Blogcritics Comments on Let Live

Comment by Eric Olsen on Let Live

Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:29:56 EDT

what you said makes perfect sense to me, Boom, and I also referred to the vile Santorum in a gesture of contempt in #2

Comment by boomcrashbaby on Let Live

Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:21:36 EDT

Since this blog is the most recent one on this topic, I want to say this while it's on my mind, and since the defeat of the amendment is the top story on all the news. People need to be clear on this. Fox news website is reporting that Republicans are still vowing to continue the fight. Their news story says this from Rick Santorum: "The amendment "is to provide moms and dads for the next generation of our children. Isn't that important? Isn't that the ultimate homeland security — standing up, defending marriage, defending the right for children to have moms and dads, to be raised in a nurturing and loving environment? Isn't that what this debate is all about?" asked Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., on the Senate floor Wednesday." Since I can't respond to Mr. Santorum, it needs to be said that allowing my partner and I to get married will not prevent children from having moms and dads. NOWHERE in the legal definition of marriage does it say that ONLY married people can have kids. We currently are not married, and guess what? We ALREADY have a kid! Giving marriage to only a man and a woman relates in NO WAY to ensuring that future generations will have a mom AND a dad. Heterosexuals have children out of wedlock all the time. Plus, look at all the single parents out there who got tired of waiting and adopted. Is it just me, or does anybody else see how his argument has no bearing on the amendment? And since when is a loving nurturing environment only provided in a home with a mom and a dad? Just had to get that off my chest. His argument has nothing to do with the amendment.

Comment by Dew on Let Live

Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:56:56 EDT

There you guys go walking through my head again! I believe that two people define what their relationship is as Phil illuded too. What man recognizes is just that, what 'man' recognizes. From what I gather having your union recognized as marriage by the state makes the beneficiary paper work a whole lot easier. Civil Unions being recognized as marriage poses no threat on marriage itself, especially for true believers of their word and relationship. What it does threaten is a weak minded attempt to continue to deny that the world and the people in it will not and have not ever been what we want them to be. The truth hurts especially when you lie to yourself. if that makes sense (hehe)

Comment by Eric Olsen on Let Live

Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:20:27 EDT

good points Phillip, they know they don't have the votes and STILL waste the time on it purely for the purpose of grandstanding and posturing: "I voted to uphold the sanctity of marriage against the rabid sodomites and my opponent DID NOT." Just stupid hateful shit

Comment by Phillip Winn on Let Live

Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:14:13 EDT

Here's one that might surprise Eric, though most of you haven't encountered my faith very directly. I am a dedicated born-again Christian, striving to raise Christian children in this world. In fact, I'm a home-schooling, church-going, Bible-studying, Christian, the worst possible kind. And I wouldn't support such a ridiculous amendment, ever. Not *just* because civil law should be kept completely separate from religion, an idea with which I'm generally supportive, but because -- as Dew said -- what right do "we" have to say marriage is? We pay lip service to "until death do us part" and then split as soon as we "fall out of love." Does that have anything to do with the sanctity of marriage? Slightly more political: Newt Gingrich leaves his wife who is dying of cancer for another woman. How does that promote the "sanctity of marriage?" Answer: It doesn't. I don't really have a horse in this race. I'd be satisfied if the government changed the rules so that "civil unions" between *any* two people received all of the same benefits now accorded to marriage, and then they could convert my "marriage license" to a "civil union certificate," and I wouldn't care in the slightest. Jesus made it pretty clear that civil government's idea of marriage and God's idea of marriage don't line up. Moses allowed divorce, God didn't, to name one (controversial) example. So I don't care what the government says my relationship with my wife is. I require no validation other than that we provide each other. And this stupid debate when they don't have even half of the votes they need is ridiculous election-year pandering of the worst sort.

Comment by Dew on Let Live

Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:45:45 EDT

I completely agree!! This particular person was smart enough to recall the message before the 'bosses' could read it. Forunately only the peons had the pleasure of reading it. Great point Eric, as usual. As if there isn't enough prejudice now we have to commit legislative hate crimes, it's crazy. And last I checked church and state was supposedly still separate.

Comment by Eric Olsen on Let Live

Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:47:57 EDT

I agree entirely with you both, very humanely put. When I hear fools like Santorum "reluctantly" defending the "very future" of marriage via a proposed constitutional amendment I want to vomit. The only possible objections to gay marriage are religion and prejudice. I'd rather we not legislate prejudice and keep religion out of the law.

Comment by S Michael Moore on Let Live

Mon, 12 Jul 2004 23:40:26 EDT

A "Team Leader" has absolutely no business using a company's resources to push his prejudices or politics on those that work for him.