Blogger Notes

a marriage is essentially a contract, and it's a contract that as far as the government is concerned, simply means that two people will now be filing taxes together.

what is so horrible about that?

I would also like to say that the choir director at my church and his partner have been together for 40 years. How many marriages make it that long? How is that not beautiful?

stupid republican bastards.

September 22, 2005 10:34 PM

ESC, apparently I am preaching to the choir ;)

September 22, 2005 11:24 PM

I am in California and I was dismayed the Governor thinks the courts should decide the matter. The sole reason the bill should be vetoed is 63% of Califonians voted for the state proposition that says that a marriage is between a man and a woman. The majority vote and all that.

When a Proposition is passed in California it is a State Constitutional Amendment and can't be overridden by a legislative bill. I voted in favor of the Proposition and will do so again if needed. I would also vote in favor of a Prop that removes govn't involvement in all private relationships. They don't belong in anyones home or bedroom.

Why is the government involved in marriage, straight or gay, anyway? Marriage is a religious rite not a civil right and govn't should not be involved. Any partnership, marriage or civil union, is a contract in which the govn't needn't be involved either. How people conduct their private lives is nobodies business and shouldn't require a license like fishing or driving.

September 22, 2005 11:59 PM

I just love it that on the one hand, all these idiots are against "the gay lifestyle" which in their perverted minds means endless orgies. Then, when gay people want to get married, i.e. settle down with one person, have a family, have a stable life, the same idiots won't let them. So what do these assholes WANT????? My personal opinion is that anyone who wants to get married should be able to. WHO anyone marries is nobody's business. Like you pointed out, not many "straight" people are making great choices. And I can't believe that anyone would say that you and SSB aren't married because you didn't get married in a church. That is really absurd.

September 23, 2005 1:55 AM

Indigo Red, there was a majority once that thought that interracial marriages:

1) constituted illicit sex rather than marriage.
2) were contrary to God's will
3) were somehow "unnatural."

Sounds exactly like the arguments against the current opposition to gay marriage. When will these mass prejudices end? What are people so afraid of? I hope I live to see the day that gays are given equal rights in this country.

As long as there are legal marriages for others, there should be legal marriages for gays. By voting to assure that they would not be allowed equal rights, you have supported the campaign of inequality and bigotry.

OldRoses, you should have been there when this one girl was trying to say that- I asked her what her fiance's middle name was. She couldn't tell me and got all pissed and stormed off. BURN!! :)

September 23, 2005 8:08 AM

There are actually very few topics I feel as passionately about as this one. I get my fag hag panties all in a ruffle. I have a number of friends who like Indigo oppose gay marriage because the government shouldn't be involved in any marriage (it's a libertarian, limited government stance), but the fact of the matter is that voting in favor of hetero-only marriage does nothing to limit government, and in many ways encourages its meddling by defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman.

Will someone point out how gay marriage threatens the institution? It's one thing to "Disapprove" of homosexuality due to religious reasons, etc. It's another thing to hate and discriminate. I don't understand how if straight people can marry legally, civilly, gays can't. How is this not discrimination?

I've heard people say that if we allow gay people to marry, we'll have to allow pediphiles and beastialitiles (however we refer to them) the same. I've heard that the gay agenda will entrap our children and "convert" them (as if the regligious right isn't trying the same). Gay people are two consenting adults (not the same situation as pediphiles), and I've never met a gay man/lesbian (and I've met plenty) who have any desire to convert children.

I'd love to have a gay child 'cause I know he or she would grow up accepted, confident, and supported in every decision.

Oiy! I've had too much caffeine. Damn it, Sylvana, you got me ranting again! :D

September 23, 2005 10:36 AM

Shannon,thanks! What a compliment! I love that I get you ranting. More people should get this energized about things like this. That's how change will happen.
I thought that I would like to have a gay child too. I mean if 5% of the population is going to be gay, well wouldn't it be nice if they went to families that would love them and accept them for who they are?
You also picked up on something in Indigo's comment that I forgot to address. It seems that he is saying that he voted for the proposition because he doesn't believe that government should be involved in marriage, yet as you point out, that is NOT what the prop was about. The prop was specifically about letting the government become MORE involved in people's marriages. THANK YOU SHANNON!!

September 23, 2005 11:43 AM

Sylvana,

Question: I commented this AM clarifying my point and it's not here. Did it not post or was it deleted(an unlikely prospect.)

September 23, 2005 1:53 PM

Oh, hell no Indigo! I couldn't even think of how extremely offensive a comment would actually have to be before I would consider deleting it. Getting other points of view is very important for developing your own point of view. Don't worry, you are safe with me ;)

But I always delete spam. So don't spam me!

I only got that one comment. I just checked my email, and it wasn't in there either. You're not like me, are you? Where you spend a bunch of time typing out a comment carefully, then instead of hitting Publish, you hit the little red X? :))

September 23, 2005 2:26 PM

I have a close family member who is gay, and been in a wonderful relationship for maybe 10 years.

Although unmarried, they wear wedding rings, and have talked about adopting.

I see absolutely no problem allowing gay marriage.

We California voters voted in legalized marijuana a number of years ago, which (as I remember) was repealed by a higher (no pun intended) court.

I'm distressed that the will of the majority of the people is being more and more ignored.

September 23, 2005 4:19 PM

Syl,

I have had comments accidently deleted with spam, but never intentionally deleted, except by Huffington.

I think I wrote very concienciously then exited too quickly. I was late for work. I'll write again.

PS -- I only delete spam, too, but that doesn't get thru anymore since you suggested the "copy the code" thing.

September 23, 2005 4:39 PM

But, before I do here is Breaking stupid news from California this hour about the rights of gays and the co-lateral damage caused by stupidity and the truly, truly arrogant.

September 23, 2005 4:50 PM

Indigo Red, that is very sad. It's a shame that people are so intolerant. But, if this goes against their policies, then, being a private, and more importantly, religious entity, I would have to agree, they have the right to exclude her. She's probably better off NOT going to school there anyway!

September 23, 2005 5:18 PM

I never realised that love was strictly male-female! Jeez! I better crawl back into bed and hopefully, when I wake up again, I will be thinking "straight"!

Seriously though, if 2 people love each other, they should have a right to express their love in a manner that suits them. Whether they co-habitate, live seperately, or get married - it should be their decision. Not that of the law, religion or narrow minded [or should I say - brainwashed] idiots!

September 23, 2005 7:52 PM

Welcome to my blog, James! I agree.

September 23, 2005 9:21 PM

The conversation has passed the point where my unposted comments will fit in, so, I will just continue the current reasoning.

Sylvana, you are absolutely right - at one time inter-racial marriages were punishable under the law. However, those laws were repealled. Mysogeny was not then made legal with new laws, no laws stating inter-racial marriage is lawful, the practice was simply allowed to be, like eating tuna fish sandwiches.

The California Proposition went way beyond recognizing gay marriages. It would have also created laws allowing gay partners into hospital rooms when only family is allowed in. The problem here is there was never a law forbidding non-family from hospital rooms. This was a common hospital policy that has since been abandoned. The patient generally is in charge of who is granted access. It would have also created laws concerning inheritance when a simple Will would do the same thing without government interference.

Sierrabella talks about the Marijuana Initiative which the Cal majority voted for, including me. Marijuana should be neither legal nor illegal. Sodapop is causing more health problems than pot and pop is neither legal nor illegal. Marriage should not be regulated by intrusive government mandates; government should not be involved.

At one time, inter-racial marriage was unthinkable; today it's a fact of life. At one time, a cripple in public was unthinkable; today I am a fact of life. At one time, my two cousins could not admit they were gay; today they are out and leading happy, successful lives with their partners(one cousin has a natural born son). Three years ago, homosexual marriage was unthinkable; today we debate the question openly. One day it too will be a fact of life.

What harm does gay marriage do? Very little, if any. But, what we do see is that what was unthinkable one day becomes thinkable the next often becoming the norm in short order. Questions should then arise: what should remain unthinkable and forbidden, if anything; should doctors be allowed to kill patients under the guise of compassion (oops...too late, we already do that - doctors in Texas have been euthanizing handicapped infants and babies for several years; Oregon assists in suicide); is it ever permissable for adults to have sex with minors, children, and infants ( a scholarly book out this past week explores the practice in ancient Greece and declares peadophilia does no harm and actually benefits the child); will we allow bestiality (oh, too late on that one, too, just Google that word, and in Oregon there is a farm that caters to human/animal sex).

Love often has very little to do with marriage. It often (probably more often than not) is financially motivated or is simply a fear of being alone. With the loss of marriage bounds and continued government involvement, we then allow any kind of relationship to exist WITH the full force of law. Are we willing to accept the unknown along with the known consequences?

Why is government involved with marriage? Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right. Beyond the solemn vows recited before God and everyone, it is a contract between two consenting adults (as stated by ESC above.) By getting involved in marriages through licencing, government breaches the boundaries of the much vaunted separation of church and state. Why must a relationship be licenced like hunting, fishing, and driving, but parenting is not?

What are we, as a society, willng to say is acceptable behaviour? At what point do we, as a society, judge behaviour of others as wrong and impermissable? Daumer thought murder and cannibalism was okay. That was his choice, but should we then say it was his civil right to kill and eat another person, even if it was consentual, because that was his "lifestyle"? Is "lifestyle" the gauge by which we want to measure right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable? Is there anything which will always be wrong, just plain wrong? Or shall everything be permissable? When and if everything becomes permissable, what becomes of the new Paradise Found; how can it survive the anarchy? What then of America?

I'm reminded of Thomas Jefferson, "I fear for my nation when I recall that God is just."

September 23, 2005 9:44 PM

The Republican mayor of Spokane WA spent a lot of time championing an anti-gay aganda, until he admitted having sex with men. This is my problem with so many of the vocal critics of other peoples lives, they usually have more to hide than the people they are persecuting.

September 24, 2005 5:35 AM

drmax,

Is pandering (a loaded word) to a constituency one does not personally support, but desires in order to be elected or remain in the public eye, any better than the critic who has something to hide as in the case you suggest?

I prefer people who honestly take a position come what may to those who check the current public wind direction. The mayor of San Francisco is not personally pro-homosexual, but his public support for homosexuality got him elected. Gavin was well aware that gay marriages would not stand up to judicial muster, but it assurred his national name recognition for his run for US Senate.

September 24, 2005 11:44 AM

Indigo,

I also prefer a person who will honestly give their opinion on an ISSUE too. I take pandering during an election as a given, sad, but a given.

Unfortunately Bush and the Republican congress have turned their issues into POLICY. Not very well thought out policy at that, which has cost 1900+ American families a future with their loved ones.

I personaly don't think we should be Iraq, we should have kept going in Afghanistan and caught that SOB bin Laden who was actually responsible for 9/11. But let's pretend Bush's Iraq invasion made sense. What galls me lately is Bush's insistence that we can't cut and run in Iraq now, we'll give the insurgents a victory. What I'm afraid of is that's just what we're doing by staying there with numbers of troops that can not effectively battle the insurgency. If Bush was the leader you long for he'd back up his 'spreading democracy" talk by comitting political suicide and reinstituting a draft to bring up the troop strength to levels his father had in the first gulf conflict, 500,000. Hell, the first Bush even had more non-US forces 160,000, than our present 145,000 (good policiy to piss off all our alies). Rummy got Bush to fall for his "new army" BS, which may have been effective for battle but stinks for occupation. Even with all his extra forces daddy Bush knew attacking Baghdad was going to be a mess. If only W had had an advisor who had been in that first gulf conflict close by...someone like Powell who....oh, nevermind.

I know this is off the gay marriage topic, sorry, but I guess both our sides have problems when looking for true leadership.

September 24, 2005 5:23 PM

drmax,

I understand your frustration as I, too, have much the same. It must be similar to what Lincoln felt with Gen. McClellen when Abe said, "General, if you aren't going to use the Army, may I borrow it." There is a dirth of leadership from both sides of the aisle, except when it comes to attacking each other.

Never did the dillusion of "we have enough troops to do the job" overwhelm me. I have not been blogging long enough for you to know, nor was I commenting on the same blogs earlier as you, but my sense of this war, or any war in which America is involved, should be fought with clear heads and overwhelming force and power. US military action should never be proportionate to the provocation, but rather far exceeding it to the Nth degree. Only when the enemy (opponent, whatever) understands the violence will only end when they stop shooting, should we put down our guns and pick up the shovels for rebuilding.

That's harsh, I know. Throughout history, any nation's history, half measures in war have shown to be terribly inadequate to securing the peace for longer than a few years at best. I know it's counter intuitive, but the purpose of war IS to achieve peace (on "my" terms, of course) and peace has generally followed war.

War does not appear to be as useful as it once was. However, the threat of war has caused some suspect nations to give up their warrior ways (Lybia comes to mind.) N Korea and Iran continue to waffle on the subject, but may abandon the nukeware in the face of European "diplomatic sanity" and American "military insanity." I'm hoping the unintentional "good cop/bad cop" routine works as war is not good for children and other living things as the '60s slogan goes.

As for Republicans turning issues into policy, well, that is why we vote for party candidates, isn't it? I don't think anyone was expecting John Kerry to do anything other than turn his issues into policy. That's the whole point of competing parties, issues, and policies. At any given time somebody is happy and somebody is unhappy. When we are all happy with government then something isn't working right.

I'll stop now.

September 24, 2005 6:19 PM

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that the Terminator is Governor of California.

September 26, 2005 4:28 PM

I dont have a problem with gay marriage.A marriage is a union between 2 people who love each other.I dont think it matters what sex they are.

September 27, 2005 9:36 AM

Indigo Red, they aren't trying to pass laws to make gay-marriage legal. They are trying to make the laws more clear so that gays are not discriminated against. Laws right now are being re-written in order to specifically discriminate against a group of people, and some people are trying to stop that. Good for them!! Gay partners SHOULD have ALL the rights of heterosexual couples can have. Otherwise they are being discriminated against.

It sounds like your solution is to wait and let another generation fix it. I say, why not NOW? If it's not right, why wait?

Marriage is a religious rite, but it is also a civil right. These are two different things that are often confused by people who are unwilling to see the difference. I say unwilling since it is not difficult to understand the difference. The religious ceremony is between the couple and their god. The civil ceremony is between the couple and the state. Neither necessarily has to be recognized by the other. Two different entities. Two different ceremonies. Two different purposes. My marriage has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with me and my husband announcing to the state that we are combining our assets and effort into one entity. Like a corporate merger. Nothing to do with religion.

And shame on you for likening gay marriage to beastiality, pedophilia, and cannabalism! That is the fear game, and we won't buy that here.


DrMax, thanks again for covering the replies while I have been busy over the weekend. What would I do without you?

Maria, yeah. How'd that happen? And his ratings are even lower than the guy that got repealed, so why aren't they repealing him?

June, totally agree.

September 27, 2005 4:51 PM

I MOST CERTAINLY WAS NOT LIKENING HOMOSEXUALITY TO BESTIALITY, PEDOPHILIA, OR CANNIBALISM!!!!

It was Shannon who introduced the above behaviors: "I've heard people say that if we allow gay people to marry, we'll have to allow pediphiles and beastialitiles (however we refer to them) the same." I only pointed out that the exact same thing was said about inter-racial marriages leading to homosexual marriages leading to...what, leading to what? Maybe we should think real hard about what we do before we do it.

When will liberals learn to read in context?

I was saying that what was once unthinkable is now thinkable! What was once unacceptabe is now or soon will be acceptable. Just five years ago, homosexual marriage was unthinkable, then one day it is. There was NO equation of any of the examples, except in your own sick mind. If you are reading indignation here, by God, you would be right! How dare you!

The other point I was making is that GOVERNMENT DOES NOT BELONG IN MARRIAGE NO MATTER WHAT THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF THE PARTICIPANTS. Whomever wishes to join together is no ones fucking business, least of all the government's. You write that the purposes of religious marriage and civil marriage are two and distinct. Well, what are they? At least, I attempt to illustrate my position. What is the purpose for the government to be involved in marriage of any stripe?

I have two cousins who are gay and I love them both. I had a dear friend who was gay, but now he's dead from AIDS. I am a crippled man and at 51, I still get comments that I shouldn't be in public. I have been refused jobs and marriage because of it. Don't you dare talk to me about bigotry and discrimination.

I doubt very much that this clarifies any position I have taken in the conversation. But, there it is, in front of God and everybody as clear as I can make it. If you don't agree with my veiwpoint, good, that's your God given American right. If you can't understand the points, that's not my problem. I don't give a rat's ass what your opinion is, or anyone elses for that matter. I have enjoyed the reasoned and kind conversation. But, what I have read here tonight is beyond the pale.

I have NEVER made any sick accusations about you or your opinions when you have opined on FAIR. I have, in fact defended you, if not the viewpoint. Anyone may say whatever they wish without denigration of any kind at FAIR. I come here often; what I would have expected was a question, " Indy, what do you mean by...?" No, I am impuned. And I have benn called a bigot simply because my opinion does not comport with the others here,even though those opinions can be ajudged equally bigoted!

I have done no such thing to you; why must you do so to me here?

September 27, 2005 11:54 PM

Indigo Red, first I'll cover the state marriage. I did illustrate my position: "My marriage has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with me and my husband announcing to the state that we are combining our assets and effort into one entity. Like a corporate merger. Nothing to do with religion." State marriages are an easy, cheap way for a couple to protect their rights. A state marriage, which costs less than $100 in most, if not all, states, covers thousands of dollars of legal fees required to get the same rights. No one HAS to get a state marriage. So if people don't agree with them, they can just not get one. But for people who agree with what they have to offer, maybe they don't have the money to dole out to a lawyer to get the same protection, then they should be allowed that.

Now, as for the rest of your comment…

Shannon did mention it first. She said that she has heard people say those things, but she was saying that those statements are silly.

I wasn't taking anything out of context. "But, what we do see is that what was unthinkable one day becomes thinkable the next often becoming the norm in short order. Questions should then arise: what should remain unthinkable and forbidden, if anything; should doctors be allowed to kill patients under the guise of compassion (oops...too late, we already do that - doctors in Texas have been euthanizing handicapped infants and babies for several years; Oregon assists in suicide); is it ever permissable for adults to have sex with minors, children, and infants ( a scholarly book out this past week explores the practice in ancient Greece and declares peadophilia does no harm and actually benefits the child); will we allow bestiality (oh, too late on that one, too, just Google that word, and in Oregon there is a farm that caters to human/animal sex)." -- "With the loss of marriage bounds and continued government involvement, we then allow any kind of relationship to exist WITH the full force of law. Are we willing to accept the unknown along with the known consequences?" -- "What are we, as a society, willng to say is acceptable behaviour? At what point do we, as a society, judge behaviour of others as wrong and impermissable? Daumer thought murder and cannibalism was okay. That was his choice, but should we then say it was his civil right to kill and eat another person, even if it was consentual, because that was his 'lifestyle'? Is 'lifestyle' the gauge by which we want to measure right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable? Is there anything which will always be wrong, just plain wrong? Or shall everything be permissable? When and if everything becomes permissable, what becomes of the new Paradise Found; how can it survive the anarchy? What then of America?" I didn't feel the need for clarification since to me it read clearly that if gay-marriage now, what next? Cannabalism, bestiality, and pedophilia being openly acceptable in our society? By saying that, you are implying that they are similar enough to homosexual marriage to even be considerable if gays were allowed to be married. That means that you are likening them to one another. It is apparent by your reaction that what was clear in your mind as saying one thing didn't necessarily come out that way in your writing.

I said: "By voting to assure that they would not be allowed equal rights, you have supported the campaign of inequality and bigotry." I would only be calling you a bigot if you agreed with this campaign- meaning that you believed that gays should not have equal rights. The proposition in California was not about getting rid of ALL state marriages, it was about ensuring that the only legal marriage was that between the opposite sex. Specifically excluding gays from being married. I say that you are supporting the campaign because you have given the campaign your power, in the form of your vote, to help keep gays from getting legal marriages. It doesn't really matter what your reason was- you have helped keep gays from getting married legally. It's similar to the idea that if you buy clothes from companies that use child labor, you are supporting child labor. Doesn't mean you are in favor of child labor, it means that you are helping it happen.

I hope you know that I do enjoy your comments on my blog even though we don't agree sometimes. I even enjoy them because we don't agree. But if I feel that someone isn't giving me a reasonable argument, especially one that steps over the line, I'm going to call it as I see it.

September 28, 2005 9:58 AM

Hey, Indy. Here is a story that I thought you'd appreciate.

September 28, 2005 11:37 AM

Now there is censorship with unreasonable arguments (by your definition, I suppose) and lines over which one must not step (drawn by you, no doubt.)

Without stepping over lines and what may appear at first blush to be unreasonable arguments, how does any discussion of any subject move forward.

The comments I hate the very most are not those that are unreasonable and line crossing, it is those that say, "Nice post, Indy" and the like. Does everyone at my site just agree with everything I write? Doesn't anyone have a differing point of view upon which a conversation grow? I see it on all blogs, including here. For goodness sake, take a stand, people, and defend it. Blogs should be a place for out of step opinions because here no one gets hurt.

September 28, 2005 11:37 AM

"For every two marriages annually there is one divorce. That means, essentially that about 50% of marriages are ending in divorce. Do they not understand the sanctity of marriage?! Many married people commit adultery. Do they not understand the sanctity of marriage?! Many get prenuptuals which means that they aren't even counting on their marriage lasting. Do they not understand the sanctity of marriage?!"

Amen, sister! A-effing-men!!!

September 28, 2005 12:11 PM

Indy, I'm not sure what you are getting at in that last comment. You may have to clarify. I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. I'm just really not sure about how I'm reading it.

If you are saying that I am censoring you or that I am saying that you can't speak your opinion, well that would be wrong. I never censored you. Your words are still right here for all to see. You wrote your opinion, and I wrote mine. No editing, no censorship. I very much did not agree with your opinion and you very much did not agree with mine. You can write your opinion freely here, but you should also be prepared to take some criticism when people disagree with it. If you think you are being unfairly criticised, then you can always clarify your position and/or criticize the critique.

I never told you you couldn't say what you said here, I simply said that it wouldn't be accepted as a logical argument.

The thing about people is that they like comfort. And what is most comfortable is what they already know and believe. So, with the blogosphere, it is totally understandable that people would go to blogs that they relate to, ones that reaffirm their current beliefs. That's why you see so much agreeableness in the comments. I know some of my commenters pretty well. I know some of the blogs that they visit. I think that many of the people that comment here are not content to stay in their happy little cocoons. They like to hear varying opinions. They visit blogs that aren't necessarily of their opinion to try to get a wider point of view. I appreciate that about my audience.

But, on the other hand, they, like your readers, can't help agreeing with what they agree with.

Don't forget to check out that article. I like that county's style :)

September 28, 2005 12:36 PM

ORF, hey, you shortened your name! Pretty soon you'll just be "O". Thanks for the approbation.

September 28, 2005 12:41 PM

I read the article, LOVED IT!! Way to go OREGON, once again standing alone.

September 28, 2005 3:04 PM

Or..better yet...Just taking a stand!

September 28, 2005 3:04 PM

Excellent article. Good for Oregon; they are beginning to ask the right questions: why is gov't involved in marriage and why must marriage be licensed?


One thing leads to another:

Original

Blog translation


This is an interesting article I found today. It begins to answer my questions.

September 29, 2005 11:20 PM

I'm not against polygamy either. As long as all parties are aware and concenting. AND that if a man can have more than one wife, then a woman can have more than one husband. (Who knows how any of them could manage more than one spouse!).

The last article that you linked will not show up.

September 30, 2005 10:46 AM

I was having trouble with all of the links. The first one was in Dutch, so I had to translate it to English and use TinyURL.

Anyway heres the URL for the 3rd link. It's about an alternative to state licensed marriages that has never been successfully challenged in the courts, dispite repeated attempts.

http://www.mercyseat.net/BROCHURES/marriagelicense.htm

Personally, I don't think any man should be punished for having multiple wives. Having multiple wives is punshment enough! ;)

September 30, 2005 1:45 PM

Oh, I read that awhile ago. I'm not Christian or religious, so it really doesn't apply to me, or I guess anyone else who isn't Christian or religious.

September 30, 2005 1:55 PM

Oh, never mind! Seems the whole arguement is beyond your depth.

September 30, 2005 7:44 PM