is an inclusive rather than an exclusive statement. Unfortunately, so many preachers seem to believe that Jesus stated this invitation to "you and you and you, but not you!" The fact is, in the language of King James, His invitation was for "whosoever" and was not limited to only certain groups of people.

    This assertion is further supported In Galatians, chapter three, verses 22 through 26 which addresses the issue of the Law being replaced by the the grace of Jesus and the fact that His invitation extends to all of us, gay or straight:



    22. But the Scriptures [picture all mankind as sinners] shut up and imprisoned by sin, so that [the inheritance, blessing] which was promised through faith in Jesus Christ (the Messiah) might be given (released, delivered, and committed) to [all] those who believe [who adhere to and trust in and rely on Him]. 23. Now before the faith came, we were perpetually guarded under the Law, kept in custody in preparation for the faith that was destined to be revealed (unveiled, disclosed), 24. So that the Law served [to us Jews] as our trainer [our guardian, our guide to Christ, to lead us] until Christ [came], that we might be justified (declared righteous, put in right standing with God) by and through faith. 25. But now that the faith has come, we are no longer under a trainer (the guardian of our childhood). 26. For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith.



    The Holiness Code was critical for the Levites, but faith in Jesus lifts us above that need. In other words, we can eat shrimp, we can mix fabrics, and we can engage in loving and committed relationships. Jesus criticized those sins which need to be criticized, greed, lack of caring or hospitality, hatred, but He removed us from the "lesser" laws. Mercy and faith are more important than being celibate because you are gay.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 3:02:42 AM

    Comment: If you were to get a copy of any red letter Bible, a Bible in which Jesus' words are all in red, you will that He never said one thing to condemn homosexuals. He did, however, make one statement which could be related to homosexuality. In Matthew, chapter nineteen, verse 12, He stated,



    For there are eunuchs who have been born incapable of marriage; and there are eunuchs who have been made so by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves incapable of marriage for the sake of heaven. Let him who is able to accept this accept it.



    There are three categories here. There is the category of the men who are castrated and made into eunuchs in order to be safe around royal women. There are the men who choose to be spiritually "castrated" out of a religious calling, such as many of the modern Roman Catholic priests. Finally, there are the people who were born "incapable of (heterosexual) marriage." As the term "eunuch" was often used to describe people who cannot have children, people who are born gay or lesbian may be considered, in this sense, to be eunuchs.

    This is an important point! Gays, as eunuchs, do have a special place in the kingdom of God! According to the Prophet Isaiah, in chapter fifty-six, verses 3 through 5,



    3. Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, The Lord will surely separate me from His people. And let not the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree. 4. For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths and choose the things which please Me and hold firmly My covenant-- 5. To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial and a name better [and more enduring] than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 3:01:57 AM

    Comment: Many modern churches may want to "cut off" the gay people in their communities, but God has a different plan and will honor us for the discrimination that we have had to endure at the hands of His "followers."

    On the other hand, some people may argue that Jesus made a statement that may have been in defense of homosexuals. One term in Aramaic that had been used as an insult for fools and for effeminate men was raca (related to the word rakh for sissy). Jesus made a point, in Matthew, chapter five, verse 22, that anyone who calls his brother by these terms of condemnation is in danger of hellfire. Jesus never once said that gays are doomed to hell, but Isaiah points out that gays may have a special place of honor with God and Jesus stated that people who persecute gays are in mortal of their souls!

    Jesus argued that He was sent so that we could have everlasting life. Paul did not truly write anything that can be connected with modern gay and lesbian relationships. Paul does state, however, in Galatians, chapter five, verse 14,



    14. For the whole Law [concerning human relationships] is complied with in one precept, You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 3:01:14 AM

    Comment: Christians need to be more concerned with loving their neighbor than in judging their neighbors. This leaves no room for finger-pointing and no room for "holier than thou." By the way, there is one other section in the New testament to consider on this topic:



    1. Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb stood on Mount Zion, and with Him 144,000 [men] who had His name and His Father's name inscribed on their foreheads. 2. And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of great waters and like the rumbling of mighty thunder, the voice I heard [seemed like the music] of harpists accompanying themselves on their harps. 3. And they sang a new song before the throne [of God] and before the four living creatures and before the elders [of the heavenly Sanhedrin]. No one could learn [to sing] that song except the 144,000 who had been ransomed (purchased, redeemed) from the earth. 4. These are they who have not defiled themselves by relations with women, for they are [pure as] virgins. These are they who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These are they who have been ransomed (purchased, redeemed) from among men as the firstfruits for God and the Lamb.


    These verses refer to men who have been defiled by women. Does this mean that God prefers homosexuality relations and prefers when men are with men? Does this mean that heterosexual sex is defiling and not uplifting?

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 12:55:53 AM

    Comment: There is a certain need for realism regarding this issue of civil unions or marriage rights for gays and lesbians. I would like to take this opportunity to make a few points and possibly address a few issues raised by those who are vehemently opposed to the idea of equality.
    * Our society has always forbade marriage for gays and lesbians. So what? Our society has also deemed it right and proper according to G-d???s laws that only white men could vote, women were their husband???s property de facto if not de jure, blacks only counted as 2/3 of a person and could be sold into slavery. Just because something has been ???always done this way??? does not make it right.
    * Marriage is for procreation and gays do not procreate. The truth is, not all straight couples have children, whether by choice or for biological reasons. Should their marriages be declared null and void? On the other hand, some gays and lesbians have had children by biological means and some others have had children through adoption.
    * The Bible forbids homosexuality. It also forbids eating shrimp and mixing fabrics in our clothing. It allows for no double cheeseburgers with bacon. While Paul had definite issues about homosexuality and women being assertive, Jesus never even mentioned the ???problem???!
    * Equal rights, including marriage rights, for gays and lesbians will destroy our country. Can we say that rape, murder, drug abuse, domestic violence, a war which shows no sign of ending, bickering among the various denominations, a growing gap between the rich and the poor are not more of a threat to our society?
    * Homosexuality is immoral. Right! Of course, being left-handed used to be immoral. Marrying outside of your race was immoral. A woman wanting to vote was immoral. The law in many states allows you to marry your first cousin. Go figure! By the way, in terms of immorality, you can get married again immediately after getting your first or 21st divorce. You can have a quickie marriage in Las Vegas (ask Britney Spears). You can also marry your ex-lover???s adopted daughter (ask Woody Allen and Mia Farrow).

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/23/2007 12:48:29 AM

    Comment: There is a certain need for realism regarding this issue of civil unions or marriage rights for gays and lesbians. I would like to take this opportunity to make a few points and possibly address a few issues raised by those who are vehemently opposed to the idea of equality.
    * Our society has always forbade marriage for gays and lesbians. So what? Our society has also deemed it right and proper according to G-d???s laws that only white men could vote, women were their husband???s property de facto if not de jure, blacks only counted as 2/3 of a person and could be sold into slavery, and you had to attend whatever was the proper church for your community. Just because something has been ???always done this way??? does not make it right.
    * Marriage is for procreation and gays do not procreate. Not all straight couples have children, whether by choice or for biological reasons. Should their marriages be declared null and void? On the other hand, some gays and lesbians have had children by biological means and some others have had children through adoption.
    * The Bible forbids homosexuality. It also forbids eating shrimp and mixing fabrics in our clothing. It allows for no double cheeseburgers with bacon. While Paul had definite issues about homosexuality and women being assertive, Jesus never even mentioned the ???problem???!
    * Equal rights, including marriage rights, for gays and lesbians will destroy our country. Can we say that rape, murder, drug abuse, domestic violence, a war which shows no sign of ending, bickering among the various denominations, a growing gap between the rich and the poor are not more of a threat to our society?
    * Homosexuality is immoral. Of course, being left-handed used to be immoral. Marrying outside of your race was immoral. It seems the definition of immorality changes with need. By the way, you can get married again immediately after getting your first or 21st divorce. You can have a quickie marriage in Las Vegas (ask Britney Spears). You can also marry your ex-lover???s adopted daughter (ask Woody Allen and Mia Farrow).

  • Posted By: phiomalibumalibu @ 12/22/2007 10:02:08 PM

    Comment: I think it is a shame that gays cannot legally marry in this country -- a country known for freedom and liberty. I think all people ought to be able to marry whomever they want, as long as they are adults. I also think one should wait until at least the age of 25 to marry. If you want to find out more info on GayRights and Gay Marraige, check out GAYSONLYDATE.COM

    • Posted By: plgnyc @ 12/26/2007 17:15:31

      Comment: I find your comment about having to be at least 25 to marry puzzling. My mother was 17 when she married my dad and they just celebrated their 54th wedding anniversary. My husband and I (both men) met and "married" when he was 17 and I was 18. We were together for 18 1/2 years till he died at the age of 36. Had we followed your view, we would have been denied 8 of those 18 1/2 years -- every one of which I still cherish.

  • Posted By: fight_4_victory @ 12/22/2007 9:50:07 PM

    Comment: I agree with bimmer3's suggestion that we (being the gay community) should not call those who do not support gay marriage bigots. If someone does not support gay marriage so be it and if they do that is wonderful. Focus should be on the fundamental idea of equality! It is interesting that bimmer3 suggest that the gay community is forcing their beliefs on evryone else. Perhaps he has forgotten that is exactly what the religious right is doing at the moment. They are forcing their beliefs that marriage is held exclusively for heterosexuals on those of us who do not share that same view. I am fine with religion sanctioning a form of marriage to only heterosexuals. However, once the government gets involved and begins also sanctioning marriage it is time to end the ties to religion. I believe our founding fathers in forming this country sought to have a government free of religion. The government should not be allowed to pick and choose which individuals it will sanction to form a union (which is at least I would equate it to a contract). The Constitution of the United States holds that no one shall be discriminated against in the forming and enforcing of a contract. It is interesting that someone would think that we choose to be this way....yes I choose to be chastised by society, my family and others around me. I choose to be marginalized and deemed a partial citizen in the rights that I am given in the eyes of my government. One does not choose to be homosexual one is or one is not at birth. Equating the movement to the racial discrimination that occured not to long ago in our country is not an insult it is a mere analogy. Funny how we Americans have such short memories of our country's history. When women were demanding the right to vote men yelled and argued what is next if my dog wants to vote should we also allow him? When African Americans got the right to vote some Americans were up in arms clammering this would lead to the downfall of our Country. When blacks were allowed to marry whites again bigots cried foul using the same slippery slope arguement which has been relied upon long ago in an effort to scare individuals from change. I suppose that gay marriage really comes down to change and that people whether they be American or not fear change and will fight to the last breath against change. Yet, like women receiving the right to vote, blacks receiving the right to vote, and inter-racial marriage we will adapt and though change at first will be hard fought against we will move forward as we always have in the past ....for better or worse....

  • Posted By: ceriman @ 12/22/2007 9:40:49 PM

    Comment: The arguments against "gay marriage" boils down to "Marriage is from a God that hates sin, and Homosex is a sin!" But no other sin is used to deny marriage - Liars, theives, blasphemers, pornographers, fornicators, promiscuous swingers, murderers, even Athiests are allowed to marry, as long as they are of "opposite sex". No clergy or religious test of any sort is required for a marriage license, which negates the entire anti-marriage argument. Ironically, two virgins who had no interest in sex would not be allowed to marry if they were "same sex", no matter how innocent or free of sin they may be.

    If marriage is really "religious", why do we require a government license for marriage? No other religious activity requires government approval - no one needs a license to pray, preach the gospel, baptize, hold communion, or read scriptures. The reason is the legal rights and responsibilities inherent to marriage. We should separate the legal and religious aspects of marriage. Legally, marriage should be a simple straighforward contract to share property and take responsibility for each other, thereby gaining certain legal rights. The religious aspects of weddings - the ceremonies, recognition by the church, blessings by the clergy, permission to mate, even who would be allowed to have a church wedding - would all be handled by and regulated by the churches. Whether a church would require a legal marriage before performing a church wedding would be decided by the church, but a church wedding has never been required to be legally married.

  • Posted By: Resist Ignorance @ 12/22/2007 8:44:35 PM

    Comment: There was a similar case in 2001 where Diane Whipple was mauled to death by two Presa Canarios while she was trying to open her apartment door. Her long term partner, Sharon Smith, was force to sit in the ICU
    waiting room while Diane lay dieing alone because Sharon wasn't "family".

  • Posted By: starvesh @ 12/22/2007 6:33:04 PM

    Comment: Yes, I would condemn an opposite-sex couple who failed to take available precautions to protect themselves, whether via marriage or other means, and then complained that they were left without protection. These women knew that they had no marriage rights in their state, and yet did nothing to compensate for that. Tragic and sad, yes, but avoidable.

    Also, it would appear that in Washington State, things like durable medical power of attorney are available through a central online repository, thereby obviating the need to carry papers with you. And if the reality of your situation is that you might wind up in a devastating situation if you don't carry papers, then you should strongly consider carrying papers. You can dislike the reality all you want. You can work to change it. But if you fail to protect yourself because you find the available means distasteful or cumbersome, you've brought your suffering on yourself.

    • Posted By: Juantana @ 12/23/2007 14:55:15

      Comment: >>>These women knew that they had no marriage rights in their state, and yet did nothing to compensate for that. Tragic and sad, yes, but avoidable.

      oh really? My partner of 7 years and I spent over a grand to get papers drawn up to protect us, and the last thing the lawyer said was 'this still isnt foolproof and if your family chose to contest it it could all be for naught - nice! Plus it was done in Georgia and so we need to have it redone here in DC - luckily DC has domestic partnerships so maybe that will give us some protection - however why the hel should we have to pay for a feeble attempt at rights that str8's are guranteed automatically for free? Thats the point, people - all this talk of religion is pure BS, this country is supposed to have separation of church and state, wake up gay marriage is happening all over Europe and elsewhere and itll happen here too, just takes time. It was illegal for blacks and white to marry up to 1962 in most states.

  • Posted By: justin90069 @ 12/22/2007 6:23:37 PM

    Comment: No one should ever tell another who their family is. Until you walk in my shoes, do not shun me.

  • Posted By: Gillis @ 12/22/2007 5:41:41 PM

    Comment: I don't have a problem with gay civil unions, but I don't agree with gay marriage. Those that argue that marriage has never been defined to be between a man and a woman have their head in the sand.

  • Posted By: politically incorrect @ 12/22/2007 5:19:02 PM

    Comment: If two people want to be gay, nobody's going to stop them. But that doesn't mean we should dismantle the very fabric of our civilization to accomadate every alternative lifestyle that comes along. Even in the days of antiquity, when homosexuality and bisexuality were much more in the open than today, even they (i.e. the ancient Greeks/Romans/Egyptians) recognized that the institution of marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. You don't have to recognize a Judeo-Christian God to recognize a mandate of biology. Gay sex was fine with them, as was interracial marriage. But gay marriage was and is an oxymoron akin to "sterile fertility", or "non-competitive football"...the terminology alone merely begs the question.

    Many of you cited the example of modern European gay marriage. But it's precicely because of their cultural decadence that European culture is disintigrating from the inside-out, and is being taken over by the much more conservative Muslim influx, as has happened to all civilizations throughout history that devolve unchecked into extreme decadence. As Nietzche once pointed out, future generations tend to prefer bad culture to no culture at all.

    And where does it end? Why not allow a man to marry two men? Or maybe three men? Why not allow a woman to marry her son? Or her dog? The comparisons will undoubtedly offend many of you, as your current position would have offended our grandparents. But does it make someone a "hater" to wonder aloud what lies in store for a civilization that foregoes its integrity in order to accomodate what "feels good"?
    ...If history is any guide, it's a backlash much more conservative and stifling than anything which preceded it, which in essence every sharp historical trend is: Christianity, Islam, Marxism, Fascism.

    If gay marriage is here for the foreseeable future, I really don't care. I'm just curious to see the ramifications that it and other Feel-Good degenerations will have on the world of our grandkids and great-grandkids.

    • Posted By: CorbinB2 @ 12/23/2007 16:35:23

      Comment: The point of a union is two unite TWO individuals to one another. That is where the line is, if you are looking for one, and from a legal perspective is where it should be. Whenever the law is interpreted in other cases the judge/jury ALWAYS has the freedom and should take into consideration the intent of the law. The intent of allowing people to be joined together is that they are committing to each other plain and simple. This is the same for gay or straight.

      People need to either live by EVERYTHING the bible says or leave it out of decisions like this. Too often people pick and choose the parts of the bible that suit them and then throw them in peoples faces to prove their point.

    • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/22/2007 21:07:25

      Comment: So, if gay marriage is an oxymoron, just like "sterile fertility," then are you suggesting that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation? Isn't that what the Church taught in the Middle Ages? in that case, why not demand that all marriages be disolved after a woman goes through menopause as she will not be meeting your criteria for what a marriage is?

  • Posted By: TruthInTexas @ 12/22/2007 5:12:42 PM

    Comment: This article is a straw man. Marriage laws don't need to be changed. Two people can give one another (i) a medical power of attorney and (ii) an appointment as agent over the disposition of the other person's remains. These two documents require far less time and expense than getting married or going through the divorce that often follows. This can be done in Texas and I would expect in Washington State too.

    • Posted By: debatenotberate @ 12/22/2007 17:52:53

      Comment: There you are wrong - In Washington the 1st two documents require a lawyer to be done with any competency - especially for same sex couples while registry with the state as a couple takes only a signed statement and notorization. The Washington registry also goes far beyond those two documents and establishes inheritence, joint property and other rights. Marriage laws do need to be changed on the Federal level - any two adults who want to be married can be joined by a civil authority. Marriage? If the church wants it then they can have it - just give me equal access and protection under the law.

  • Posted By: TruthInTexas @ 12/22/2007 5:01:59 PM

    Comment: This whole article is a straw man. Marriage laws do not need to be changed. Two people can execute documents that give one another (i) a medical power of attorney and (ii) an appointment to control the disposition of the other's remains. That involves less time and trouble than getting married or getting divorced. Texas has such laws and I would bet Washington State does too.

    • Posted By: CorbinB2 @ 12/23/2007 17:02:05

      Comment: The point of the dissenting view here is though that there is no such need for a straight couple who have committed to each other for life. Hospitals in this case and other public institutions automatically afford them this luxury. This is not a question of whether resources exist for gay people to 'get the job done' as it were, but rather that they shouldn't need to in the first place.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/22/2007 4:55:18 PM

    Comment: Would one condemn straight married couples if they failed, somehow, to plan for such a tragic event? Actually, they needn't make such plans; by being legally married, the state would assume that the surv iving spouse has certain protections, thus negating the experiences Strong had at the emergency room and the funeral home. If Strong's other half had been a man, she would not have needed to go to the state capitol to fight for even some basic rights as they would have been assumed to have been hers already.

    The fact is that heterosexual couples have certain rights granted by federal and state law. They need only one piece of paper--the marriage license--to have those rights recognized in all 50 states and even in other countries. Gay and lesbian couples have to pay additional for some of those same rights. They have to pay for attorney fees. They have to pay for the necessary forms to be filed. They then have to carry those papers with them where ever they go "just in case." This is a blatant violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantees and, yet, too few complain because so many are already protected. So what id so-and-so has less rights so long as I have all of mine? What heterosexual couple would want to have to file numerous documents with the courts and then carry all of their paperwork so they can visit their loved one in the hospital, ensure their loved ones inherit their property--which they may have already helped pay for--or make the necessary medical decisions? Is the Terry Schiavo case really so attractive to us that we wish to pit loved ones against one another?

  • Posted By: TXRhinoman @ 12/22/2007 4:30:35 PM

    Comment: The simple fact is that Strong and her partner failed to adequately plan for just such an eventuality. Death is itself inevitable. What it appears Strong is doing is using a bit of slight of hand with her argument.
    Histrionics aside, it appears to me that the she is building her and her partners failur to plan for the eventuality of death in a committed realationship between two people, nevermind their respective genders, as a compelling argument in favor of same sex marriages in the State of Washinton.
    This is simply slopping thinking on her part and shameful if such an argument sways the Washington Legislature.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/22/2007 4:06:21 PM

    Comment: Let's understand a few basic and simple facts here:

    Heterosexual couples who are married do not have to go to a lawyer to have forms drawn up to give their partners certain legal protections, such as being able to make necessary medical decisions.

    The overwhelming majority of gays and lesbians were raised by heterosexual parents (thus, arguing the possibility that heterosexuality is the direct leading cause of homosexuality).

    People in prison have more legal rights than gays and lesbians do when it comes to marriage. You can get married while in prsion and never have to live with your new spouse, but you can live with your same-sex partner and never have the legal right to get married.

    Many people do not have sex until after marriage, but in spite of the fact that I have been with the same man for 20 years, I cannot get married after sex.

    A heterosexual couple can get married and have all of the financial discounts that apply to marriage, such as auto insurance, after knowing each other for even just minutes, but my partner and I cannot have these benefits because we cannot get married.

    If heterosexual married couples had to spend the same amount of money to guarantee their rights and had to keep the documents with them at all times, what types of chaos would be caused in the hospital emergency room?

    People condemen homosexuality because of the Bible, but what about people who are not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim? Should their values be discounted because they go to the "wrong" church or temple?

    Why should Britney Spears' marriage of 55 hours to Allen Alexander be more of a marriage, be more pleasing to G-d, than a committed relationship of 20 years between to men? "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," remember this phrase from some place?

    If someone or some objects to gay marriages, then don't marry gay couples in your church! However, don't confuse your religious rites with human rights. Much of Europe has figured this out, but we seem clueless.

    By the way, civil unions are not the same thing as marriage. Civil unions only give the rights granted by that one state. Marriage actually grants over 1,500 additional rights!

    Now, one last question, how on earth is gay marriage a threat to heterosexual marriage? I mean, if we gays are allowed to marry tomorrow, will that many straight people seek a divorce so that they too can marry someone of the same gender? If so, then they aren't really straight and their marriage isn't really a marriage if someone is just waiting for a way out.

    halstead.bill@gmail.com

  • Posted By: Junglejim123 @ 12/22/2007 4:04:18 PM

    Comment: i feel so bad for Ms .Strong. This story has made me realize how important it is for my partner and I to get some legal documents signed . Soviety has changed . I believe in the 10 Commandments and there is no commandment against loving each other regarlless of sex. 0f course there will always be people who have nothing better to do with their lives than to delve in the love lives of others. Also what about these evangelists types who advocate killing and overthrowing other rulers and governments ?? Evangelists - guess they never heard of thou shalt not kill but they will be the 1st to condemn 2 people who want to be together ...So stop the madness and let people be together and mind your business and live your life the way you see fit. My God is full of love for everyeone . But some of you take the name of God in vain to wage war and hate.

    • Posted By: jennj99738 @ 12/23/2007 00:07:54

      Comment: Totally agree with your comment, Bill. Except Britney married Jason Alexander, but I'm not nitpicking. :)

  • Posted By: starvesh @ 12/22/2007 4:00:13 PM

    Comment: This is a sad story, but one that was completely avoidable. Setting aside the question of whether or not these women should have been able to marry, they clearly failed to avail themselves of the legal protections offered by Washington State. If the story is accurate, they had no advanced medical directive, no durable medical power of attorney, and no other legal documents that would have protected them in this horrifying situation.

    Ms. Strong is doing other couples in her state a disservice by failing to acknowledge her own failure to protect herself and by failing to promote the existing protections that others can take advantage while they work toward changing their state's law to allow same-sex marriage.

  • Posted By: halstead.bill @ 12/22/2007 3:42:20 PM

    Comment: This story truly scares me as to what would happen to my life partner should anything happen to me! Last year, the people of Colorado voted against civil unions after a slick as campaign by some groups, like Focus On The Family, implied gays and lesbians can already have the same rights as heterosexuals if they would just pay for the court papers and lawyers.

  • Posted By: hakori @ 12/22/2007 3:35:40 PM

    Comment: dsf

  • Posted By: bydabeach @ 12/22/2007 3:16:40 PM

    Comment: Tach,
    They loved each other. God is Love. Where is the brazen unrepentent sin in that????????

  • Posted By: Country Boy @ 12/22/2007 3:15:16 PM

    Comment: I am a 68 year old white male. Although I don't think it should be called marriage, I see nothing wrong with legally binding relationships. I have had the same wife for 35 years but do not see same sex unions as a threat to my marriage.

  • Posted By: marksgershenson @ 12/22/2007 3:01:34 PM

    Comment: I am so saddened to see what Charlene has gone through over this past year. My brother-in-law has been with his partner for over 20 years. I could not imagine, whether your straight, gay, or anywhere inbetween what it woud be like to lose your partner after being together for so many years. It is time that our country recognize gay couples, and have a constitution ammendment that says that a marriage is recognized regardless of what sexual orientation one may be. It is time that the right wing extremists be shut-down, and a voice of reasonable conscience be heard through our country. My prayer goes out to Charlene, and any other family who has a gay member that he or she never experiences what Charlene went through in their lifetime. At least eight great states in our country have listened to the voice of the people. My prayer is that the voice of reason will go to the rest of the United States.

  • Posted By: tach @ 12/22/2007 2:54:41 PM

    Comment: They both had the right to get married. All they had to do was each find a man and marry him. Instead they chose to pursue a life of brazen, unrepentent sin. Now they cry victim and expect everyone else to embrace their new definition of marriage.
    The no-fault divorce laws have pretty much eroded American marriages to the point that they are merely based on temporary infatuations. So it is like trying to shut the barn doors after the horses have bolted.
    arriage is supposed to be one man and one woman for life according to Jesus Christ but now people don't mind swapping the old spouse for a new one.

    Thus continues the downward, fall-of-Rome spiral of America. Like Ancient Rome we are indulging every lust, vice and selfish desire. We are become a nation of obese slobs and the fabric of our culture is fraying at the seems.

    • Posted By: CorbinB2 @ 12/23/2007 16:06:22

      Comment: Tach...You speak as if committed homosexual couples are in the same class as some of the early bad examples of homosexuality the public has been poisoned with. Gay or straight, there are LOTS of examples of promiscuity and general bad behavior with regard to relationships. However, this is not about that at all. This is about committed relationships whereby either committed person is the best place to decide what is best for the other. To further my previous post, perhaps ALL marriages or name, should be required to remain together for a period of a year before being classified as a union and then be afforded all the rights and privileges that go along with it. There is a much higher divorce rate amongst straight unions than gay unions and yet we as a society and our government wants to discourage this?

      Religion is a personal choice and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but religious beliefs have no place in the governance of a truely free society.

    • Posted By: pshediack @ 12/22/2007 15:25:19

      Comment: What viciousness in the name of religion!

      Can you quote where in the New Testament that Christ said to be vicious in his name? Don't bother; he never told his followers act in such a manner. So since he never gave such a direction, why are you acting that way? Do you think you are more knowing than Christ?


    • Posted By: RD865 @ 12/22/2007 15:14:33

      Comment: Tach you hit the nail on the head when you talk about the downfall marriage and divorce. SO OBVIOUSLY gay marriaige has nothing to do with the downfall of traditional marraige....YOU BROUGHT IT ON YOURSELVES not the gay community. i as a gay man dont want special laws to protect me and my partner of almost 9 years I just want to be protected and have the same rights by the SAME LAWS. You truly show that you are nothing but a bigot by your comments.

      • Posted By: bydabeach @ 12/22/2007 15:18:48

        Comment: Tach,
        They loved each other. God is Love. Where is the brazen unrepentent sin in that??? I just don't see it.

  • Posted By: marksgershenson @ 12/22/2007 2:53:10 PM

    Comment: I am deeply touched by this article because my brother-in-law too is gay and been with his partner for 20 years. I could not imagine the tragedy like this happening to any couple straight or gay. My prayer goes to Charlene during this holiday season. My prayer is that all of the states pass a law similar to the other eight states that has done so. The issue that Charlene and many other gay couples have gone through is unecessary, and outright cruel. It is time for this country to accept that gay couples are here, and will always be here, and that the right wing extremists be put in their place once anf for all.

  • Posted By: tach @ 12/22/2007 2:48:00 PM

    Comment: Both had the right to get married. They could have each found a man and married him but instead they knowingly spit in God's face and embrace a life of unrepentant sin. So now they cry "victim" and want to force everyone to embrace their new definition of marriage.

    It is only a matter of time though as the no-fault divorce laws have already destroyed American marriage by making it all about