Why on earth is Fred Phelps and his twisted congregation free to protest the funerals of soldiers and homosexuals?
It's not as if I find the extreme-Left, America-hating, anti-war loonies any less despicable than I always have. But, I think there's someone who could just possibly be even worse. His name? Fred Phelps.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - zingzing
sticks and stones.
it's a fucking word.
everyone knows that prince, the artist, is not the prince of wales. nor is marmaduke a duke or a marm. the rose bowl is a stadium. when a british lady asks you if you'd "like to have a shag," you don't expect a pack of tobacco. we can understand the difference between things without changing the word. "i want a fuck." "you are a fuck." totally different.
why are you so hung up on a word? that's the real question. but who really cares?
i don't think a single gay person would really, truly give up the benefits of marriage if it were to be called a civil union. so get it done. let it pass. give them the rights.
no problem, right?
SO WHAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM!?
77 - NR Davis
That's right, Mr. Marsh. Most insightful. If you have the word, I have the right to it too, according to your founders. But your law says something different. Indeed, SEPARATE BUT EQUAL ISN'T EQUAL. If marriage is a religious tradition - GET THE GOVERNMENT THE HELL OUT OF IT. It isn't right for the law to arbitrarily punish a group for being itself because of religious beliefs or calls for "tradition." It isn't fair or humane to expect us to go along with it - and to help finance our legal diminishment and a lifelong place under the boots of heterosupremaci. Yes, some will go along to get along. Many of us simply cannot. I can deal with you hating me. Can't go along with hating myself.
Mr. Arch Conservative: "I also see nothing wrong with those two adults respecting the wishes of the vast majority of the american citizenry today and calling thier union something other than marriage."
Of course you don't, sir. It works for YOU. It doesn't for me, because I see everything wrong with it. And that the majority doesn't get that it is hurting individuals, families and children beyond reason... well, that's my problem, isn't it? But don't expect loyalty from me. That expectation is more than unreasonable. It is cruel and inhumane and unacceptable on every level. I have to pay the taxes so I don't end up in your country's jails, but know I resent it more than you can imagine. And I have every reason to resent it. If you were in my shoes, and you didn't kneel to society's insistence that you hate yourself, you would too.
So. I am expected to accept diminishment and inequality for the majority society's comfort sake. Sorry, but fuck the majority society. Nearly 50 years years I have been told to conform in certain ways that have nothing to do with criminality for OTHER people's comfort: Wear makeup and dresses. Be soft and docile. Marry a man who will protect you or remain celibate because we don't want you to be happy. Pay taxes and if you want a relationship or a civil union, be prepared to pay MORE, MUCH MORE to get a tentative, partial parity with heterosexuals THAT CAN BE OVERTURNED by bigoted and/or traditional families that DEFINE WHETHER THEY CONSIDER MY FAMILY LEGITIMATE. (Meanwhile, the marriages of criminals and reality-show contestants need to be defended from the likes of me. Imagine that. Why am I supposed to love your land?) OH - and though we get far fewer benefits than married hets (including hets who get married for reasons that don't have anything to do with "sanctity"), we queers must pay THE SAME taxes as everyone else - including taxes to fund schools that in many areas won't protect my kids from bullying and prejudice and abuse or talk about families that resemble ours. Inheritance rights - often are NOT PERMITTED for unionized queers in some areas. Is that fair? Does that fit your definition of justice? Can you understand why people would not - and why they will fight you and your vile society and laws tooth and nail until they create change, drop dead or find the ability to flee to a safer locale.
CIVIL UNION IS NOT EQUAL TO MARRIAGE. PERIOD.
How about that? We pay and pay, but because we are queer, we can't have equality AND YOU EXPECT US TO GO ALONG WILLINGLY WITH IT.
We may be fags and dykes and wrong or disordered or anti-traditional in your eyes, but we all are NOT dupes willing to accept this.
Great life for us rainbow children, eh? So good to live in the land of the free (for YOU), a land that claims to respect and offer but does not practice equality under CIVIL law for ALL. I must forego equality for your sake because it would make you uncomfortable to have me be fully equal. Fuck that, sir. Fuck that.
YES. THE WORD MATTERS IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ACTUALLY HAVING EVERYONE EQUAL UNDER LAW.
Sorry. I've been fighting this fight for way too long and I am SICK of this country, this fight, this society and this life. You try a mile in my shoes and then tell me how you feel watching the law coddle the bigots and traditionalists at your expense. You would be pissed off (and that's an understatement) too. Well, unless you're one of the too many of us who bow to an oppressive society and learn to hate themselves. I'm SO over that shit and over your belief (the source of suffering) and your society and your religion and your tradition and your US.
Mr. Marsh, you brought up the water fountain. I ask you to re-read something I wrote earlier to Mr. Manning:
Between my melanin problem and the queer thing, I am sick to death of having to be sensitive to people willing to hurt me and mine - and who expect me to deal with it smilingly and willingly for THEIR BENEFIT. I am sick of having to fight you people all the time for EQUALITY. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em ALL.
We can't be recognized the SAME WAY as the majority because they don't consider our love as worthy as theirs. They tell us we can't love - tradition and stereotypes say that my kind is incapable of real love, and again, we make many hets uncomfortable (our discomfort is OK, of course, because queers are inferior - the law says so and lack of equality proves it)... See how the word matters? If all citizens are equal and of equal importance, why a separate word for us? Why indeed, in a land where separate has been defined as being not equal by the highest court in the land? It's about respect - not for homosexuality, because you don't have to like it or approve of us, but for each American individual to live and love and pursue happiness as they choose. If it's really about freedom and equality for all, I shouldn't be treated differently or given a special designation because of whom I love.
In other words, how come it is ok for US to be hurt and made to feel uncomfortable and unwelcome and exploited (the tax issue, etc.) by the country to which we're supposed to be loyal and grateful (as if)? Does that make sense? Would any self-respecting human willingly accept such treatment? Would you, were you in my shoes?
There is no compromise on the issue of equality. Either everyone is equal or equality does not exist. If people are opposed to equality, I just wish they had the stones to say it flat out and stop pussyfooting around the truth: You (general you) insist upon your supremacy. And if you are part of that general you... well, rest assured I can't say what is going through my mind right now. But no, I can not endure any more of this shit quietly. Don't like it? Make your country tell the truth and practice what it preaches. If discomfort is bad for you, imagine how misery and second-class status and the ongoing character assassination feel for your fellow citizens who happen to be gay or bisexual or transgender. Believe what you want, but the law shouldn't be doing your gods's job for him or her or it.
Note to Ruvy: The benefits are definitely an issue for families nuked and diminished by the government and our bigoted and traditionalist fellow citizens. Our families - the one these people don't consider worthy - pay the price for the lack of them every day in one fashion or another. Our children suffer - not because of us, but because of SOCIETY. So YES, my friend, the benefits are part of the issue. But to intimate that queer people don't value love and commitment just like heterosexuals do and that the money issue would take precedence over that (just as that is the case for hets, it may for some gays, but it certainly does not for MOST of those I know who want to wed - but aren't allowed to do so because of who they are, is way more than insulting.
Whatever: Hets marry for love, greed, property, green cards, reality shows, whatever. Many marry for economic reasons, for health insurance and more than 1,000 governmental rights and responsibilities, to escape bad parents, or because they are bored or lonely or codependent. No one denies them equality even if they marry just because they drank too much in Vegas, even if they did so to avoid testifying. Hets can't be denied civil marriage - even if the parties involved don't love and cherish each other or are hardened criminals. Criminals can marry the person of their choice, but I can't. How can I assume anything else but that this country sees me as less than? And how can I not be outraged and loud as a result?) So the reason hets marry doesn't matter - why does it matter when the discussion is about marriage equality for my kind?
78 - Jet in Columbus
What if in the 1940s a black man marrying a white woman was not permitted to be called a marriage?
79 - Andy Marsh
Told ya!
80 - NR Davis
You sure did, Mr. Marsh. Now convince me that I am wrong and the vile mainstream society is right on this. Never mind: You can't.
And Mr. Zing, can you see my point at all? Because I can't abide yours - WHY should I be forced to endure and accept separate but equal (which, again, the SCOTUS ruled was UNequal by definition; Jim Crow is anathema to me and people with self-esteem; which is an insult to oppressed people with brains (another understatement)?
I ask you to reread what I wrote above about drinking fountains. I have experienced that particular brand of separate but equal. Is that OK with you too? Why or why not? And what, if you see one, is the difference between what was done to me because of my skin color and what was done to me because of my orientation - two things over which I have NO control?
Another question, Mr. Zing: Do you understand the notion of being true to ones beliefs and principles? Dr. King said those not willing to stand or die for what they believe, for their deeply held principles, have no right to live. If I accept your second-class status (which is what it is - a special designation for gays? how dark ages is that?) for the sake of expediency, I have lost more than I have won. Meaning, I HAVE LOST and I AM LOST. I am not equal under law in your country (which is why it isn't my country), but at least I have remained a person of integrity by Dr. King's definition. Character counts, and people with character don't and won't suffer insults, even from the mainstream. We certainly won't bow down to our oppressors - even if the oppressors are made up of the government and our fellow "citizens." You don't have to give up your humanity to be acknowledged as equal by the law. Why should I? How does it benefit me to give up my soul to get something you get just because you were born het (IF you were born het). And if you are queer, hoo boy... I will keep my opinion to myself on that matter, but know I am shaking my head and filling with despair at the very thought of it.
81 - NR Davis
Mr. Jet, back in the day, those couples would go to jail. A couple of my relatives did for following their hearts and giving a well-deserved middle finger to the mainstream and your terrible country. Others fled to northern states and Canada. Wish they had taken me... but of course I had not yet been born. Would have been better if I hadn't been, given all of this.
82 - Casey Lunkley
The funny thing about conservatives who oppose gay marriage for reasons of "religious" and "moral" values is that people don't have to be religious nor moral to get married. Atheists get married legally. Anna Nicole Smith gets married legally. Yet you don't see any protests in California or Massachusetts about them. For some reason, people who oppose gay marriage hate the thought that they'll have to share a common bond (and/or a tax break) with gay people.
Polls have nothing to do with this argument. Most people want the Iraqi conflict to stop within a year. Warhawks sure don't care about THOSE polls nor do they defend polls that say Bush should be punished for whatever they think he should be punished for. Don't be selective.
83 - Casey Lunkley
"Would have been better if I hadn't been, given all of this."
Aw, NR, don't say that! You're great! :)
84 - NR Davis
Not according to your country's law. Not according to those people who say I need to compromise and accept second-class citizenship. Not according to Messrs. Phelps, Falwell, Manning, Archconservative and Zing. If you believe that most Americans are opposed to my equality, then not according to the US mainstream either. Can you see why I find this place a hell on earth, why I would prefer to be dead than here?
85 - NR Davis
Margaret Ramao Toigo wrote of the anti-equality crew: you just want "to protect a bit of tradition," in a non-violent, peaceful and respectful manner.
Just saw this again and had to respond, Ms. Toigo.
A person who fights to keep another human unequal under law and/or insists that said human accept the inequity):
I know you want to be nice and polite to these people, but please don't blow smoke up their skirts to appease them. Appeasement causes a lot of this mess. That those who oppose EQUALITY are nonviolent, peaceful or respectful is patently FALSE. They probably mean well, but you know about that road to hell.
86 - Mark Edward Manning
Arch Conservative: "I believe that most AMerican men today still value traditional femine qualities in a mate, dressing feminine, behaving in "ladylike" manners, softness ..."
So do I, AC. Unfortunately, and here's the real twist, women want equality while acting like men, dressing like them, etc. All these otherwise attractive women wearing trousers? What a disgrace, I'd much rather see them in skirts. Also, a poll here in Britain recently revealed that more girls get in fights than boys these days. They are also drinking heavier than men. I thought women wanted to be respected for what they are supposed to be - feminine? Yet, women just keep acting tougher and more unfeminine with every passing day.
(Note: Admittedly, I couldn't care less about a mothering instinct as I do not want children and am not particularly fond of them at all.)
87 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Ms. Davis, Bing,
I'll ask you to consider two things which are coloring your viewpoint on all of this.
One is that a married couple gets a whole hunk of benefits under American law, so the 'right to marry' is the access to the benefits given. Ms. Davis, this you have addressed.
The second is that in the United states, you have an institution called "civil marriage." And civil marriage is all that really counts. In a wedding performed by a rabbi, for instance, there is a wedding contract and witnesses and a canopy, and the groom recites a formula over the ring he gives his bride, (all that is required by Jewish law is the recitation of the formula over the ring), but the rabbi in the States is required to say, in addition to all this, "by the power conferred upon me by the State of New York (or whatever jurisdiction), I pronounce you man and wife".
In other words, in th eyes of a judge, the canopy, witnesses, contract, and recitation of the formula is just so much piffle. In the States, the power conferred upon the rabbi or other religious official BY THE STATE is what makes the marriage legal.
In this atmosphere, a "civil union" is definitely different from a civil marriage. And in a country where the phrase "separate but equal" was a code phrase for "keeping the blacks down," "different but equal" just doesn't wash.
Because I live a third of a world away, under a different legal system, I can see this without getting angry. I probably would have plenty of problems with the legal system I live under, but that is not relevant to this article.
IMHO, because you have civil marriages - ceremonies performed by a judge with a watered down version of a Protestant service - you have a problem. Abandoning civil marriages in the States would not be a workable solution. But calling all "civil marriages" "civil unions" and granting all "civil unions" the same legal benefits would. That way, the issue of whether the union is a marriage or not is left to the preachers to argue over and the legalities of erasing inequality are dealt with. Civil union would be between two consenting adults - the rabbis (or whomever) would still pronounce the couples in front of them man and wife.
Try the idea on for size.
88 - Christopher Soden
1. NR: my respect and admiration for you knows no bounds. Keep fighting the good fight.
2. What right has anyone got to be telling someone else what amounts to appropriate "masculine" or "feminine" behavior? It's not your domain, boys. If you find girls in trousers so distasteful, leave them the fuck alone. I never thought I'd live to see the day when men were actually complaining about a non-issue like women in pants. Jesus, MAYBE you should try and fit them with chastity belts.
3. There is no such thing as a gay lifestyle. Culture, maybe. It's not a lifestyle it's who we are. And as for "promotion", well there's a fucking joke for you. Ask any gay person about the ubiquitous presence of breeder "promotion." It's EVERYWHERE you look. TV, movies, songs, billboards, magazines, books, plays. Finally, we're getting some degree of representation. But it doesn't begin to approach the presumptuous attitude of the millions of straight people that the world exists only for THEM. Promotion? PROMOTION? Thousands of years of BREEDER promotion hasn't affected everyone, Thank fucking God. Do you know the definition of chutspah? Do you honestly believe straight boys in high school (beyond random experimentation)are saying, "Gee, heterosexuality really bites, it's a lifetime of dick-sucking for me!"
4. Who the hell told you that marriage is the exclusive venue of straight people or Americans? Marriage existed long, long, before America existed and separation of Church and State should preclude the government from interfering anyway, as there's no true legal justification for forbidding same-gender marriage. And what would possess you to raise the issue of tradition? Depending on whose traditions you're looking at, tradition can include such praxctices as: wife-beating, clitorectomy, slavery, incest, lynching, cannibalism....
5. Here's a quarter buy a clue.
Cheers,
Christopher
89 - Andy Marsh
zing...apparently you have some strange views that don't reflect much humanity too!
90 - Andy Marsh
Ms Davis - If you read the comments you'll see that I asked a question, then I was told, incorrectly, according to you, that it's not about the word, it's about the rights. That's exactly what I think the argument SHOULD be about. THE RIGHTS! But somehow, according to you, giving you all the rights of a married hetero couple without the word isn't worth shit in a handbag! And to me...that's just stupid! But I have strange views that don't reflect much humanity, so what the fuck do I know???
And are you as vile with the people you deal with on an everyday basis as you are with the people on BC? If you are...bet you have lots and lots of friends. Just an observation....
91 - Arch Conservative
If it were about the rights and not the word you'd have no issue with me at all if your read what I wrote NR Davis.
But you don't want equality you want special treatment. Since America's inception marriage has always been between one mand and one woman. Many traditionalists such as myself have no problem with civil unions that bestow the benefits of marriage. That's not good enough for you though.
You claim you want rights but when they are offered to you in theory we see that's not what you really want at all. You don't merely want the gay lifestyle accepted...you want it glorified by all and damn everyone else's personal beliefs because NR Davis has a cause so look out. If you're not on the NR Davis train your a homophobe.
Also for you Christopher. American culture and 200 plus years of history has told me that marriage is a heterosexual institution.
Never mind the fact that most Americans don't want gay marriage to be legal. Never mind the fact that in just about every civilization since the dawn of time marriage has beene defined as one man and one woman. Never mind the fact that the Christian faith which was founded thousands of years ago does not view marriage as a homesexual union....damn it the church must change it beliefs so that they can accomodate the desires of a few right NR?
One of the most basic traditional institutions of American culture must be changed because something like 3% of the population want it changed while the rest do not right NR?
Stop bitching about civil rights...........gay marriage is not a civil right...every man and woman in this country has a civil right to get married...to someone of the opposite sex.... as marriage has been defiened by Americans since the founding of this nation and that is the way msot AMericans wish it to remain.... and if you don't like it that's too damn bad....
You say something's a right so it is right Natalie? That's how you moral relativists work. Do polygamists have civil rights to marry? Do adults have the right to marry children? Does zingzing have the right to marry his cocker spaniel after years of a loving relationship that dare not speak it's name?
You don't want equality NR... you want everyone else's beliefs to be subservient to your's and to force them to bend to your will even when they offer you what you want but just don't put the bow on top.
Natalie and Christopher are the most self centered, narrow minded, bafoons that do nothing but use semantics all day long in an attempt to push forward all that they want despite anything that anyone else values.
Why don't you climb down from your high horse and stop feeling sorry for yourself NR.
92 - lori
You say something's a right so it is right Natalie? That's how you moral relativists work. Do polygamists have civil rights to marry? Do adults have the right to marry children? Does zingzing have the right to marry his cocker spaniel after years of a loving relationship that dare not speak it's name?
Hey, I see progress here at BC! It took until comment 91 (instead of starting with comment 1) for someone to bring up beastiality and pedophilia in the gay marriage debate.
Bravo, BC!
93 - NR Davis
Hey, Mr. Marsh, I may be vile (which I don't see, but you're entitled to your opinion; I'm just an oppressed person expressing myself), but I'm not about denying equality to people.
And you misunderstand me, Mr. Marsh. It is about rights AND it is about the word, because, sir, it's about equality. A separate word connotes inequality - not acceptable. And equal rights should go without saying. Moot point, anyway, because NO American in a civil union has all of the rights of civil marriage. Not one. So that argument of yours is specious and cruel at best.
Yes, cruel. I'm unequal and expected to be sunny and pleasant about it. Fuck you. I apologize for saying that, truly I do, but Jesus... You people and your unfair, unrealistic demands of those you legally marginalize are just too much for me to bear. Far too much. Yes, it's inhumane. That;s how it feels on this end. But you're more concerned about manners. Most times I do try civility. Today, after reading all this, I can't muster it. Sorry. You ask too much.
Mr. ArchConservative: "Feminine"? Who defines that? Why should I wear dresses if I don't like them? Who decides? I want to be ME, not what You deem I, as a woman, ought to be. Being a woman has nothing to do with softness or dresses or makeup or docility - unless those characteristics fit the particular woman. And if a man is about softness or dresses or makeup or docility, then in his case, those are masculine qualities. Why do you all insist we conform who we are to what YOU insist we be?
Ruvy wrote: "But calling all "civil marriages" "civil unions" and granting all "civil unions" the same legal benefits would."
I've advocated for that for years. If hets and queers could do civil unions and leave religious marriage to the churches, I would be fine with that.
94 - lori
Oh, and by the way, I love the way the truth about "tradition" eeks out as this thread progresses. First, tradition simply means one man, one woman in marriage. But then as the thread goes on, we see that it really means MEN as the strong, superior person in the relationship who wants his woman and all women to wear clothes and behave in ways that please THEM. Tradition isn't really just polite nostalgia for days gone by. It's a desire to return to certain power structures that women and minorities of all stripes have fought to dismantle over the past century.
To any men who like to tell women how to dress and act to please THEM, I say a hearty fuck you.
And if that's not ladylike enough for you, then fuck you again.
95 - Andy Marsh
MS. Davis says I've advocated for that for years. If hets and queers could do civil unions and leave religious marriage to the churches, I would be fine with that.
but then...you wouldn't get the word! And we all know YOU MUST HAVE the word!
Fuck me? You talking dirty to me?
96 - lori
If the words are different, then the "institutions" are different. They're not equal. One would have a status conferred on it that the other did not, relegating one of the unions to second-class status. That's the entire point of the "we want to keep our word" crowd's argument. They want everyone to be able to distinguish between two types of unions by the words used to label them.
Without the word AND the rights, you don't have equality. You need both.
97 - Andy Marsh
so it's all or nothing...either give us the word and the rights...or fuck it...don't give us anything...as the cartoon characters on the Guiness commercials would say...BRILLIANT!
98 - lori
Why should gay couples accept less than full equality?
Civil unions are a step in the right direction and many, many gay couples have obviously opted to join in such unions. But why should they stop fighting for full equality? Why should civil unions be good enough for them? Would you accept second-class citizenship for something you so strongly believed in? Or would you keep working at it until you had what you believed is your Constitutional right?
99 - lori
Er, make that "your Constitutional and human right?"
100 - Andy Marsh
If the rights and responsibilities are the same how does not having the word lessen them any? I really don't get it...and I believe I'm not alone! Does calling a lion a cat make him any less a lion?
101 - lori
If the rights and responsibilities are the same how does not having the word lessen them any?
Because one is privileged over the other. If the rights and responsibilities are the same, why in the world would the names be different unless there was a desire to differentiate between two types of union, two groups of people.
It is exactly like the water fountain scenario, even though you don't like to see it that way.
Does calling a lion a cat make him any less a lion?
Yes. Lion conjures up all sorts of imagery and characteristics. King of the jungle and all that. Ask a kid to act like a lion. Then ask her to act like a cat. You'll see two different reactions entirely.
Here's another analogy: It's like being in the sports records book with an asterisk next to your name.
102 - lori
Oh crap, sorry about the italics!
103 - Andy Marsh
but does it make the lion any less a lion? I didn't ask if it made a kid any less a lion or if it made your perception of the lion different...I asked if it changed the lion.
As for the sports analogy...personally...I'd be happy to be in the book...period. The asterik doesn't make it any less a record...take Maris for example. He hit 61 homers in a season...a season that had more games than one of the Babe's seasons...it deserved an asterik...still a record...just different variables....civil union...still a marriage...just different variables.
104 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Bing wrote,
"Who would it hurt if they called it civil union and recieved the same benefits as heterosexual married couples...?
The American public has demonstrated through numerous polls and ballot referendum votes in over 50 states that they wish "marriage" to remain a union between a man and a woman. I suspect that many of these people agree with me that while although marriage should remain one man and one woman, there is nothing wrong with civil unions with all the benfits of marriage between adults of the same sex.
If this were to be the case, marriage and civil unions being legal...how does that hurt anyone?"
Ms. Davis wrote,
"Ruvy wrote: "But calling all 'civil marriages' 'civil unions' and granting all 'civil unions' the same legal benefits would.
I've advocated for that for years. If hets and queers could do civil unions and leave religious marriage to the churches, I would be fine with that."
Look at the bold print, you two. Do you see that you have written nearly the same thing here?
Bing gave me the idea, and I just fleshed it out a bit - and I do mean just a bit.
If you back off on the pyrotechnics, the name calling and the obscenity, you'll see that the two of you can unite around a common cause - 1) getting American states and commonwealths to abandon the term "civïl marriage" and adopt the term "civil union"; 2) extend all the benefits that now apply to what is called "civil marriage" to "civil unions"; 3) allow "civil unions" to be entered into by two consenting adults.
Religions then get to define marriage the way they want. If the Catholic Church doesn't want to recognize a civil union without a church marriage, for example, fine. That is up to American Catholics to deal with. It is also up to them to deal with issues of separation and divorce. In Catholicism, marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman that cannot be undone. In Judaism, it is a contractual arrangement between a man and a woman that can be undone. In neither faith is there such a thing as marriage between same sex individuals.
But if the state sanctioned "civil union" is what carries the economic and tax benefits, then the people who are called upon to practice their faith can do so - or not.
105 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
BTW, Natalie, can you e-mail me and tell me how to get the color and size changes in the text of the comments?
106 - NR Davis
No, Mr. Marsh. You don't get it. If you have access to LEGAL marriage (or the word "marriage," conferred by the government) - note this has nothing to do with churches or with RELIGIOUS or SACRAMENTAL marriage - then so should I. Only fair. Anything else would be unfair and unAmerican and insulting to those forced to use a separate designation that connotes less-than status. If we are equal under law and separate but equal is NOT equal (which I believe), there is NO justification for a separate word to cover queers.
However, if the government calls all legal joinings of committed pairs "civil unions" without respect to any couple's orientation, that's perfectly cool. The issue isn't the word, per se, it is equality - having the same rights and responsibilities and governmental designation for the relationship that is available to you. If "marriage" is only conferred by churches and in whatever manner those churches deem appropriate, that's cool. In that sort of situation, hets can have a legal union and a religious marriage if they wish - and so can nonheterosexuals (many churches DO perform marriage rites for gay couples today; they just aren't recognized as marriages by law anywhere but Massachusetts).
And no, I don't talk dirty to men. For me, that would be unnatural. But I do apologize profusely for the F-you aimed at you. As justifiably angry and hurt and depressed as I am by a lifetime of oppression and suffering, I shouldn't take it out on you personally even if you support my oppression. (Note the IF.) I rarely tell people to fuck off - and I do mean it for mainstream society in general - so do know that if I utter such a thing, my very justifiable rage (frankly, I don't comprehend having any other reaction if one is in my situation), I have had it. And I have HAD IT. In any case, I have asked for forgiveness in prayer. I hope you will be as gracious and merciful as my Creator.
As far as churches, do members of an organized religion have the right to express their dismay over the church's bigotry? Yes. Do people who may not be members of particular religions have the right to express an opinion about what they see as bigotry (such as the Catholic Church's inhumane treatment of women and GLBT people)? Yes. But ultimately, the church makes its own rules and we have to deal with that. In my case, years of Catholic oppression forced me to flee the church of my birth. One of the healthiest things I have every done...
In a related story, the Anglican Communion is very split over the notion of treating gays like equal children of God (verboten in the global denomination that includes the controversial US Episcopal Church, in which my now-grown daughter was baptized; the US church elevated an openly gay bishop in 2004 and the shit's been hitting the Anglican fan ever since). I have advocated passionately that sometimes a denominational schism is for the best. Methodists split over the issue of slavery - that was for the GOOD. It may be best if the Anglican Communion disintegrates too: Either the pro-justice people or the discriminators should take a hike and establish a religious community that shares the group's values. (Personally, I believe my side should split and leave the rotting hulk of bigotry to the Archbishop of Canterbury and his primates. "Men of God?" I doubt it highly. And if they are, I'll gladly take the fires of Hell.)
107 - Andy Marsh
the Catholic Church already requires couples to be married by a priest in order for the church to recognize the marriage. My parents had to have a ceremony in the church before the church would allow me to be baptized...of course, I've always thought it was a money thing...because a church marriage requires a "donation"
108 - NR Davis
Hey Ruvy, glad to help. Watch for email.
109 - Andy Marsh
Natalie - Not that you need it, but, I forgive you. And you're right...I really don't get it. I can't say I understand your frustration because I don't.
I've already stated on here that after reading Margarets' comments I'm not even sure if I care about the word anymore...but I would think...if I was extremely thirsty and I asked for a glass of water...I wouldn't turn down a glass that was only three quarters full...but that's just me.
I'll also state that of all the arguments on this particular thread...the one that moved me more towards your position was the one that was the most civil...the ranting and the raving and the "your country" and all that other bullshit tends to move people away from your point of view, not towards it...it's that old honey/vinegar thing...
We do seem to agree on one thing Ms. Davis...I wonder about the "Men of God" also...
110 - Dave Nalle
Nice to see everyone finally coming around to the position I've been advocating on BC for a year now. Let's abolish the state role in marriage alltogether and leave it up to the churches who they marry.
Dave
111 - lori
I'd be happy to be in the book...period.
That's fine for an average nonathlete. But you *know* that if Barry Bonds gets in with an asterisk next to his home run total, he won't be happy with just being in the book. He's going to want an asterisk-free record in there.
The asterik doesn't make it any less a record
It absolutely does if it illustrates that the record is somehow lesser than the others that don't have asterisks. The asterisk, by definition, makes that particular record different. If the record keepers didn't want to denote difference, they wouldn't.
Same goes for marriage vs. civil union. The people who don't want to share "their" word are trying to keep a separation between themselves and gay couples. They're trying to keep special status and exclusivity. If you're gay, you can't have what they have; you can something that looks a lot like it, but it's not really it.
The reality is, though, that it's not the specific word "marriage" that's the problem. It's the acutal idea of heterosexuals having their relationships be no different in society from gay relationships. The word is just the tool being used to make the separation clear.
That's why, unfortunately, what Ruvy proposes will either never happen or won't happen for a very long time. People who don't want to share the word "marriage" would (almost?) never allow the separation into secular civil unions and religious marriages.
The reason? Heterosexuals don't want to be put in the same pool as gays. Decoupling civil unions from marriage would do that, by definition. And that's what's really being fought over, here: the separation.
ArchC and Manning want their relationships to be given special status by the government and society. There's no way they'd accept having their union be called the same thing as a gay union. They've proven that by clinging to the word "marriage." There's no way they see a gay couple as deserving of the exact same civil recognition as that which they get.
So again, the word "marriage" isn't really special. It's just a mechanism for maintaining separation between gay and straight unions. If anti-gay marriage people were honest, they'd admit that no matter what you called their union, they don't want the same word used for gay unions. They'd want some linguistic difference between the two to remain so that their special status was retained.
112 - NR Davis
Yes, you have, Mr. Nalle, and kudos are due you. But you were never alone in advocating that. I have published writings since nearly 15 years ago that advocate the same thing. My position has never wavered - it's not the word "marriage," per se - it's having the same designation that hets have. If you get "civil marriage,"
" I'm entitled to the same thing. If all the government will give you is a "civil union," then union is good enough for me too. That is important. It's equality. Getting government out of the marriage biz and into the union biz for everyone would go a long way toward solving this problem in such a way that everyone is equal under law. And thanks for proving that a person can be a libertarian or conservative or right winger and still promote equality for al.
Mr. Marsh: "I'll also state that of all the arguments on this particular thread...the one that moved me more towards your position was the one that was the most civil...the ranting and the raving and the "your country" and all that other bullshit tends to move people away from your point of view, not towards it...it's that old honey/vinegar thing..."
Why is it bullshit if it is what I honestly believe? Why do I have to cover my true beliefs to spare the feelings of a society that has done nothing positive for me> Why must I be the one to beg, plead, cajole and debase myself for your benefit? I've groveled and cried and all. I've parsed every syllable to be nice to those who see me as less than them. Enough. Fuck them. That is where I am and I am done playing by your country's rules or acceding to its wish to keep me and mine down. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but your country is not mine. I don't wnat it. I don't want to be here. I haven't considered myself part of this society for a VERY long time. Why must I lie to make you happy? No matter how much you may want me to conform to the American role, integrity does not permit it. Sorry if you don't like my antipathy for this place (or rather, for its government, culture and society - the land itself is gorgeous), but I don't like your view either.
113 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy: colours and font size changes are not currently part of BC protocol in the comments.
114 - lori
If all the government will give you is a "civil union," then union is good enough for me too.
That's the litmus test right there. What say Mark Manning and ArchC to that? Would you guys agree to having the government sanction only civil unions, even for heterosexuals, and leave the marriage designation to religious organizations?
115 - Andy Marsh
I won't say it again...because I know the hate that will spew forth if I do...but hey...if you're really that unhappy here...why ARE you here? I just can't believe it's for the scenery!
116 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Lori writes,
"What say Mark Manning and ArchC to that? Would you guys agree to having the government sanction only civil unions, even for heterosexuals, and leave the marriage designation to religious organizations?"
Maybe we should wait for them to speak on their own before putting words in their mouths for them?
117 - Andy Marsh
to comment #113...then explain comment #85!
118 - lori
Ruvy, I asked them a question, which means I'm waiting for them to speak.
119 - Arch Conservative
Lori said..........
"Hey, I see progress here at BC! It took until comment 91 (instead of starting with comment 1) for someone to bring up beastiality and pedophilia in the gay marriage debate."
Yeah but the whole religion bashing routine was started much sooner than post 91 so not so much progress from where I sit. Also that was more of an attempt at a humorous cheapshot at zingzing than a comparison of beastiality and homosexuality.
Then she said.....
"To any men who like to tell women how to dress and act to please THEM, I say a hearty fuck you."
Lori if you reading comprehension were perhaps a little better you would understand that I was not telling any women how she must behave or what she must wear but rather I was saying that if one observes today's American culture, it is obvious that the traditional ideas/notions/expectations of masculinity and feminity are still valued by a majority of the American population.
Lori also said:
"ArchC and Manning want their relationships to be given special status by the government and society. There's no way they'd accept having their union be called the same thing as a gay union. They've proven that by clinging to the word "marriage." There's no way they see a gay couple as deserving of the exact same civil recognition as that which they get."
You're right. I consider the union between a man and a woman special. It is different from the union of a man a man or a woman and a women in many ways. First it is the way this nation has always defined marriage. Second, a man and a women can by themselves bring life into this world for the purpose of having a family. Third a one mom/one dad family environment provides the best environment for a child to grow up in provided that the mom and dad are caring, reasonable people of good moral charcter.
So as I have repeatedly stated time and time again and oyu have conviently ignored because it doesn't adhere to what you want, I have no problem with the state recognizing unions between homosexuals and providing legal benefits. However as this is not a marriage, it cannot be called such.
I suggest you stop twisiting my words and thier meaning Lori. Maybe if you tried to curb inflated sense of victimization and self pity you'd be able to slow down while reading other's posts and better understand them.
120 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Alright, Bing, now that you seem to be back for a bit, could I direct your attention to comment #104? Before someone starts calling names all over again?
121 - zingzing
NR Davis, #80. your seperate but equal argument isn't all that accurate. it isn't separated by anything except a pronunciation. don't look a gift horse in the mouth. your fighting an uphill battle against these people... this wouldn't be a small step, in fact, it's a huge one... but you're letting vocabulary get in the way of it.
NR Davis, #84. how dare you lump me in with those people. again, you need to pick your fights. you're too militant. ever heard of diplomacy? really, i'm very fucking disappointed you want to throw up walls in front of the actual (not metaphorical) advancement of your own people. what? do you think one day that everyone will love everyone? when is that gonna happen? stop your wishful thinking and take what's in front of you.
andy marsh, #89. shove it up your ass. you're just being mean. but, at least we agree in this case. "some." that's the word.
arch, #91. it is a civil right. marriage/love/etc have nothing to do with america or the catholic church. what does it matter what "most" americans want? at one time, "most" americans didn't want black people to be equal in the eyes of the law. it's just that simple.
NR Davis, #93. sigh. you realize that you're being just as stubborn as they are, right? give a little, take a whole shit load, take the rest later. if you actually are equal, in the eyes of the law, maybe people will feel less like looking down on you. you're asking for the whole damn thing, right now! when you could have everything you really need anyway. nothing is going to change the way people think, other than gradual change. you are offered a whole chunk of change and you deny it because you want them to say it nicer.
Lori, #96. what's wrong with equal rights? militancy is holding everything back... i dunno... i feel less like caring when the opportunity knocks and you (non-personal) don't like what it fucking sounds like.
Lori, #98. no one is staying stop fighting. have black people stopped fighting? NO! this is one battle in a big old war and you could win this one.
my god... TAKE THE RIGHTS NOW. equal rights under the law is defacto equality, and that's as close as you get in america. what you want is for everyone to love you and respect you for what you are... but, what do you care what some hobunk in new hampshire thinks about you? have equal rights under the law. the people who care about you and who you care about can love and respect you.
i know that was repeditive. i'm just fucking sick of watching to idiots argue about the same thing, neither side willing to budge an inch over something that means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. take on of the "r"s out of marriage. mariage. there you go. sounds the same. even looks the same when read quick enough.
this could be so simple if both sides didn't want to complicate it with stupid things like bullshit vocabulary and bullshit tradition and bullshit non-issues.
122 - Margaret Romao Toigo
Small steps, Ms. Davis. Rome was not built in one day, as they say. History has demonstrated time and time again that society does not accept change suddenly or quickly, and it likely never will.
It needs time to adjust, to discuss its issues and get out its feelings in preparation for the inevitable because rights have always ultimately trumped tradition here, it's an American tradition.
Slavery was a tradition (it dates back to Biblical times), but the civil and human rights of the enslaved eventually won.
Women as second-class citizens, disenfranchised and legally considered chattel was a tradition (there are numerous references in Scripture) until it was eschewed in favor of civil and human rights.
Segregation was also a tradition, and it also went out of practice in favor of the recognition of civil and human rights.
As recently as the early 1970s, homosexuality was traditionally a mental illness and a crime. "Practicing homosexuals" (a.k.a. consenting adults), were traditionally arrested and imprisoned for merely being homosexuals.
After a long and painful time -- during which society slowly became much more open to publicly discussing the traditionally "taboo" subject of homosexuality, which lead either directly or indirectly to a brand new tradition of legislation against anti-gay discrimination -- that tradition finally died, once and for all, in 2003 (Lawrence vs. Texas).
As far as civil rights movements go, the gay rights movement has progressed -- albeit unevenly throughout our 50 states -- at lightening speed.
At this point in time, only the one-percenters like Fred Phelps truly want to turn back the clock on all of that progress.
The people promoting and/or voting for those DOMAs in the states are trying to stem the tide. Whether they will admit it or not, they know that there's no going back to the "old days" and they know that all they can really do is try to stop further progress (but all they'll really do is slow it down a little bit).
Homosexuality will never again be legally considered a mental illness or a crime, the vast majority of the American people (regardless of their current views on same-sex marriage) think that anti-gay workplace discrimination is wrong and more and more people are willing to make a compromise with "civil unions" that confer the same material benefits as marriage.
Yes, I know and agree that "civil unions" are Jim Crow-style "separate but equal" nonsense, but there was a very recent time when a large number of people would not concede even to that notion.
It's coming down to a matter of semantics now. The American people are slowly, but surely, realizing that it really is very unfair to deny gay and lesbian people the material benefits of civil marriage.
Sure, they're still apprehensive about that one little word, but they're getting ideologically closer and closer to accepting the inevitable: civil and human rights must always trump tradition in a free country.
It's all part of the process -- even the seemingly irrelevant talk about changing gender roles and how people dress and behave accordingly -- and if you want to "win friends and influence people," you have to try to understand where they're coming from, and once you do, you have to let them know that you understand and even sympathize with their emotions, or else they'll just close their minds and harden their hearts.
This is how bridges of understanding are built. And building and maintaining those bridges is essential because compromise is always out of the question in matters concerning civil and human rights.
They're almost there! It really won't be that big of a leap for them to also support the civil recognition of same-sex marriage, you just have to be gentle and give them adequate time to adjust.
They're sentimental about the "old traditions" with regard to marriage, but they're also very sentimental about that old American tradition of "liberty and justice for all."
It's not appeasement or compromise to take the hands of the people who are close to taking that leap and to offer them reassurance that they will not fall off the edge of that precipice and into the abyss.
Passionate outrage is essential because it calls attention to injustice, but once you have the attention of the people, you have to start listening and trying to understand their fears, uncertainties and doubts so that reason and logic may be applied in addressing them.
As lori notes in comment #92, it took until comment #91 for somebody to bring up the old specters of polygamy, bestiality and pedophilia. Reasonable people know when to stop beating a dead and rotting strawman. Only unskilled debaters and one-percenters use those "arguments" anymore.
Now we've moved past that silliness and into the realm of gender roles and identities, which is a valid concern, even if the fear upon which it is based is unfounded.
Arch Conservative should pick up a fashion magazine or two and maybe take a trip to his local shopping mall where he will see that femininity is still very much in style.
Of course, there is more to his concerns than mere fashion. "Women wearing trousers" is an allegory of the toll that rapidly shifting gender roles has taken upon the folks who personally witnessed that part of our history and who were perhaps overwhelmed by its pace.
All of this dates back and is tied to the beginning of the "Sexual Revolution," which included, among many other rapid and radical changes with regard to human sexuality and gender identity, the birth of the modern gay rights movement.
Indeed, some people really do need to get over themselves, but simply telling them so is counterproductive. Hearts and minds are not changed by force, but rather by friendly and gentle persuasion that lets them save face and take the credit for coming around all by themselves.
123 - Heckler
Well now, this has fermented nicely.
Let me spew a bit for people to ponder. When you have whatever religious ceremony for ther joining of two non-related adults into a new family unit, what does it say on the secular license that EVERY town and state requires and gives out?
That's right, a "marriage license".
As long as the legal document recognizing said union is called a "marriage license" then the word itself has specific legal and purely secular meaning in the context of Rights for individual people.
Now, as suggested above, if you change the name of that license, then you can call it what you like, cover any grouping of consenting adults and recognize it as a secular legal contract condoned and sanctioned by the law.
However, unless you change the very name of said document, then "marriage" it is for everyone, if not, then some peoples rights are being trampled.
Yes, the semantics ARE important, but like making flags out of fireproof material rather than an amendment against flag burning, changing the name of that document can stave off quite a bit of vitriol from both sides.
Me? I have no problem with calling a legally recognized union of consenting adults as a "marriage". If Arch's 2000 year old church doesn't like it, they don't have to recognize it as such. Such is their perogative as an institution. Luckily we Americans have the choice to not recognize that church as anything but a tax exempt building as well.
The ONLY real issue here, are the rights of individuals. Even if they are the minority, and the majority have stated in polls they don't want them to be called "married" that remains immaterial and irrelevant. The majority does not get to decide the Rights of any minority, that's why we are a republic and not subject to the tyranny of the majority.
The example of the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movements are appropriate here. In both cases the "majority" didn't want those minorities recognized and given their rights either.
124 - Arch Conservative
I must have had something fall on my head while I was sleeping last night because some of the things that zingaling just said made sense.
The bottom line is that when we as a society try to say that morality and law are mutually exclusive concepts we are pretty much ensuring that there can be niether law nor morality.
The fact is that it would seem today that morality has, thanks ot the efforts of many, become a nebulous, relative concept. However it is still necessarily intertwined with the law.
Why is murder illegal? because it is a moral judgement that says killing another is wrong, which just so happens to be accepted as true by pretty much everyone in our society.
When we come to questions such as gay marriage, abortion, polygamy, euthenasia etc.... it becomes more cloudy what is exactly right and wrong. Society as a whole is not in such agreement with different people having many different views on these issues.
I don't believe that it is ammoral for two adults, be they the same sex, to be together romantically/sexually in a relationship as long as they are not harming anyone else. I think I am more than reasonable and respectul of these individuals when I say that if they are sincere then their union should be recognized by t he state and all that that entails. However I do not believe these individuals are showing others liek myself any respect when they demand that they're union be equated compltely with the union that I or any other man may have as a woman which is known as marriage. I do not believe that these individuals are respecting the desires of mainstream society in demanding this in spite of the fact that many people feel as I do.
125 - Heckler
Arch put forward ;"The bottom line is that when we as a society try to say that morality and law are mutually exclusive concepts we are pretty much ensuring that there can be niether law nor morality."
Well now, you do realize that you cannot legislate morality?
You can legislate legality, hence the rule of law. You seem to conflate the two, when nothing can be further fron the truth.
You are going to want examples of what I mean, ok.
Let's look at the Ten Commandments, pillars of Judeo-Christian morality by definition. Now how many of these are actual Laws here in America?
Steal, Murder and Perjury...a whopping 3 out of 10. And you will find laws against all three of these in just abotu every civilization ever recorded.
So, what about the other seven? Are they not bedrocks of "morality" according to the three Faiths spawned from the Old Testament? So why aren't they Laws?
Again, thesis; you cannot legislate morality, but you can define and codify ethics into laws.
Learn the difference.