For the next four years at least, the phrase “moral values” will be uttered with increasing frequency by politicians and lobbyists. Democrats are trying to figure out why they lost so stunningly last month, and some have correctly concluded that a little moderation on abortion and other controversial issues is in order.
The homosexual lobby has similar ideas. Stunned by the overwhelming approval of bans on so-called same-sex marriage, even in states that John Kerry carried, they’ve decided to back off the marriage issue or at least soft-pedal it while Bush is in office. From the New York Times (reg. req.):
In the past week alone, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay and lesbian advocacy group, has accepted the resignation of its executive director, appointed its first non-gay board co-chairman and adopted a new, more moderate strategy, with less emphasis on legalizing same-sex marriages and more on strengthening personal relationships.The leadership of the Human Rights Campaign, at a meeting last weekend in Las Vegas, concluded that the group must bow to political reality and moderate its message and its goals. One official said the group would consider supporting President Bush’s efforts to privatize Social Security partly in exchange for the right of gay partners to receive benefits under the program.
I don’t know what “strengthening personal relationships” means, but I’m willing to concede “partnership” benefits in exchange for homosexuals toning down the marriage rhetoric.
How the mighty (culture) have fallen! That I’m writing about or even envisioning the spectacle of a wedding between two men is just a symptom of our culture’s deeply embedded rot. Speaking of rot, one day, I predict, we will be like France (that hurt to write), a country that punishes “homophobic” speech. One day, sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be hate speech. To a certain extent, it already is. With these ridiculously laughable and nonsensical legislative scribblings known as “hate crime laws,” we’re not far from it.
As long as a child is not involved (I’m speaking of pedophilia. This is not about homosexuals adopting children.), I really don’t care what people do in their bedrooms, despite homosexuals’ insistence that conservatives do. But I have serious difficulty grasping the concept of “gay rights,” which I call “special rights.” As I’ve written on this blog many times, people who sleep with members of their own sex possess all the guarantees of liberty as those who don’t, but two to three percent of the population wants to overhaul the institution of marriage, consequences be damned.
When people like myself complain about this, homosexuals say I’m pushing my morality on them. Blind as bats, they can’t see that they’re doing the same thing! Under their value system, whatever you want to do with a consenting adult is called a “right.” Fine. But doing whatever you want to the institution of marriage, which I believe was created by God and designed according to his purposes, is not a right, and that’s where me and my big mouth step in, like it or not.
And don’t get it twisted. This has nothing to do with wanting to create a theocracy, another word that’s being uttered with increasing frequency. Created by God and recognized in law, the very definition of marriage is the union between only one man and only one woman. Leave it and me alone, and I’ll leave you alone. Deal?
I’m pleased to see that the powerful homosexual lobby has a few reasonable folks discerning enough to know that flamboyant displays of men standing before altars saying, “I do” are a little too much for Americans to handle, even those who voted for John Kerry.
Now that gay couples have the legal right to be married in Massachusetts, they’re expected to to keep health benefits for their live-in partners, partner.
Boston Globe “Massachusetts companies, some of which pioneered so-called domestic-partner benefits for unmarried, same-sex partners, said they are now withdrawing them for reasons of fairness: If gays and lesbians can now marry, they should no longer receive special treatment in the form of health benefits that were not made available to unmarried, opposite-sex couples.”
Full article: boston.com/business/articles/2004/12/08/ unmarried_gay_couples_lose_health_benefits?mode=PF
Comment by Jim R — 12.09.04 @ 9:10 am
La Shawn,
This post is a prime example of why I visit your blog first thing every day. I completely agree with you on this, especially your predictions about us becoming more and more like France. You’re right….as I raise my kids, I need to train them for a life where being open about being a Christian will be a crime, and speaking out against culutural rot will be too.
It angers me that we, the majority of US citizens, are allowing the extreme views of a very few re-shape our very nation and culture.
Keep up the great work!
Comment by TexasBug — 12.09.04 @ 9:36 am
‘How the mighty (culture) have fallen!’
I gotta say this is one of the more powerful myths of the culture war, that homosexuals have some sort of power.
Comment by actus — 12.09.04 @ 9:37 am
I mostly agree, La Shawn. Marriage is not man-made and is defined as between a man and a woman. End of story. Gays have something completely different. However, I am a little more positive in my view of the future. What I see is a serious backlash against the p.c. crowd. People are starting to turn on it, and for good reason. Hopefully, this backlash will end the madness.
Comment by RepJ — 12.09.04 @ 10:00 am
What more can I add, but a hearty Amen!
Comment by Guy — 12.09.04 @ 10:23 am
La Shawn,
We have found common SOCIAL ground. I knew we would do it, lol.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.09.04 @ 10:59 am
Great post Miss Barber!
I disagree with you Repj, I don’t think there will be a backlash, I think what will happen more and more is that the power of the majority will be stripped away little by little until it will be a relatively small group of elitist both Dems and Repubs making decisions for the masses without the benefit of the vote. Such is the case here in Los Angeles County in regards to the county seal being redesigned on the basis of the ACLU and a few anonymous people who may supposedly be offended. Even when offered free, thats FREE, legal representation to defend the changing of the seal the board still denied it and caved in. This dicision was made based on the thinking of three individuals on the L.A. County Board. Sad to say, this is merely an example of what is to come.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 12.09.04 @ 11:43 am
Blind as bats, they can’t see that they’re doing the same thing!
I’m glad you pointed out that key flaw in their argument. It seems to escape a lot of people’s notice.
Comment by Kristin — 12.09.04 @ 12:30 pm
La Shawn, Very well put. Especially for a conservative talking about gay issues.
There are plenty of gay ‘marriages’ taking place every day at various churches around. As a legal cultural change I am right with you. Marriage is marriage. Call committed gay coupling something else. I don’t care about benefits etc. It’s only money. Everybody can choose a second on a family insurance plan. As far as strengthening relationships we all can use that. I see the damage done everyday by the misuse of our sexuality in our culture. That certainly isn’t confined to same-sex only.
What gets lost so much in this debate is how do we make our churches open enough where an individual can come in and talk about unwanted same sex attractions? Jerry Fallwell is an idiot and does so much damage in this area. Most who deal with same-sex attraction (SSA) have tremendous pain in their past. Not all but most. Almost all would rather not have to deal with those attractions.
There is no way to say exactly what causes SSA. As best anybody can say is that it is part biological and part sociological. Nature and nurture. That doesn’t leave us helpless in prevention and healing, but we need to speak with that level of openness and understanding.
As for your comment about becoming France you are in good company. Jefferson penned in a letter 200 years ago that when our cities grew to the size of European cities(he was ambassador to France), Paris etc. our moral decay would follow theirs.
Blessings to you,
Ben
Comment by Ben — 12.09.04 @ 12:52 pm
The cultural conservatives rightly perceive that the gay lobby is using marriage as a lever to force normalization at all levels of government & society. It’s fine to have that discussion, but I wish this would be settled legislatively not judicially.
What’s lost in all the debate is that as long as we live in a FREE country, people will, in fact, be gay and there are legitimate and difficult legal issues that are too ambiguous today. These include probate, child custody, medical decisions, family health insurance, alimony. If we could settle those issues in a reasonable manner, the ‘pro-marriage’ crowd would be marginalized and lose most of the sympathy it does get from red state folks.
Comment by Trevor Hicks — 12.09.04 @ 1:54 pm
There are no “Gay Rights” any more than there are “Blonde Rights.” All rights are individual, and given by God. That is the essence of our first ten Amendments. Each of us, individually, has the same rights. “Gay Rights” are for a group.
Comment by Mike — 12.09.04 @ 2:07 pm
LaShawn,
While the mental image of the wedding you described is pretty disturbing, I wanted to comment on the hate crime aspect of the article you linked. Note this is a deviation from the gay marriage topic, so you may want to ignore this. Anyway, you so eloquently covered the topic, there is little left I could add that would be of interest.
So: I think making a crime out of an emotion is in itself indication of a society that is headed for trouble. Not that I think hate is healthy or leads to good things. But attempting to legislate what amounts to good manners and jailing citizens (in this case) for lack of them is to me the beginning of a very dangerous trend.
In Texas, there are extra strong penalties for crimes that fall into the hate crime catagory. Basically if you assault, rob, or harm a citizen who is also a minority, you are charged with a hate crime + assault, robbery, or God forbid worse. Of course it’s more complicated than I make it, but the general idea is that beating somebody senseless is more reprehensible if your reason for doing so is due to their racial/religious/ethnic background or sexual preference, and not just because you want their money, car, or whatever. One has to presume financial gain, jealousy, etc. are better reasons to assault someone than just because you don’t like them.
And so the penalty for the crime is compounded by the fact that you also happen to be an idiot. Now we have additional laws to punish ignorance, or bad parenting, or whatever it is that motivates some people to hate other people and harm them. To me, the idea that so many have turned to local government to deal with these issues is alarming. Hate is the kind of thing that parents and schools and churches need to deal with before it leads to crimes. Even in a perfect world, this would never happen, but the fact that we’ve turned over this responsibility to government is a bad sign.
Comment by southpaw — 12.09.04 @ 2:26 pm
Southpaw,
I also think the hate crime laws are pretty silly. People who rape, rob, murder, and terrorize others, regardless of motive, are ALL hateful. Mostly, they are self-haters. But I’m not gonna complain about this law if it keeps criminals in jail for a longer period of time. The longer we can lock them away, the more I like it.
Comment by Wade Calvert — 12.09.04 @ 4:07 pm
It’s strange, really . . . homosexuals already have, and have always had, the right to marry. An upright, cleancut young homosexual man has always been allowed to marry the woman of his choice. And vice versa.
And that is the reason that “gay marriage” is so darn silly. On the other hand, the concept of a legally recognized and legally enforcable marriage contract, one not specified or to heavily constrained by the government, is a win-win solution for all concerned.
For gays, it means the kind of legal protections that they are searching for. For Christians, it means an escape hatch from the destructive, non-Christian “no-fault divorce” laws.
I can see a day coming when major religious groups retain legal counsel to create “template” domestic partnership contracts, said contracts to be modeled after the kind of “covenant marriage” concept that the religious group believes in.
Comment by John Stevens — 12.09.04 @ 4:23 pm
We have a new “hate speech” law here in California! All you have to do is SAY something that one of the protected minorities (read “gay”) takes offense at, and you’ve crossed the legal line. It’s a scary thing. What happened to freedom of speech and religion?
Comment by Peggy Snow Cahill — 12.09.04 @ 8:15 pm
“All you have to do is SAY something that one of the protected minorities (read “gay”) takes offense at, and you’ve crossed the legal line.”
Curious. Lets hear more.
Comment by actus — 12.09.04 @ 9:32 pm
“That I’m writing about or even envisioning the spectacle of a wedding between two men is just a symptom of our culture’s deeply embedded rot.”
Do you believe that homosexuality is causing our societal problems? I am not much of a religious person, but I assume God makes all people - gay and straight. Are we not suppose to love all of his creations?
“Created by God and recognized in law, the very definition of marriage is between only one man and one woman. Leave it and me alone, and I’ll leave you alone. Deal?”
First, has does it affect you if two gay people get married? Second, it was not too long ago that in this country blacks and whites could not marry, that was recognized in law - did that make it right? Not too long ago in this country, a man could marry a 13 year old girl, recognized by law - was that right?
America progresses. Will you?
Comment by Rollins — 12.09.04 @ 11:30 pm
Rollins, if you want to comment on my blog, I suggest you read my archives. I’m not letting you comment anymore until you do. I’ve answered every question you’ve asked ad nauseum, and I don’t feel like going over the same basic and mundane stuff again.
I suggest you at least read the categories “Cultural Decline” and “Faith.”
Comment by La Shawn — 12.10.04 @ 6:06 am
Marriage is defined as a union between A man and A women, not a union between people who love one another. Love is not the reason for marriage as love is part of the vow taken when one chooses to marry, so the argument that marriage is about people loving one another is irrelevent to the debate.
Loving someone does not create a marriage, consummation of that vow of love defines the marriage. Since it is physically impossible for homosexuals to consummate vows of marriage, their “marriage” is by definition anulled.
The homosexual community would have had a reasonable argument for receiving heterosexual marital benefits had they recognized that heterosexual single people share the same problems when it comes to receiving the same benefits as married people. Instead of attempting to change the definition of marriage, the homosexual community would be best served by changing the laws which deny benefits to unmarried people.
Comment by susan — 12.10.04 @ 9:09 am
‘Loving someone does not create a marriage, consummation of that vow of love defines the marriage. Since it is physically impossible for homosexuals to consummate vows of marriage, their “marriage” is by definition anulled.’
Its physically impossible for lots of other people to consumate too. Yet they will marry and hurt no-one.
I think you apply too much logic to an emotional issue. Yes. emotional. just like love.
Comment by actus — 12.10.04 @ 11:05 am
RE: Leave it and me alone, and I’ll leave you alone. Deal?
This is EXACTLY my feeling on the gay ‘marriage’ subject. I want to say… “go invent your OWN preferred union, and quick trying to hijack ours.”
Comment by Lark — 12.10.04 @ 1:25 pm
Rollins-
“First, has does it affect you if two gay people get married?” How does it affect you if 2 gay people can’t?
“Second, it was not too long ago that in this country blacks and whites could not marry, that was recognized in law - did that make it right?” Let me clarify this point. Homosexuality is not the equivilent to race. Our struggles are NOT remotely similar, because (Contrary to very dubious science) One can decide I AM NOT A HOMOSEXUAL, by…(LaShawn will like this one) NOT HAVING SEX.
On the other hand, black is beautifu and eternal, no matter what Michael Jackson would have you believe.
“Not too long ago in this country, a man could marry a 13 year old girl, recognized by law - was that right?” And I think it would surprise you that laws similar to this are still on the books in many places.
The homosexual marriage lobby cannot find the justification for their right to marry and not defend the right of one man or woman to marry multiple partners. Can’t do it. Why. Because the Constitutional principle that they cite would lead to absurd results. And when your argument is supported by a position that would lead to absured results, your arguemnt has no support and thus fails.
The point, ultimately is what do they want? If its function, this can be acheived through the ‘union’ idea. If it’s recognition on the other hand, no. that is earned. If you’re with the same cat for 25 years, people will take notice of that fact and many will accept you (i will). If on the other hand you have been dreaming about your wedding dress since you were a little boy, fine, but you can’t force the government to recognize it.
By the way, I am in favor of a contractual union of sorts, for estate purposes. The health insurance providers will be dicted by the market. Disney offers benifits to their sig ‘others’ while I doubt that the 700 Club does.
Gee, I wonder if the Episcopal Church offers Insurance to the gay Bishop’s partner?
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.10.04 @ 2:12 pm
Stephen - The only interest I have in letting gay’s marry is that I would like for everyone to be treated equally. You seem to have interest also, because you support “a contractual union of sorts”, and that is where the gay marriage and the racial inequality issues overlap. If you are familiar with the Brown case that rejected the concept of “separate but equal” you would know that creating a separate arrangement for gays would be a violation of the constitutional concept of equal protection. The Constitution also prohibits the deprivation of liberties, unless there is a legitimate state interest. There is no state interest in prohibiting gays to marry, it is really just the opposite because marriage provides a more stable society. This argument does not work for polygamy because there is a state interest in the function of marriage as between two people.
I hope I can earn your understanding on this.
Comment by Rollins — 12.10.04 @ 6:01 pm
I just read on cnn.com that the gays and lesbians from Mass. are already getting divorces! Pretty funny.
Comment by Laurie Pevey — 12.10.04 @ 6:48 pm
“First, has does it affect you if two gay people get married? ”
By making it legal, the state is forcing me to accept it as normal. (and I think they know this and THAT is the whole point of why they are pursuing this agenda) Thus, I would have to relate to “married” gay couples the same as married straight couples in any legal setting. In addition, our children will be surrounded by a “plausibility structure” that legitimizes gay marriage as normal (for the implications of plausibility structures see Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality). Since my religious and philosophical beliefs are strongly opposed to recognizing gay behavior and “marriage” as normal, the coercive power of the state would be brought to bear to force me to assent to and act in accordance with priniciples that violate my beliefs and conscience. This is a direct assault on my rights to freedom of religion and thought. And I don’t imagine that they will stop until my freedom of speech is throttled as well.
It will also, of course, contribute to the further destruction of the meaning of marriage altogether - though this will take time - and that will damage us all, especially the children.
“America progresses. Will you? ”
On what basis do you imagine that this is progress? It is, in fact, a regression to the cultural decadence that was rampant in ancient Greece and Rome, before the ascendency of Christian theism - and we know what happened to the empires of Greece and Rome. In fact, this is more than a regression - even with the rampant homosexuality and pedophilia of the ancient world, they never dared to cross the line into the fiction that same sex couples could be legitimately married.
Comment by Alan — 12.11.04 @ 1:36 am
This is a bit off topic, but I am generally speaking a progressive-type on a lot of issues except this one. And the one thing that I have a problem with is gays “using” the Black Civil Rights movement as a crutch for a bunch of illogical arguments in favor of the homosexual movement. First, I don’t think they have achieved all that they need to fight off hate crimes, job discrimination, and disease (AIDS) and spending so much time pushing for a piece of paper is folly on their part. But to say that race/ethnicity, which is purely a social concept which has no acknowledged meaning in biology, is similar to sexuality and should be viewed as equivalent under the law is something I just can’t accept.
I often ask why the Black civil rights movement is used instead of past feminist movements, or past religious freedom movements. The feminist movement was about gender, and homosexuality has more to do with gender than any other characteric, and like gender is independent of your parentage (meaning gays mostly don’t have gay parents, nor do they have gay children). It’s about a lifestyle choice, which could be more akin to practicing religious freedom than just existing as a person of a certain race. They really know why, and the answer is too cynical to say out loud. It’s easy to invoke, and it unfortunately, shuts too many progressives on my side up about their real feelings. It’s pure laziness, and they put down Blacks that don’t want our painful struggle used as a stepping stone, or have its meaning cheapend for when the next struggle comes and it’s not going to be about love and certificates, but about human rights, food, shelter, and medicine.
Additionally, I don’t like the idea of children having to “decide” what they are at younger and younger ages. With gay marriage normalized, it will force every adolescent to confront his/her feelings when at that time they should be abstinent, watching cartoons, and riding bikes. I don’t think any child who is confused about his/her sexuality should even have to really have to start feeling pressured to think about it until well after high school. I’m afraid they will begin confusing their comfort with the same sex, which is natural, with homosexuality.
Comment by Chrissy — 12.11.04 @ 9:05 pm
When my wife and I were young, marriages such as ours were illegal in several states.
Due to a decision of some “activist judges” on the US Supreme Court in 1967, our marriage is legal today in each one of those 50 states, all across the nation, and is even recognized by the Federal Government. Had it not been for that decision by those judges, we would not even have the right to live together today, much less be married.
We would be hypocrites to oppose for same sex couples something that has brought the two of us such happiness.
ricardomath
Comment by ricardomath — 12.11.04 @ 9:47 pm
Ricardomath, it’s been discussed before, but your marriage situation is an artificial construct by the legacy of slavery and has nothing to do with social morality.
For one thing race is really non-existant since Biblically speaking, all humans are descended from Noah and again from Adam & Eve. Secondly, homosexuality has generally been taboo as a marriage thang, even if permissible in various cultures.
One of the regulars here, Renee, provided a link to a Dennis Prager article on civilization & homosexuality. Regardless of your background, I highly recommend it. Cheers.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.shtml
Comment by Andy — 12.12.04 @ 1:07 am
“As long as a child is not involved, I really don’t care what people do in their bedrooms, despite homosexuals’ insistence that conservatives do. But I have serious difficulty grasping the concept of “gay rights,” which I call “special rights.” As I’ve written on this blog many times, people who sleep with members of their own sex possess all the guarantees of liberty as those who don’t, but two to three percent of the population wants to overhaul the institution of marriage, consequences be damned.”
Right, because we all know that the children of gay parents turn out gay themselves, and straight parents never raise gay children. Also, how can gays “possess all the guarantees of liberty” if they aren’t allowed to marry? And shouldn’t the decision be left to the church and NOT the government, an entity that is deemed “too meddlesome” by your kind anyway? But then conservatives are no strangers to hypocrisy.
I would point that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well-adjusted kids growing up with same-sex parents across the country, or that there are sane, loving homosexual couples who’d love to adopt but aren’t able to because of people like you, but that wouldn’t matter would it? You can’t see anything but your righteous indignation. Too bad it hasn’t led you to the local orphanage, though.
Like Ricardomath pointed out, our government used the same tricks to prevent interracial marriage. Now, half a century later, you’re ardently supporting them. Bravo to you. I’ll stop in the middle of my fiddling and tip my hat to you while Rome burns.
Comment by Jamie — 12.12.04 @ 1:45 am
Now I thought you were big on “thoughtful and intelligent discourse?” You call this thoughtful and intelligent?
Based on this comment, Jamie, I have a suspicion you’re quite young. Take some advice from someone who’s been doing this for a long time. Making negative personal comments about someone you disagree with and projecting your own frustrations on them is not how you argue your point. Keep me and what you think my motives and thoughts are out of it.
First of all, calm down and read more carefully. You completely misunderstood the sentence you quoted. I meant that people can do whatever they want behind closed doors with whoever they want as long as the person they’re doing it with isn’t a child. In your rush to throw out what you probably consider a clever zinger, you not only misread my post, you reveal sloppy thinking in the process. If you believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry, tell us why.
And this sentence reeks of the mental processes of a teenager or very young adult: Right, because we all know that the children of gay parents turn out gay themselves, and straight parents never raise gay children.
This is what’s known as a straw man argument. You set up a premise that no one on this board even mentioned, then you knock it down yourself. The post isn’t even about homosexual adoption. If you want to drag in new subject matter, address the matter at hand first. Time is fleeting, in case you hadn’t notice, so sticking to the point is very important.
Also juvenile: But then conservatives are no strangers to hypocrisy. This reminds of myself when I was a loud teenager spouting off at the mouth every chance I got. Bad form. First of all, hypocrisy is a human trait, and none of us is a stranger to it. So what’s your point? That conservatives claim not to be hypocrites? Where do you read this in my post or in the comments?
And the sarcastic “Bravo to you” irritates me to no end. Jamie, do me a favor. Read my archives before you comment on this blog again. More importantly, read my comment policy before you attempt to comment further. You’re not getting back on this board until you do:
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2004/09/07/policy/
Comment by La Shawn — 12.12.04 @ 8:48 am
LB - compliment here - your kids are going to be great thinkers! Your arguments will always be stimulating. I doubt there will ever be “but mooommmm,,,why not? They will have to give 3 points & a prayer before they disagree! ;-).
Comment by sharon — 12.12.04 @ 10:01 am
My oldest daughter is adopted
Comment by Andy — 12.12.04 @ 11:53 am
Jim R,
Now that gay couples have the legal right to be married in Massachusetts, they’re expected to to keep health benefits for their live-in partners, partner.
Boston Globe “Massachusetts companies, some of which pioneered so-called domestic-partner benefits for unmarried, same-sex partners, said they are now withdrawing them for reasons of fairness: If gays and lesbians can now marry, they should no longer receive special treatment in the form of health benefits that were not made available to unmarried, opposite-sex couples.”
This makes sense as a general principal, but it may be premature, until DOMA is declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Same Sex Civil Marriage in Massachusettes simply does not carry the same weight as Civil Marriage for different sex couples. There are over a thousand federally mandated rights, privilages, benefits, and obligations that simply do not apply to same sex couples, even if they are recognized as married in their own state.
Certainly, I never would have married my wife had not Loving v Virginia been decided as it was in 1967, and if, as a result, the federal government agencies refused to recognise our marriage.
For some couples, the positive aspects of having a state recognize their marriage are outweighed by the negative aspects of having the federal government not recognize their marriage, and they ought not be penalized further because of such discrimination.
ricardomath
Comment by ricardomath — 12.12.04 @ 3:01 pm
Winds of Change in the Gay Rights Movement?
La Shawn Barber bring to our attention this New York Times article (registration required) regarding the gay rights movement and gay marriage: The leadership of the Human Rights Campaign, at a meeting last weekend in Las Vegas, concluded that the…
Trackback by Blogs for Bush — 12.12.04 @ 3:17 pm
Ricardmath, I’m not sure I understand what you just said. When did the US come close to not recognizing mixed race marriages? Only if Jim Crow democrats and closet rep racists had their way. Barring that, mixed race marriages are almost as old as the earth itself.
On the other hand, Muslims have no compunctions about killing their apostate daugthers for marrying outside the religion while guys can marry or rape whomever they please. Which is the greater injustice?
Comment by Andy — 12.13.04 @ 1:19 pm
Andy,
prior to the US Supreme court hearing the case Ricardo loves to cite, 13 states had laws to forbid interracial marriage (BTW, Alabama still does IIRC). An interracial couple was arrested and in VA, and their case went through all of the appeals etc needed to make it to the top court. Which is a huge difference from what happened in MA, but that’s a post for another day, when I don’t have the flu.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.13.04 @ 1:34 pm
SCSI, I know and agree with your point about the difference.
Bottomline, marriage is a contract and the future/propagation of society is a govt concern. Since we-the-people are the govt, the govt has to reflect the majority in a federated govt system, as opposed to democratic system. So yes, sometimes we make mistakes, but compared to the democratic system, we correct course much quicker. Nevertheless, gay marriage is not the same thing as multi-racial marriage, and we are perfectly right to frown on deviant behavior.
My Dad & Mom were married in 1960 and whenever she came to visit the folks in Birmingham area, she had to dress up in a burka to hide her lily white skin for much of the 60’s - not so much from the law but from good ole white boy Dems and their ropes.
On the other hand, knowing what I know now, I’m fortunate that I didn’t get picked off for roaming/playing all over Fairfield, AL as a 6-year old with blond hair and lite-complected natural tan.
Don’t recall any epithets down there, but jump forward to primary school in Detroit and I caught nigger/honky depending on who hurled it in the 60s/70s and half-breed in the 70s/80s.
Not to mention whenever I travelled with Dad thruout the 60s, he would sometimes get pulled over for having a ‘white child’ with him by cops.
For those who persist in keeping racism alive $ well and the cult of victimology, yawn. Tell me something new. Being black ain’t half as hard as being a mulatto
Comment by Andy — 12.13.04 @ 2:29 pm
Frankly, I don’t think ‘gay rights advocates’ know the meaning of the word ‘moderate.’ They are just regrouping to work on a more stealth level. They still have a lock on the public education system. And sadly, more and more well meaning heterosexuals seem to think ‘compassion’ is endorsing everything gays demand. Stay vigilant. Hold to the Truth.
Comment by JaneLovesJesus — 12.18.04 @ 12:50 am