NOTE: I think its a good idea to bring this up again, as the Cultural Gestapo is getting ready to try again to put themselves in charge of who can and cannot marry, as opposed to the will of the people.
This sad display shows a gay legislator getting upset that special rights have not yet been conferred on their group when it comes to marriage. The failure at co-opting “alternative marriage” for any political benefit continues to make the Left very unhappy. Good.
In San Francisco, a high stakes gay marriage trial is set to begin. No matter how many times they do it, I never get tired of saying it. “If you believe your rights can be granted to you be courts, your rights can be taken away by courts.” You and I do not live in the same universe when some court can come along and tell you what you can and can’t do. Freddie Mercury died with a wedding ring on. Did he need anyone to tell him what he couldn’t do? Ruh roh!
I’ve discussed this matter at length, but usually only in response to a bevy of Heavy Breathers talking about how “intolerant” anyone who disagrees with them is. Here is the brute fact. If you advocate for gay marriage, and only for the introduction of gay marriage as a right, you are a bigot and a hypocrite.
Let me make this perfectly clear. Civil marriage should be what an individual state says it is, according to the will of its people. I don’t care what that will is, and I see no way that Federalist Extremists can fit it through the chasm they call the Commerce Clause. What my interest is is in pointing out the hypocrites and Cultural Gestapo who want to take that right away from the people. You’re all good Germans as long as you recognize what is and is not politically correct.
At the same time, as Dick Cheney famously said, “people ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to,” pretty much sets Darth Vader far ahead of the Leftists and Heavy Breathers who want to preach to others about “civil rights” when they aren’t especially civil and they especially aren’t right. What “Gay Marriage Exclusivists” want is to take that will away from you, the citizen. And then, they’re going to tell you what is, and is not, acceptable. Anything else is deviant, except their flavor of the moment.
One of the weakest arguments out there is that this approach is somehow unique or my own, when it is the only consistent argument for the definition of marriage. Either society has the right to decide what marriage is, or every individual has the right to decide what marriage is for themselves. Anything else is muddled thinking, motivated by sluggishness, denial, sloth or just plain bad attitude.
Following Vermont’s passage of Gay Marriage last April, this reporter wrote
“Who knows but that the Vermont Supreme Court, if the question arises, might find it serves no legitimate government objective there to deny marriage to close relatives and three or more persons. (What’s the point of not letting two sisters marry if two other women can marry?) What an irony if this law intended to provide “equality” in marriage were ruled discriminatory.”
Following passage of Proposition 8, LA Times columnist Robert Epstein wrote
“Nearly 1,000 cultures around the world allow some form of polygamy, either officially or by nonregulation; in Senegal, nearly half the marriages are polygamous. In the U.S., both the Libertarian Party and the American Civil Liberties Union have opposed laws prohibiting polygamy.
Gays are correct in expressing outrage over the fact that official recognition, the power to make health decisions, inheritance rights and tax benefits, have long been granted to only one kind of committed partnership in the United States. But wanting their own committed relationships to be shoe-horned into an old institution makes little sense, especially given the poor, almost pathetic performance of that institution in recent decades. Half of first marriages fail in the U.S., after all, as do nearly two-thirds of second marriages. Is that really a club you want to join?”
Now, I’m confident but not immune to the cacophony of straw men arguments whenever this subject is discussed. The Heavy Breathers emote all over the place, sliming everything up, until you just want to scream “for the love of god! just stop! whatever you want!” But you will be contributing to the loss of your free will, your rights, the rights of society for self-determination and just plain progress if you do.
1/3 of Americans are supportive of Gay Marriage. Another 1/3 of Americans are open to almost all other forms of marriage such as polygamy (more than one partner), and endogamy (marriage only within certain groups in society), as long as it doesn’t violate other existing laws, such as those that protect minors.
And yet, gay marriage fails vote after vote. Why? Well, you might say, that’s because the people who are for gay marriage and those who are for almost all other forms of marriage are the same folks, and they make up that 1/3 of society. Ah, but they are not the same people.
A little history…
Is it not a basic tenet of same sex marriage advocates that marriage is about romance and sex, and that’s why two people, AND ONLY TWO PEOPLE, are qualified to be married? Their argument, all along, has been that gay marriage is just like classic marriage. All other forms of marriage deserve to be stigmatized and only gays are deserving of this privilege extension. Its an anachronistic argument, that reaches back before the founding of this country. The basis for such an argument goes all the way back to before the Protestant Reformation.
The Protestant Reformation, to which the United States partly owes it creation, made the derogation of marriage as a purely religious, as opposed to civic, obligation. Virtually all of the leaders of the Reformation denounced the idea of marriage as a scripturally-sanctioned church sacrament. The Reformation leaders wanted to take marriage beyond the sacrament, and Calvin called it a union of “pious persons”. While it was still a covenant, it would go beyond “love” and “romance”, to extend into virtually every significant human relationship. How strange then, that Gay Marriage Exclusivists have not advanced beyond the Reformation.
Feels a bit like Religious Theocracy from the dark ages to be told just what IS and IS NOT marriage, doesn’t it? Then why would you listen to Gay Marriage Exclusivists when they do it?
If Gay Marriage Exclusivists were able to open their hearts and minds to the notion of EVERYONE being able to decide for themselves what marriage is, or allowing states to decide for themselves, instead of feeling justified in throwing out the vilest epithets, slander and lies for political gain, they could get what they say they are after. And the open minded, fair minded lot of citizens who are tired of listening to their ranting, just might be willing to let them join.
Unfortunately, what we have ended up with is a lot of people trying to escape their sense of shame dishonestly by constructing elaborate moral frameworks that allow them to parade their virtue and their lavish repentance without any real inconvenience to themselves, while simultaneously indulging in self-righteousness by condemning others for their impenitent evil. That’s the bad version of religion – the sort of religion Jesus came to dismantle.
Re: ” special rights have not yet been conferred on their group when it comes to marriage.”
Equal rights are not special rights, and the courts did not take away their right to marry, the mob did. I can’t recall a time when voters were allowed to overturn civil rights granted by a court. The whole Prop 8 thing was just cruel.
If they can take away rights from one group of Americans, they can take them away from any group of Americans.
The big issue is separate, but unequal. Couples do not get the same rights and privileges married couples get and that is why there is a big fight for marriage equality. Marriage is more respected compared to Civil Unions, and sadly people dont take civil unions seriously, its like trying to buy something at Costco with your VISA credit card.
I am supporting the measure against divorce, if we want to protect marriage ban divorce! It would be a shining example to the nation that mob rule is not the way to govern.
Honestly Terry, how many people advocate only for gay marriage?
Gay people should be able to marry just like anyone else. Let’s not blur the issue with all of this nonsense.
You guys are talking to somebody who is demented.
Well, good to hear that Art. Just how many other forms of marriage do you NOT discriminate against?
Sunny, if you advocate for your so-called “equal rights”, then EVERYONE can equally decide what marriage is, and is not. Correct? Or do YOU decide what marriage is, and it only means “a sexual couple” and excludes everyone else?
i am 60 years old. marriage was always between man and woman when i grew up. (divorce too) nowadays the younguns like the shock value to everything, no respect or remembrance as to what made america great. always bickerin’ . in the 60’s we told them hippies love it or leave it. same is true now. once men started growin’ long hair, wearin’ sandals and beads, well….now they want to marry. yuk.
Terry,
On this I see your point. One of the main opponents to prop 8 did historically support marragie to mutiple persons, if I recall correctly.
I will continue to support Marriage for my GLBT community as I am Married.
The changes you advocate for may at some point become reality, and I am personally supportive of each individual determining what marrage means to them. I also would not want a mandate that required churches to preform and marriage they do not belive in.
AS Luther Correctly pointed out Marriage is a secular( non-religous union. I am sure that many across the political spectrum because of our traditions cannot or will not see that there is a difference between secular and religious
Terry,
Thanks for confirming that this post was nothing more than a regurgitation of your offensive view that homosexuality is akin to bestiality.
There is not one culture or race on this planet that condones bestiality. But homosexuality is widely accepted in most of the civilized world.
Straight people divorce at a 90 percent clip. They are the biggest threat to marriage! Heck, your boy Karl Rove just dumped his wife!
Art, thanks for confirming that you view gay marriage as akin to nothing more than anal intercourse. Your ignorance drips off the screen. Your boy John Edwards had a spectacular blow out as I recall. Progressives don’t shine so bright.
Terry,
I think you are projecting your views onto mine.
I did not ever support Edwards. I voted for the Libertarian candidate in last year’s presidential election.
I am not trying to insult you, but your beliefs are simply horrid in this regard. There is nothing abnormal about gay people. They are NOT akin to those who practice bestiality.
What is your major issue with gay people?
Some of the most vocal opponents of marriage equality for homosexuals have been repressed homosexuals themselves.
Just sayin’.
Is not Marriage one of those “self evident rights” that predate the US Constitution?
Art, this is very problematic for me as your friend.
You invent a straw man argument that is not even mentioned, in order to distract from the fact that you have no problem discriminating against other groups, calling them deviant, and then trying to act like its others who hate. I have clearly argued I have no problem with ANY form of marriage. Its backward people like you who do Art. You cannot even admit you willingly, openly discriminate against forms of marriage which exist in dozens of cultures on this planet. And all I am saying is, count one alternative – count them all. Unless you want to leave it in the hands of democracy. But that is not acceptable to you either.
A friend of ours agrees with me. He is gay. Where have you gone wrong?
Oh yeah, can’t read that masterpiece too many times.
You are just… weird.
Our Founding Fathers warned about tyranny of the majority (and in this case of a very close simple majority).
For example, the majority in our civil society has been wrong in many instances and we evolved from that:
1) We previously saw black people as chattel/property, and enshrined it in our Constitution (3/5’s of a person), and denied them their human/civil rights.
2) We denied women the right to vote.
3) We denied interracial couples the right to marry.
4) We denied blacks their full citizenship right to vote, through “Jim Crow” laws.
5) We denied blacks their right to serve in the military in fully integrated units.
6) We denied children equal protection under the law, in education, when we deluded ourselves into thinking that separate was equal.
Again, there is example after example, where the majority has been wrong, and we evolved from that, and our society has been improved because of that, and then became a “more perfect union” and where much closer to living up to our ideals, of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, for all.
Granting Gays the right to marry is a civil/human rights issue, and as a society, we can NOT afford ourselves the “luxury” of being wrong, even if in the majority, at the expense of denying groups their FULL rights and obligations, and equal protection under the law.
No one is expecting or forcing a religious institution to decide who they want to marry, they alone and their members should establish those guidelines; however, as it pertains to our society, all members of our society should be entitled to equal protection under the law, and this means equal citizenship and not second class status.
Also, many people mistakenly confuse the Sexual ACT with Sexual ORIENTATION. For example, a teenager or many young adults will know their ORIENTATION(Gay or Straight) even when they have NOT engaged in the sexual ACT. And many young gays and many adults will be open about their ORIENTATION, unless they fear retaliation or repercussions because of their ORIENTATION.
Also it is NOT just the Sexual ACT but HOW you get to the Sexual Act that determines it validity.
For example, generally we say that the ACT of sex/marriage between a man and a woman is proper. However, we would not condone this sexual ACT if it was forced or coerced upon the woman by a man, or by an adult MALE with an underage FEMALE (the HOW is improper).
Also, many gays live in long-term relationships with LOVE and FIDELITY, in which they have openly and consensually entered into (the HOW is proper) …and yet we deny gay consenting adult couples the Civil Right to validate this and to enjoy Equal Protection under the law.
Furthermore, allowing gays to also serve openly in the military is a right and a duty.
In the military we expect individuals to conduct themselves always with honor and integrity, and yet we expect them to live a lie and hide who they are, and to lie about their sexual orientation. This is a greater threat to our national security and also because we are kicking out gay military personnel who have mission critical skills, of which we have a shortage and a high demand for, putting our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan at risk.
Also, when my daughter was born, back in 1988 (a year after my first wife and myself entered military service), I asked myself, would I want to work for a just society, or would I allow a society that discriminated against my daughter (or someone else’s son or daughter) or limited her abilities, aspirations, RIGHTS and DUTIES because of her gender or possible future orientation that might be different than that of the majority? My answer. I prefer a just society that does not limit someone because of their physical/sexual difference or sexual orientation.
And lest you think these are notions of a “leftist”, I invite you to read:
“The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage – Why same-sex marriage is an American value” by Ted Olson, a “Conservative darling” of the “right”. He has rightfully laid out his case, even at the expense of his condemnation by the right.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957
Francisco Barragan (my opinions only, and not those of any group)
Served in US Marines (1987-1994) and
CA Army National Guard (1994-1997)
I think its a good idea to bring this up again, as the Cultural Gestapo is getting ready to try again to put themselves in charge of who can and cannot marry, as opposed to the will of the people.
Do you know something I don’t know about that’s going on in California?
Or are you hallucinating as usual?
Or are you calling the 51% – 55% of Californian voters who MIGHT this November or Nov. 2012 decide to repeal Proposition 8 by referendum, a “Cultural Gestapo?”
Yeah, yeah… I only pretend to take you seriously for fun. Whatever.
Terry, so you never responded to my previous post. Am I correct that your candidate in 2000 was Alan Keys? He hates the fabulous people as much as you do.
I really enjoyed your post Francisco.
You’re right, Baxter, that was a great COMMENT from Francisco – so good that, with his permission, if same-sex marriage does come back onto the ballot this November, I’ll reprint it as a POST.
Terry said that he worked for Pat Buchanan, who was running with the upstart Reform Party that year, and I have no reason to disbelieve him.
I think Terry would also claim that he doesn’t hate the fabulous people, but we can only wonder why he’s driven to construct such a novel and bizarre rhetorical edifice, with the endpoint always being to deny the fabulous the right to marry the person they love.
The mental gymnastics you spin here are impressive. Although your argument is difficult to follow between the jingoistic phrases, ideological jargon, and malapropisms – basically you are pointing out that there are other potentially excluded groups than gays who might suffer at the expense of legalizing gay marriage.
Wow. Thanks for that.
Also, in the future, why don’t you cite or give credit when you quote word for word from another webpage? I don’t know what you libertarians call it, but where we come from (in our liberal academies), we call it plagiarism. Evidently, it’s just us silly Marxists that feel the need to respect intellectual property.
http://newdonkey.blogspot.com/2004_11_14_archive.html
You’re right ww.
In fact, it would appear that my citing Luther as the person who treated marriage as a “union of pious persons” was incorrect. Should have been Calvin. Although I never saw that site before. Spending a lot of time looking up my writing and you found I remembered ONE sentence word for word from somewhere. And got some of the rest of the paragraph wrong. Hm. Not sure what to make of this individual. Im going to make edits right now.
By the way, WW, I’m not just saying there are POTENTIALLY other groups. I am saying people who are advocating for GAY MARRIAGE, gay marriage exclusivists, are treating them as they say society is treating gays. That makes them bigots AND hypocrites. By their own words. I’m saying they really don’t care about “equal treatment” but only where they find it convenient politically. I’m saying they have no respect for society being able to determine for itself what the definition of marriage should be, because they are constantly reiterating that bigoted and hypocritical position. They want to do it. And anyone who can point out their inconsistency be damned.