Gay Marriage – Forgive Me, But What is the Problem Here?

  Yes, yes, I know. I am most likely going to be blasted for riding the fence on this one.

I am a conservative Republican. I believe in lower taxes, securing our borders, and protecting our country and our Constitutional rights. I support our troops and take pride in the foundation America was built. I own guns, and I know how to aim…accurately. I want our country to thrive, I want our economic hardships to cease. I want my kids to enjoy a solid future and not owe the government for the entirety of their lives. I want Reagan to be reincarnated, dang it. 

I don’t think a mosque should be built near ground zero, for the love of God, no. Not unless the planning committee behind it is willing to build within the mosque a cathedral, a temple, and a chapel to show pure diversity and offer THAT message…but I digress.

As for gay and lesbian marriage. What is wrong with it? Really.

I don’t feel that just because I am heterosexual and choose not to have a piece of paper claiming I am married (yet reap the medical and household benefits, etc.) should offer me difference in treatment than a couple of the same gender who wants to be married but can’t legally do so. I can choose not be married, officially on paper, and obtain the benefits, allow my common-law spouse to make medical decisions if I were on life support, hold health insurance for my entire family, and be looked upon in a way that is acceptable by society, simply because I am a woman who loves a man.

Ok, some don’t view my opinion on marriage as acceptable, but hey, I can live with it.

When two men or two women happen to love each other and want to build a life together, why should they be legally unpermitted to get married or like me, reside common-law and obtain benefits?  I suppose my conservative peers may say I am down right wrong, but that’s the beauty of free speech and free choice, isn’t it?

Maybe it’s a female thing, or a compassionate heart underneath my conservative mindset, but I must say, if any one of my three children came to me announcing they were homosexual…I would embrace them with love and support and hope they receive the same benefits that I do as a hetrosexual woman who doesn’t agree with traditional marriage.

This world is made up of too much hate and entitlement and what’s in-it-for me. When debate surrounds itself around people who love each other and want to be able to be married, I find it a shame. Terrorists, murderers, baby-rapists….they don’t deserve the air we breathe.

Gays and lesbians…let them be in love and marry if they choose. Life could embrace a lot more happiness and neighborly respect if so.

It’s all about good people, legal citizens, who want free choice in their personal relationships and life stature. This is what America is about.

About these ads

Categories: Conservatives, Gay Rights, Political Correctness

105 replies

  1. Nicely said Angi. I think we, as a people, get much further along by learning from our personal connections; our neighbors, our teachers, our fellow parents or book club members, our brothers, sisters and children. It is the angry talking heads who profit by inciting their listeners – I might suggest reading “Toxic Talk,” who tear us further apart. Another poster referenced Rush’s comments this morning to validate her condemning message. That is why I appreciated your comments about your 3 children and tried to make that point earlier with Dave. If we stop demonizing the “others” as we encouraged to do by the media talking heads, and start thinking in terms of how we want our children and friends treated, we’d go a long way as a just, kind society.

  2. Angi… you really want me to blast you?

    Okay.. I am female. I want to put my husband on my insurance and he would like to put me on his. One problem.. we weren’t married at the time. I asked why I couldn’t add him or the fact he can’t add me, when other gay couples can….. Holy COW, want to talk about an evil eye! Now, Lets say I was male and the hubby was male…. I would have that great right to put him and vice versa on each other insurance. Why shouldn’t a hetrosexual couple do the same?

    One word… TAXES! Oh yes, it all comes down to how much can the Government bilk you. Do I care if Gays want to get married.. nope. I hope they like paying for divorce lawyers like all hetrosexual couples have for over the last 100 yrs. But if they are going to bitch, whine, moan, throw temper tantrums about FAIRNESS… then I want my little piece of the pie.

    I didn’t want to get married….. but you can’t do some things without being married in a hetrosexual world. I hope that gay couples realize what they had, and what they are losing!

  3. That’s too bad you endured such, upinak. That’s exactly why the same rights need to be applied for non-married couples or same sex couples. Where do you live? In Colorado my common-law husband can be on my insurance and such. I suppose that’s my perspective…I can obtain the benefits and not be married on paper.

    I feel your frustration, really. Again, my stance is, for you too….if two people are in love and want a life for themselves…why should they have to get married (like in your case) or not be allowed to get married (in a same sex couple case). You are right…taxes are a big reason. How about we overhaul the marriage issue and get rid of the healthcare mandate…hmmm….just a thought.

    • angi… what comes around goes around. Karma is just that. I already know a few gay couples who are in a rock and a hard place. They were Married in NY live here in Alaska and now are screwed as they can’t get a divorce here (I warned them) they can’t leave their jobs, but everything is tied together due to their marriage.

      They had it better as a civil union and laughed at me when I said i wish I had it as easy as they did. One of them came up to me 2 weeks ago and apologized, saying I was right. Divorce sucks for everyone.

      But it still isn’t fair that I could not add him to anything unless we were married. It will be like that for gay couples very soon.

  4. Two words: civil unions. Gay couples get all the benefits of marriage. But that wasn’t enough. Back a few decades ago homosexuals just wanted to be left alone.
    Now it’s the symbol and institution of marriage that’s being upended
    That’s what so many of us have a problem with. And where does it end? As Dave touched on earlier, what about three or more people getting married? The sky’s the limit.

    • MOK you are so wrong on everything. it must not bother you to look so stupid in front of so many. Civil unions DO NOT include all the rights as marriage does. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

      • I HAVE looked it up. And you need to watch your tone and keep a civil tongue around here. Enough with the personal attacks.

        Virtually same benefits are afforded by the state to the “civil unions” couples as “married”. Be honest, the primary reason same-sex marriage supporters cite is that the word ‘marriage’ matters and that the term ‘civil union’ (and its equivalents) do not convey the emotional meaning or bring the respect that comes with marriage.
        They are entitled to feel that way, but I disagree and don’t believe that that reason is enough to change the institution. However (and this may surprise you) I believe that it should be left to the states to decide.

        If you saw my post on Dave’s thread, my main beef is with an activist judge who single-handedly slapped the electorate and reversed their vote, as if saying “You the people are too stupid, I know better.”
        What’s the point of putting any referendum out for a vote, if someone on the judiciary is going to overturn it after the fact?

    • Mok, as for my tone, you’re the one who posted something about hating liberals and that you hate progressives even more than liberals.

      Anyway overturning Prop 8 and the antigay agenda is so yesterday, Elena Kagan was just confirmed to the supreme court. I suggest you go listen to Rush, so you’ll get all the talking points on activist judges.

      • I just posted it.. aimee. You are not very observant… as MoK never posted about that.

      • That’s a bold-faced lie, amiee. I never wrote anything about “hating” anyone. Prove it. I haven’t deleted anything.
        And I certainly never attacked anyone personally, which you have a habit of doing. I’m asking you politely to stop, and act like a mature individual. Argue the issues, present supporting evidence, disagree, but not “disagreeably”(there’s a difference).

        You diminish your own words by name-calling and sniping. There are plenty of good examples on this very blog of opposing views without resorting to that.

      • i’m not going to read thru every comment MoK has ever posted. and if MoK and her wannabe Sarah Plain girlfriend choose to believe that makes me a bold face liar, go ahead. i’ve already formed my opinion about you 2 and it’s not anymore flattering than being thought of as a liar

      • Oh aimee.. how “liberal” of you. LOL the tolerance of the left in full bloom!

      • i’m not going to read thru every comment MoK has ever posted. and if MoK and her wannabe Sarah Plain girlfriend choose to believe that makes me a bold face liar, go ahead. i’ve already formed my opinion about you 2 and it’s not anymore flattering than being thought of as a liar.

        Right. We’re talking about one or two threads. Surely you can keep track of that. You might start by not letting your emotions get the better of you so you can make valid statements and arguments.

      • Ok MoK, I found your quote!

        “It would be easier for me were it LIBERAL instead of Democrat, as I despise them (and progressives) more.”
        – MoK Democrat Anthem

        Ok so I got the word ‘hate’ wrong the word you used was ‘despise’. so you’re not so above posting abhorrent messages yourself. You’re not only a liar you’re a hypocrite

      • Oh, you nailed me, amiee. So being against progressive and liberal think makes me hateful because I despise that kind of thinking? I’m not a hypocrite, unlike so many leftists who constantly say how they want the rest of us to live but refuse to live by it themselves.
        And like a Utopia, equal outcome is impossible.

        But yes, I should have worded it that I despise the ideology. Sort of like “hate the sin, not the sinner.” That’s what I meant. Since that previous thread was worded as persons (i.e. Democrats), responding with “liberals” and “progressives” was natural.
        Though I’m sure if I am more careful in my wording next time it won’t matter to you, because you nitpick.

      • Mo that could describe almost anyone. Look at how many so called religious, family value, right-wingers have been caught having affairs? And a good number of these guys cheating on their wives with other men.

        True Libertarians are strongly against prop 8 because it’s the government making civil right decisions for gay people. Read what Ron Paul says about gay marriages, he’s completely for them. I don’t agree with a lot of what Ron Paul stands for but I respect him for being consistent in what the Libertarian party stands for.

        And that’s my final post for the night, as Bush said “folks need to put food on the family”.

  5. So there are some bloggers here who understand constitutional law. That’s a relief. Just because one may be homophobic that is still not a legal reason to deny millions of Americans the same civil rights other Americans have. What I don’t understand is why these lovers of “traditional marriage” why are they not as outraged about the right to a divorce which is the biggest threat to traditional marriage? Let’s face it, anyone who supports prop 8 is homophobic

    • Who is homophobic amiee? I am not… but projection of yourself seems you are hetrophobic. Get a clue.

      • uptight: it seems you have no answer to why supporters of traditional marriage are anti gay marriage, but getting divorced, that’s OK

      • Who said I was all about getting married? Maybe you should remember that I posted in another thread that I didn’t want to get married but to add my husband to my legal items and insurance… I had to. As for gay couople, they do not need to be married and can add each other as long as they say that they are in a civil union.

        You may want to step back and re-read the whole comment section.

  6. Yep, the divorce factor is always the risk and catch to the marriage ideal. Hence, why I don’t believe in traditional marriage. I know a lot of people who claim traditional marriage but whom have affairs. I know conservatives who marry for their religious stance, but don’t follow it. Hypocricy does not bode well for me. If one stands for something, they should live it, not speak it. I think that’s wrong on all levels, no matter if they are conservative Republican or not. On the flip side, I know others who want to be married but can’t because they are gay. That’s wrong too.

    I may be “wrong” in not believing in traditional marriage, but it is my right to feel right in my decision.

    I usually don’t respond to comments to my blog writings, simply because some of the anger and hate and bashing that ensues leaves me feeling not-so-great for both sides. I really wondered if I should even belong to a blog. I hope to simply offer viewpoints yet despite the sometimes negative stigma of being a conservative Republican female, I hope my readers understand that I do believe in rights for everyone who resides here legally in this beautiful ride we call American. (Toby Keith…gotta love him).

    • Sharing your views with hundreds, and potentially thousands, of people is half the fun of blogging. It’s one thing to sit and complain to your friends, another to debate the issues of the day with all kinds of people. There is a reason people like to share their thoughts and opinions with the world. We all get a voice that way in the issues of the day.

    • angiquinn: I understand your frustration about blogging, but I wanted to thank you for posting your message. You make perfect sense. I too don’t believe in traditional marriages because it’s a myth, it just doesn’t exist. It would be nice if these traditional marriage supporters would read up on the subject. The history of marriage began when the parents (traditionally the father) would find a suitable match for their child to marry once the child came of age. Yes, the history of marriage began as arranged business deals between two families agreeing when their children marry the two families can merge their land, money or resources. It had nothing to do with love or God. Often these couples never even met until the wedding day. Marrying someone for love didn’t begin until the 20th century. I hope these traditional marriage supporters would read The Age of Innocence, Yentl or any of the other 1000’s of books about arranged marriages being just the way it was. Be thankful there aren’t traditional marriages in the U.S., or we’d all be married to someone our fathers picked out for us

      • Amiee, thanks for the reply…

      • This is the best argument I have heard from supporters of gay marriage. But people actually began to marry for love in the Victorian Age. Good points nontheless.

      • Except for the fact that it bolsters defense of traditional marriage. Marriage is and has been for thousands of years a covenant organized around the production of legitimate children to carry on a family legacy, combined with the requirement that a man (and his family) make a binding commitment to support them – not just sow seeds and move on. In fact, when marriage is weakened you see a huge spike in single families with absent dads. Marriage is about heirs, hence between a man and a woman.

      • But Beast, you say “when marriage is weakened” as if there have been great periods in history marked by “weakness in marriage.” I’m not necessarily in favor of gay marriage but that argument doesn’t hold water. The causes of traditional marriages being made weaker are societal. They have little to do with the success or failure of another couple to get married.

      • And I may be more on the side of Angiquinn on this post. I think Andre said it best some time ago when he proclaimed: (I’m paraphrasing) “we won on guns and they won on gays.” And it makes perfect sense. The gun rights debate is forever sealed in our favor. And conversely, the western notion of ‘gay rights’ is now a dead issue. Gays have won. Its time to face it and move on.

      • E, a good example of the weakening of marriage came back in the 70’s when welfare programs discouraged fathers from living with families receiving public assistance. Single motherhood exploded creating a substantial underclass trapped in a cycle of poverty and dependence. And we know that children raised in single parent homes are at much greater risk than those who grow up with two parents. Weaken and dilute the social covenant and we all reap the whirlwind.

      • E:

        “the western notion of ‘gay rights’ is now a dead issue. Gays have won. Its time to face it and move on.”

        A recent CBS poll shows that 42 percent of Americans support marriage rights for gays and lesbians, though not a single state has been able to pass a referendum to legalize same-sex marriage, and Prop 8 passed in California by 52%, winning by a margin of over a million votes. That’s winning, how?

  7. If you favor gay marriage then you have to be for polygamy also to be consistent. I guess I could use another wife or two. If marriage is not just between one man and one woman then I guess we’ll just say its could for any and every combination one can think of. Why not? If marriage really doesn’t mean anything and has no definition then turn the floodgates loose.

    • A custom with a history thousands of years old shared by every civilized culture on Earth should be imbued with enough common sense to keep this barbarism from passing. Nowhere in history has a culture allowed for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. The problem is that homosexuals are now drunk with power and know that their time for affecting legal change is dwindling rapidly as Conservatives prepare for a political blasting in November. Their delusion is palpable, but not surprising. We have liberalism to thank for this. This case will not pass muster in the Supreme Court unless Justice Kennedy wilts.

    • Dave the Sage, you are missing the point my friend. Polygamy is illegal. Yet, the lifestyle of swinging and God knows all the things that go on the world are a reality of “traditional marriage”. People can love and live as they choose, as long as all are consenting adults and the actions are legal. The floodgates have already turned loose, it’s just up to individuals if they are going to stay monogamous and comitted. I would like to believe a high percentage of married couples are just that…traditional and with moralistic behaviors. Get a room full of married women and then a room full of married men…let me tell you….the secrets come out amidst the talk and banter. For those who truly believe and trust in the traditional marriage expectations, God Bless you. It makes me very sad inside that I don’t view marriage like you do, on the moral and ethical front….really. But come on…to compare two men or two women who love each other and want to give it a go on comittement and vows really isn’t fair to compare to polygamy. That realm is dealing with a whole other issue of smokescreen religious front, men who nearly slave their women and children, and the like.

    • the reason traditional marriage is being challenged is not to change the definition in and of itself; it is being challenged because gays are gathering and gaining support for their cause. this is how all laws happen. i don’t see this happening among the polygamists or them gaining support from others for marriage rights. two people committing to each other in marriage for life is what is being fought for, not t0o much different than what we already have now, hence the support they are gaining.

  8. I did confirm that judge was gay by the way. Guess we shouldn’t be surprised by this shoddy verdict.

    • DtS – did you also confirm why it took the Reagan-appointed “gay judge” two years to be confirmed??? His confirmation was held up largely by gay activists due to his previous rulings which they opposed. By no accounts, does this man have a reputation as having an “agenda”. In fact, he has VERY mixed reviews up until now within the gay community. But I’m guessing you wouldn’t know that since I doubt Fox or Rush are covering this part of the story.

      • This is the problem. He should have gone by the LAW and not by his personal views. Which he did.

        Maybe you don’t understand that Help. But what he did was wrong. I am not sorry that bothers you…. as you are the one who wants this shoved down my throat.

      • Whatever, he ruled that the Gay Games couldn’t be called the Gay Olympics. How amazingly un-gay friendly.

    • and if Judge Walker were a straight man and he ruled to uphold prop 8, then we can say “well of course he’s for prop 8, he’s straight”

    • Prop 8 overturned, the closeted Elena Kagan confirmed on the supreme court. not a good week to be homophobic

  9. Upi – Guess you missed the point of my post. The Judge’s history is MIXED as it relates to the so-called “gay agenda.” He made rulings earlier in his career that were so unpopular with gay activists that they strenuously opposed his confirmation by Reagan in the 80’s. Yesterday’s ruling was about 140 pages of a step by step detail of every matter of law presented in the trial. I’d suggest mixing up your news sources a bit to come at this with more than emotion. And, I simply must ask, why is it that those so afraid of equal rights for gays, continue to advance the metaphor of having something “shoved down their throat”? I figured a little levity was in order at the end of the day.

    • Help. You have more rights then I do. I don’t have to spell it out for you. You already know it. The only right you as a gay person do not have… is marriage. That is it.

  10. Cross posted at FreeRepublic. Check out the comments there as well. I scoff at those who say our blog is a bunch of ideological clones or that there is no diversity of opinion here. And that is to our credit here. I am glad that we sometimes disagree on the major issues of the day as long as we always remember to “play nice” with one another during these debates and discussions.

    • LOL- you’ve opened a new can of worms, Dave! But I agree. I still personally think it’s a matter of the states, and if the people want it, so be it. This activist Judge Walker overturned the will of the people.

    • some really mean and hufurtl things to my girlfriend. I even accused her of cheating and told her I wanted to get a DNA test on the baby. My girl is not the kind to cheat either, she is a great and good girl. Very responsible, serious, respectful, beautiful, the perfect package. Anyways we had a long talk about why I didn’t trust her. I really did trust her, its just that I was mad about other stuff and for some reason I don’t know how to express how I am feeling so I just get mad about other stuff. I took my anger out on her. I know how wrong and despicable I am because I needed to be more considerate of her because she is pregnant and very sensitive at this time. Treating her this way can be very dangerous.Anyways on the day after, she told me about how she cried all night and the she didn’t want to be with me anymore. I begged her to take me back like a pathetic fool and she kept saying no. I told her to tell me that she doesn’t love me anymore and I would leave her alone and she said no because she still does love me and she can’t tell me a lie about how she feels. She said that she would take me back if we kept our relationship a secret and I said no because that made me feel like she was ashamed of me. She then told me that she needed time. I called her that night and she told the same things. Anyways I sent her a week of teddy bears with roses and very nice chocolates and apologetic love letters. On about the third day she got online and I talked to her and she said that everything was very nice and that she liked but she can’t take me back because she would feel like a dumbass and that her family would talk sh*t about her because they found out about the situation. I kept begging her and she kept saying no and she said she is never going to forgive and never going to take me back. I told her that I had changed for real and that my eyes were open and things would be different but she won’t beleive me because I have made this promise before. I kept pleading with her and she told me that I was driving her nuts, that she made her myspace again (she deleted it before because we would get mad about each others myspace, this will have significance later)to leave her alone, and to never speak to her again.On the fifth and final day of gifts, which was a plush sad sam puppy stuffed animal with roses and a sad note, I told her brother (who has been helping me out the whole time) to tell his sister to get online so I could tell her something important and real short and that it would not make her mad. She got on and I told her that I agreed with her decision to end our relationship. She asked me why and I told her that I understood that this is what she wanted and I have to respect that. I apologized to her for bothering her and acting so crazy after the break up. I told her that I didn’t wanted to be friends with her and that to not worry about the kid that I am going to support it no matter what and that if she ever needed help with anything that I would have her back no matter what. She said thank you that is what I want. She said that she doesn’t know if we going to be in the future together and I was like ok that’s cool not really showing interest and I told her goodbye and take care and signed off right away. After I signed off she said goodbye take care like two minutes after I signed off, meaning I think she kept looking at the screen thinking about it. Anyways, I prayed to God after that and i asked him to help me out with this problem with my girl.The strangest thing happened later that night. She called me really late at night and when my mom gave me the phone I said hey how are you? she said good and I said good and immediately she said Jayson I love you I still love you alot. I couldn’t hold my feelings for her and I told her that I love her too. She thanked me for all the gifts she had been recieving and said she really loved the sad sam puppy that she received. I couldn’t hold back and told her that I still wanted to be with her and that I wanted to have a family with her. I told her I wanted to take care of her and our child. I apologized and I said that I really am cI apologized and I said that I really am changed and that if she gave me another chance that I could make her happy. She told me she wants to be with me and that she doesn’t want anyone else. I kept apologizing and I told her that what really hurt me the most was not that she left but that I hurt her and that the one thing in the world that makes me feel good is when I know that she is smiling and feeling good because of something that I did to or for her. I told her that it wasn’t that I needed her but that I wanted her. We talked for like an hour and I know this is a mistake but I love her and she has my child I can’t play these break up games with this girl because the stakes are so much higher. Well we talked on the phone for like an hour and we just kept telling each other about how wemiss each other and love each other and want to be with each other and telling each other about what has been happening in our lives this week. I asked her if her myspace said she was single and she said no that she didn’t want to change it. That the only reason why she put it back up was to check for messages from friends and family. She asked me why I deleted mine and I told her that I did so because it was distracting me from doing what I need to be doing and from my training by the way I forgot to mention that I am going to marines bootcamp in like three weeks. She said that she would really think about getting back with me this time and that she was really considering it, but she doesn’t want what has already happened to happen again. She just doesn’t want to get hurt again. I am really hoping we get back together.Do you think that we are going to get back together? What should I do in the meantime? Do I call her and leave her messages telling her how much I love her or do I leave her alone and give her time to think and some space? Did I give in too easy when she called me? I’m so confused right now and I’m scared of losing her. Please, any advice or opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you ladies.

  11. Look in the mirror -you are not conservative -you are the problem.

  12. Are any of you really suprised the Gay Judge in San Francisco struck down this amendment? Seriously?

    Judges are required to recuse themselves if the result of a case will demonstrably benefit or harm them personally. Walker is Gay and has been in a long term relationship. If he wishes to marry the guy, the California marriage ban has to go. Also, Judge Walker has suffered the intervention of several higher courts throughout this trial who stepped in to knock him back a peg or two when it became apparent he was trying to stage his own new millennium version of the Scopes Monkey Trial. It’s obvious Walker had a big dog in this hunt, and to pretend otherwise beggars credulity – which is a lefty staple anyway, so no surprises there. And let us not pretend that if the trial had been presided over by a conservative evangelist minister who ruled in favor of the constitutional amendment the lefties wouldn’t be screaming conflict of interest themselves. Suddenly now the Gay San Fran Judge who struck down the anti-gay-marriage amendment is an honest broker with no interest in the outcome. Please!

    Sometimes a mind can be so open it’s empty. Libs, you ain’t foolin’ nobody.

    • So can a heterosexual judge rule on a marriage case? Or are we limited to asexual judges? Can an evangelical rule on a religious freedom case? Can a gun owner vote on a gun rights case?

      This line of reasoning is silly on its face.

      • Certainly he can, provided he has no personal stake in the outcome. If he does then he needs to recuse himself. Judge Walker’s antics throughout this trial, combined with the fact that higher courts have had to intervene several times shows this. What silly is that libs are pretending otherwise, and expect to be believed, when even they know better.

  13. gays marry?What is next. Man marry’s his horse. Woman marries a Goat, Dog, Ferret? WHERE Do you draw the line. OH YEA! their is no line,RIGHT? What about a little thing CALLED MORALS? Being a homo is IMMORAL!, JUST LIKE BEING AND ILLEGAL IS CRIMINAL!!!

  14. Once again libs are whistling past the political graveyard. Are there are any popular political issues left for them to go against the will of the People on? A clear majority of seven million Californians voted for this amendment – it passed with 52%. One judge invalidated that vote. One.

    And yet, the decision made by this one person is being hailed as a “Sweeping Victory”. How is that a “sweep”? Seven million is a sweep; a vote of one is as close as you can get to the opposite. And let us not forget there’s almost certainly a future SCOTUS ruling in the offing.

    Conservatives represent about 40% of the electorate, libs about 20%. Libs need to be strategically placed in various power nexuses to swing influence and promote their agenda, which makes the spectacle of one man invalidating the votes of seven million others all too drearily typical. But the nation takes note, and come November they’ll be payback aplenty.

    • This is one issue where conservatives are losing. Sure they can win a referendum, but young people totally do not get what the big deal is. Opposition to gay marriage is limited to old people and religious nuts. As supporters of “traditional marriage” die and go senile, gay marriage will stop being controversial.

      • Yes, and just two years ago the Republican Party and Conservatism was dead, a relic soon to be consigned to the graveyard of history. Your declarations of victory are somewhat premature.

        The Beast also hastens to point out that age and experience is a grand cure for liberalism: folks tend to smarten up as the years go by.

  15. The ‘smokescreen’ religious front? That’s a strange way to describe 2,000 years of charity and the ecclesiastical authority that actually administers the fundamental political unit of any society. Marriage is not a state administered civil right – its a convenant. And it’s not about who you screw. It’s about your family. Open marriages can and do exist, for people who need them. But the coherent, political purpose of a family is to raise children. The family is the base unit of all politics.

    It’s cool that Angi, as a blogger – has identified that it is a largely conservative point of view to be ‘live and let live’ about same sex marriage. But I find it bizarre that the discussion of marriage then proceeds from that respectably libertarian point of view – to the realm of open marriage?

    One day conservatives will wake up and realize that evangelical liberalism a.k.a. bush republicanism – has corrupted the basis of the party and really effed up true conservative thought.

    But hopefully this blogger will one day wake up and realize that her marriage coheres around her family, and her three sons. (two sons, and a stepson?).

    And that marriage she enjoys is defined by the strength, and health – of her children. The question isn’t whether or not one comes home gay – in an overpopulated world, they could all come home gay – girdle the family tree – and effectively sterilize her genetic legacy, burning her grandchildren off the planet. Nobody would miss them. We’ll be completely overpopulated in less than 170 years, at the rate we’re going as a species.

    The question is whether or not those grandchildren – will sit on her knee and listen to her tell them stories about their great grandfather, or play with their grand-dad, or sit at her table and enjoy a home cooked meal from grandma. Will their christmas memories include the warm moments of the elders in their family – standing over a gathering of aunts, and uncles, and cousins? Do they retain the authority and respect, that wisdom conveys – will their advice be heeded?

    Will the political unit be maintained?

    Or will we continue to project our feelings about our father – onto the president, and government – as a template for rebellion. My vote here , as a bona fide independent – who thinks healthcare reform is a great thing, and fair tax should be the law of the land –

    Is that same sex marriages stand or fall on their ability to raise children. They will never have genetically derived children – but fairly soon here hostile genetics will catch up with our species anyway (wild bacteria and viruses, are after all – the dominant form of life on the planet – that’s the way most of the species were wiped off the earth the last eight times – even if comets hit the planet just before the bacterial life woke up). No, the issue of same sex marriage hinges on whether or not same sex couples can provide a stable basis for the growth of children.

    You see, all this open marriage crap is great – when we’re talking about how we were all hunter/gatherer – and sharing spouses and husbands was all part of the game – and then we somehow, you know, settled down to an agrarian lifestyle and the wife is now a possession, blah blah blah. But in the end, modern life is really horribly isolating and we have to deal with all kinds of deadly toxic viral ideas, as well as the viruses that will cause cancer, and death. So we’ve pretty much adopted a social structure here in America that community doesn’t exist – unless you count these sterile little things around here called blogs – and I don’t. Suburbia sucks.

    My vote here is let them get married. But remember the real definition of marriage is not between a husband, and a wife – but the covenant between any persons to make sure their children have a place they can call home.

    My children don’t have to try to learn about their new mommy. I’ve tried to sell them on the concept, but they aren’t buying it. So on Friday nights we’re at the library instead. But if you happen to be swinging on Friday night, don’t try to write it into your article about marriage. It’s a pretty serious covenant. And religion amounts to the only institutional memory we as a species have. Trust me, whether or not you believe God is real. You can trust that Lucifer’s Hammer can and will hit the planet. And the only thing that will survive is a half-forgotten memory sealed up in dihydrogen sulfide. One that might later become a myth. Or a fairy tale. Or the Orange Catholic Bible.

  16. I think gay marriage needs to be put to a vote. All gay couples should be able to “cast” a voice vote on if they want to marry each other. If both partners say “I do” the referendum is successful and the couple is married.

  17. The simple fact is, marriage is between a man and a woman. People can twist it, turn it, and redefine it around their perverse and deviant sexual behavior and gender confusion while trying to force everyone around them to accept and applaud it. But in the end whatever they may end up calling it, or homosexual judges end up allowing it to be called, the fact is they are not truly married and their lifestyle and “union” is a shallow and unnatural mimickery of the institution of marriage and holy matrimony. The fact that a judge said it was unconstitutional for the people of California to have to clarify and define what we all know marriage to be and to have always been is ridiculous to the extreme. Increasingly, it just looks like this culture has gone completely crazy and lost all concept of what it is and what it should be. Very sad to see.

    • The simple fact is, saying something is a simple fact does not make it so. The culture is changing, if only people younger than 45 could vote, most states would have legalized gay marriage. As the mostly elderly opponents of gay marriage die off or grow demented, it will stop being an issue. Gays don’t ask for your approval, that is entirely up to you, they do demand civil equality, and here only marriage can secure this for them.

      • “..if only people younger than 45 could vote, most states would have legalized gay marriage.”


        Not one popular referendum on Gay Marriage has ever passed. And that’s even with people under 45 voting.

      • Zazu, it’s both simple and true. Whether the whims of popular opinion agree or disagree with this truth is irrelevant to the fact that it is indeed true. You can twist, contort, and mislabel many things in life but marriage is between a man and a woman and a family is a married man and woman and any children they may have. And that is the central building block of society and civilization. Anything and anyone that undermines and weakens that central concept and foundation deserves to be vehemently opposed.

      • You are entitled to your opinion Dave, but in a court of law you will be asked to back it up. The Prop 8 folks failed utterly to defend their position at the trial, something that will keep hurting them at the appeal and Supreme Court level (no new evidence can be introduced on appeal).

      • Prop 8 didn’t fail. The People voted and it is the LAW who took it over. Who is at fault? The people who voted NO. Or the LAW for stepping in and quashing a vote?

  18. People who are so vocal against gay rights tend to be gay themselves.

    See: Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Rush Limbaugh (yes, he had sex with dickgirls in Costa Rica if you’ll remember).

    • Huh. I guess I am GAY…**Frolicks in the Rain** I am SOOOO Gay!

      The word “Gay” came up as a homosexual that was known around New York for being flamboyant and happy all the time… termed the word Gay. Interesting how many Gay men and women are not happy.

    • Whay a silly statement. One of those weird little progressive talking points designed to silence opponents. Complain about the gay agenda? YOU MUST BE GAY! Good grief, it’s like arguing with infants…

  19. jarjar, I don’t “remember”. Secondly, I think most gays would not agree with you that occasionally playing around makes a person “gay”. Bi-sexual maybe, bi-curious most likely. But not gay. This is a discussion about gay marriage. In all of your examples, they are married in the traditional sense and their spouses enjoyed the benefits of being married. So, you’re just completely off-topic in every since.

    And Aimee, you are so stereotypical knee-jerk liberal it’s not funny. Is there a class on how to be stereotypical knee-jerk liberal? Lesson 1: If a person says something you don’t agree with, the proper adjective is “hate”. Doesn’t matter if they ever use the word or not, it is what it is so long as you see it that way. Just for the record, “despise” and “hate” are two different things. Who was the last person you heard of being charged with a “despise crime”?

    And lastly, conservatives aren’t losing anything here. This entire topic has become purely a states’ rights issue. In this case, states’ rights lost, again. As important as living in a society with gay marriages is to some gay people, living in a society without overt homosexuality is to others who are not gay. So, this isn’t a win-win situation. Now, if Judge Vaughn had any real judicial sense, he would understand that the United States was not intended to one autonomous land where there was only room for one persuasion or the other. Polygamy was legal in Utah for many years alough most of the country thought it was a disgusting moral issue. Prostitution is legal in Nevada although most of the country has problems with that. There is no reason whatsoever that all states HAVE to be the same, which is the argument this judge made. The US Constiutition does not give a person the right to be married. The federal judge therefore really had no reason to even hear this case and should have respected the decision of not only the California state legislature, but the democratically chosen decision of the people. They no longer matter. Their votes have been ignored. Every vote counts is BS according to that judge. If a gay couple living in California wanted to be married, they could have gone to one of several states where it is legal and gotten married. Before too long one side or the other will have to leave the country to live in a culture they’re comfortable with.

    That is exactly why people left Europe and settled in the US in the first place.

    • I disagree Anthony,

      We are a republic, but not a confederacy. We are a single nation with a federal Constitution that trumps all state laws. Within the bounds of this Constitution states are given alot of freedom, but the Constitution is still the law of the land.

      You say that marriage is not a Constitutional right, that has been ruled false by the Supreme Court in Loving vs Virginia where it was decided that marriage was an implied Constitutional right, and a state could not ban interracial marriage. Now the same right is being extended to gay couples.

      You are right the prop 8 votes are worthless, any state amendment that violates the US Constitution is void. The voters should have done more research before wasting their time, but on the bright side, their bigotry will ultimately result in gay marriage on a national level.

      • “You say that marriage is not a Constitutional right, that has been ruled false by the Supreme Court in Loving vs Virginia where it was decided that marriage was an implied Constitutional right, and a state could not ban interracial marriage. Now the same right is being extended to gay couples.”

        Loving vs Virginia purely addressed a race related issue. Although the assumption can be made that by striking race restrictions meant striking every conceivable restriction possible, such as age, it didn’t do that. It purely overturned the Virginia “Racial Integrity Act of 1924″. By your logic a 60 year old marrying a ten year old and expecting consumation would be protected by the Constitution. It’s not. They did not say everyone had the Constitutional Right to be married, they said banning marriage purely on racial issues is not acceptable. Now, the way the law USED to work is if something wasn’t said, it wasn’t defined. What Judge Vaughn, and you, are saying, is something unsaid is “implied”. That’s not how it works. You imply your standards to what is a protected marriage, someone else implied a cow, I imply 7 year olds, someone else implies multiple spouses. By using the “implied” as opposed to defined nature, anything goes. Companies will be forced to cover either everything anyone identifies as their “spouse”, or none.

        Now, the rule that is NOT implied is:
        “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

        That’s not implied. That’s quite clear. The state of California had every right to define what a “marriage” is. Judge Vaughn of the federal government had no right to deprive them of their Tenth Amendment rights.

      • Wrong. The states are in their own right their own country. It was and has been stated in multiple documentation concerning the original 13 colonies which began to call themselves countries, until someone mentioned calling them states.

        Every State has it’s OWN Constitution as well. I am assuming you either didn’t know this or forgot to mention this. The Federal Government is trumped BY the States laws and regulations, and always has been. Example is Federal minimum wage. The State can either go by that “standard” or pass a law stating that is should be such and such. This is also one of the reason why AZ passed their OWN illegal laws which is the EXACT same as the Federal law, in which the Judge for that obviously doesn’t know the difference between State and Federal limitations.

        But when the PEOPLE vote in their own State or Nationally, they should be heard and the LAW should be trumped via what the PEOPLE voted on. Not the other way around.

      • You misinterpreted what I said.

        Nobody is saying that Loving v Virginia established gay marriage, if it did, we would not be having this argument. What I did say, is that your claim that there is no Constitutional right to marriage (atleast heterosexual marriage) is false. Loving v Virginia established marriage as an implied Constitutional right that no state could take away. Notice how the right to marry is never specified in the Constitution, nowhere does it specifically say that blacks and whites can marry. But implied is not the same as “complete BS made up on the spot by a partisan judge”, it is simply a statement that a right can be reasonably assumed to exist based on specifically enumerated right (like equal protection).

        Now that we established that marriage is a right, all we need to do is decide if gay marriage is a fundamentally different animal than heterosexual marriage, judge Walker decided that no it is not, if the appeal and supreme courts side with him, this becomes the law of the land.

        The Constitution is full of ambiguities that BY DESIGN need to be interpreted by judges. For example what constitutes a “cruel and unusual punishment”, used to be that hanging someone in chains to starve to death, or burning them at the stake was an acceptable form of punishment in some states, standards evolve. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a church cannot be taxed, we take this for granted, but it is implied never stated.

        States cannot infringe on civil rights, if the courts decide gay marriage is an implied right, states will have to accept the decision or amend US Constitution.

      • Uplink you are completely and utterly wrong. The federal Constitution is the law of the land, all state law exists in the confines of this document. The only places where state law trumps federal law, is where the US Constitution allows it to. The entire civil rights movement was a struggle to force states to obey the federal Constitution, if you were right, segregation would still be legal and interracial marriage illegal, pistols would be banned in Chicago, and sodomy laws would be in effect in Texas.

        No. That is not how America works.

        Alabama cannot vote to reestablish segregation, and California cannot ban the Catholic Church because both states must bow down to the US Constitution.

      • Zazu. But that IS how America works. If it didn’t, you wouldn’t have County votes or vote on a “Governor” for you State. or a Represenitive for your State to go TO Washington to vote on your and your States behalf. The we also vote for the President.

        Who is wrong… you , or me?

        We both know it is you. And with your long drawn out, and completely false ideals of how a Republic works… it is interesting how you don’t seem to know anything concerning State or Federal laws. How old are you? If you don’t mind me asking.

      • “What I did say, is that your claim that there is no Constitutional right to marriage (atleast heterosexual marriage) is false.”

        Then I did not misinterpret what you said and I argued otherwise. There is no Constitutional right to any marriage. What Loving did was reverse a law that was unconstitutional based on racial discrimination. If Loving had said banning whites from having sex with telephone poles was unconstitutional, no one would have assumed having sex with telephone poles would therefore be OK. They would have assumed it was bad to single out whites. That’s all Loving did. Sure, in the opinions and subsequent interpretations, people have implied many other things, it was purely a response to a racially motived piece of legislation. I don’t blindly agree with other people’s opinions. Sure, you can take it to the next step and say it SHOULD be banned based on sexual preferance protections, but, that’s a gray area too with community obscenity laws being deemed Constitutional. So, although the implication is one of purely moral and financial arguments, the reality is the consumation is still considered illegal in most communities in the United States which provides the legal foundation for the argument that local standards can dictate what sexual activities it considers moral or not.

        We’ve just not gone that route yet.

      • Uplink, you do not seem to understand, this stuff is usually taught in elementary school.

        Let me explain it to you nice and slow. The US Constitution trumps state law, period. That is why we no longer have segregation in this country. Got it? States said yes, Supreme Court said no. Supreme Court won. Understand now? States get to do alot of things on their own, because the US Constitution allows them to, but limiting civil rights is not among them.

        Wikipedia Brown v Board and Loving v Virginia. You will be shocked to discover fascinating stories of states violating federal Constitution and being promptly put in their place by federal judges. Always glad to enlighten.

      • Rolls eyes. Zazu, it is interesting that you have it backwards. it is okay if you would rather not answer. But your education wasn’t what I was asking about. Have a great one….

      • I am here to teach and learn, come back soon uplink.

      • Hmm I don’t remember you on the blog roll of authors. Keep trying Zazzy… you are just so cute when you do. ****KISSY****

      • Anthony I disagree with your statement that Loving v Virginia was purely about racial discrimination, and did not establish marriage as a Constitutional right outside the grasp of state law. Loving (a 9-0 decision by the way) DID establish marriage as a fundamental freedom.

        Justice Earl Warren wrote “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

        The first sentence unequivocally establishes marriage as a fundamental right. Notice how he repeatedly calls marriage a fundamental freedom or right, this clearly goes beyond the racial issue and establishes that marriage is a right.

        Does that right encompass gay marriage? That is for courts to decide, questions of fundamental freedoms should never be left to the whims of the majority.

      • “The first sentence unequivocally establishes marriage as a fundamental right. Notice how he repeatedly calls marriage a fundamental freedom or right, this clearly goes beyond the racial issue and establishes that marriage is a right.”

        No it doesn’t. It unequivocally establishes his opinion as to why he voted the way he voted. It’s not a law. It’s an opinion. Opinions are like …….. What he voted on was a law trying to enforce racism on a specific topic. What he was not voting on was whether marriage itself was an unalienable right. He thinks it is, so he voted the way he voted. The question asked was whether it was right to restrict something based on race. He said no. That’s all that happened. Now, with an opnion, it can be assumed that that person would continue to vote inline with the opinion. In other words, any other marriage issues appeared before Warren, he would consider marriage a basic right and vote to protect it. However, Warren is not an issue at this time. Although the current justices may respect Warren’s opinion, they are under no obligation whatsoever to follow it. And quite frankly, I would bet big money that if this issue had appeared before Warren, he would have sided with Prop 8. Bottom line, although implied, marriage itself is NOT a “right”. It is not assured or protected by the Constitution. Therefore, it is purely up to each state to define what it is. Judge Vaughn had no right to deprive the majority the ability to define what a “marriage” is. And don’t give me the crap it’s sex discrimination, try enrolling your boy on the girls volleyball team.

      • Anthony’s correct, as usual. Imagine the court rules against a law that bans Blacks from owning guns. Does that establish a constitutional right to gun ownership? Hard to imagine the libs taking that tack, but intellectual consistency is hardly their strong suit.

  20. I’m reading these comments and I have yet to hear a single cognitive reason why denying gays and lesbians of the same right as everyone else has to marry should be supported. Remove religion, because we’re talking about civil marriage. Remove ‘tradition’, because it was once tradition that women were property of men, that blacks and whites were segregated, that only men could vote…..etc., etc…..

    So name a reason based on fact. The proponents of Prop 8 couldn’t. Read the ruling details.

    • The people voted No. Fact. It was not unheld. Fact.

      • We are a constitutional republic, we do not decide every matter by a show of hands.

      • Zazu.. but this is about California. And they DID do a “hands” showing. And it was voted down. So your explaination doesn’t coincide with what I said. Does it?

      • Again, we are a Constitutional republic. Our democracy operates in the confines of the Constitution.

        The majority can vote all it wants, but if the vote violates the US Constitution, the nearest judge will make it irrelevant. You cannot restore segregation even if 100% of the state votes to do so.

      • Holy Crap Zazu. You would argue the sky was green if I said it was blue. I am now to the conclussion that all you want to do is say that you are ALWAYS right, when you know you are not, to prove something other then you are wrong. Keep trying Zazu… even a Clock is right twice a day.

      • “The majority can vote all it wants, but if the vote violates the US Constitution, the nearest judge will make it irrelevant. You cannot restore segregation even if 100% of the state votes to do so.:

        Upi, he’s still not right tho.

        You can not restore segretation because the 14th Amendment specifically prevents it. You simply can not discriminate based on race. Ain’t gonna happen. Loving vs Virginia even says so. The 15th Amendment states “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” What in that sentence protects marriage?

      • Antony, I know he isn’t. If the whole country was run via the way he interprets it… then we would be “The United America’ not the United States. He doesn’t seem to understand that each state trumps a federal law and that the voters can trump the law in question. What CA did was unconstitutional concerning their State Constitution. Marriage was at one time a religous items until the census was created and that tracking who married who was an easy way to track people.

        He has got to be a college kid, or a highschooler. That is all I can think of, because I learned this.. in elementary school LOL!

    • Zazu, thank you for explaining it so clearly and as you know you’re exactly right. A couple becomes married once they sign the state’s legal marriage license, not when a pastor pronounces the couple man & wife. Otherwise any couple who chose not to have a religious service and instead get married at a City Hall or in Las Vegas isn’t lawfully married. God doesn’t marry people, a legalized marriage license marries people.

  21. “Alabama cannot vote to reestablish segregation, and California cannot ban the Catholic Church because both states must bow down to the US Constitution.”

    But that isn’t because of an activist judge. That is because the people of the land chose by a show of hands to change the Constitution.

  22. I have to say it! – ATTABOY ANGI! Great Job

    It is always hard to be the nail sticking up. Lots of ideological hammers round here and lots of unruly logic too. Its clear that ideological purity is hard for some to balance with political and cultural reality.

    I have a big box of crayons. It is one of them big ones, the one with the sharpener on it. Some people have the tiny kind with just a very few colors. You know, like the ones they give kids at a restaurant.

    Don’t worry; I do not intend to color. Well not in Dave’s coloring book! I don’t like his drawings. LOL

  23. To be fair, Dave does not like my colors either. It kinda creates a balance of sorts.

  24. Thats funny PG. And Angi is closing in on what very few posts here do: garner the century mark with meaningful comments and debate. I think I once got 100 meaningful comments on a Miley Cyrus post. That counts, right?

    • I cross posted this at FreeRepublic and then it got linked to by and then by a couple different pages on facebook. All kinds of people being drawn into the discussion. I work with Angi so I poked my head into her office and gave her crap for writing this at work in response to my post on the subject. There is a reason the TEA party types (like Angi) avoid the culture wars and focus on other issues. It is a wise policy and play by the Liberty movement at this juncture and is part of the reason the TEA party and 9-11 movement have been so successful. They emphasize their commonality and minimize their differences. Politically that has been very smart and that policy has played out very well for them. Interesting.

      • There is a strong libertarian streak in the TEAparty movement, plenty of gay people and folks who support gay people and their quest for legal equality.

  25. Pretty well stated. Credit deserved for your article here. Let gays get ‘married’ and call it something else. Leave marriage as it always has been. For a MAN and a
    WOMAN. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution or did I miss that memo.
    I am very conservative, an islamophobe and Counter Jihadist. I have had friends who were homosexual and have died of Aids.

    As far as this decision goes in Falicornia; this judge blew it. He DID NOT rule by the law, he legislated from the bench. One of many who do. He let his personal views and emotions cloud his decsion. It will lose upon appeal, as it should. The people of Falicornia have voted twice. Now let the people’s decision stand.

  26. It was only a matter of time before the trolls rediscovered us. Phooey will be back next.

    Kudos on breaking the 100 comment mark, angi, the New Blood continues to impress!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,355 other followers

%d bloggers like this: