Good News! California town celebrates the importance of marriage
While San Francisco and Northern California are all over this gay marriage thing, some cities in Southern California are taking a strong stand on the issue of the traditional family. Look, here’s the mayor of Palm Springs, CA announcing a celebration of one of the building blocks of society:
That’s from a PS civic group’s e-mail that was forwarded to me. Let’s see…who’s sponsoring this? Married in Palm Springs…are they like Focus on the Family or something? Let me click over to their site:
Wait a minute…
Seriously, though, nothing says “gay marriage is an important and meaningful commitment” like a commercialized mass Moonie-style wedding in a silly resort town. Presided over by a figure of no less august authority than comedian Shann Carr!
If your “wedding” is emceed by a comedian, you might forgive me for thinking the whole thing’s a joke.
UPDATE: Because it’s all about the dignity.
__________________
{Post by See-Dubya. h/t to Biggles.}
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Offensive Homosexual Weddings to Commence | Mark's Soap Box
- More Layoffs and Focus on the Family » A Couple Things » A couple things about politics, sports, travel, and other stuff.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Stuff Muslims Don't Like, Uncategorized
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
As Palm Springs goes…so goes the nation?
Noticed the rainbow of colors right off the bat…so my alarm bell rang. Naturally, I thought the bell meant tea time, so I ran off to get my scones and cream.
We will need photo’s of this event AJ!!!
For a second I thought the street in the ad said La Raza. Never mind.
I heard one county clerk is shutting down the distribution of marriage licenses to all couples in one CA county.
From FoxNews.com:
I vote any county clerk or official who opposes gay marriage do the same. Stop marrying anyone.
It doesn’t undermine the religious aspect of marriage if civil recognition doesn’t take place and – in the Catholic Church – couples are the ministers of the sacrament and can (in extreme circumstances) marry themselves. Worked in Japan for 200 years.
Civil disobedience is the only way we’re going to overthrow activist judges and the liberals who abuse the court system.
Perhaps ‘zombietime’ will cover the event; but I’m sure there’s too much going on in the SanFran area to bother with the desert.
Oh, in defense of Mayor Pougnet, I think this will be much classier than say, the Folsom Street Fair.
I used to be dead set against any kind of same sex marriage and behaviour for the matter, but over the past few years I’ve come around to the position of allowing these unions with the same ceremony and legality that men and women unions have enjoyed since the beginning of time. I know a number of conservatives who happen to be inclined to this life choice. If they want to get married so be it. It’s now a non-issue for me.
In defense of Sodom, I agree.
I think its great that gay couples can now have weddings that are just as tacky as the ones hetero couples have had now for years. I am sure any day now we will hear about the first gay scuba diving wedding or the first gay Star Wars-themed nuptials.
I want a brother and a brother or a sister and a sister to try to get married.
not sure where i am on this at the moment. i’m all for the traditional nuclear family but…our country is so jacked up right now its hard to know whats normal anymore.
Another reason those of us in Southern Oregon and Northern California want to form our own state.
I wonder if mayor Pougnet will exercise the right of prima notte.
see-dubya
Is Shann Carr a man or a woman? I could not tell from the picture.
Chap’s got it exactly right. If gay couples want tacky weddings, so be it.
As long as they realize cash bars at weddings aren’t acceptable. A big pet peeve of mine. If I fly 500 miles to celebrate your love, then at least have the decency to get me sloshed. Makes me a better dancer anyways.
And I love seeing conservatives turning on the issue. Massachusetts has proved that gay marriages work and that they don’t undermine straight couples.
If anything, they’re a great boon to the economy. Think of all the tourist $$$ going to Palm Springs because of gay couples stuck in intolerant states. Provincetown might as well have their own mint after gay marriage was legalized in MA.
hahahaa!…oh wait. You’re being serious.
I think this is something that all reasonable persons, gay or straight, liberal or conservative, male or female can rally around.
My one requirement for my wedding was open bar. Other than that, My wife was free to do whatever she wanted.
go to mydesert.com and you can see it all, aj doesnt go to downtown PS very often.
on the 21st it should be around 110*
dancin in the streets….
Rusty, clearly your definition of a “tolerant [S]tate” would be Canada, where they’re a hair’s breadth away from just chucking us conservatives in jail for (on religious grounds, which ued to be a REAL RIGHT in this nation) disagreeing with these “marriages”…
Until I see comprehensive legislation supported by the gay community that protects the rights of all persons/churches/groups/organizations/private businesses to dissent from performing/providing services to gay marriage, my mind on the matter is set.
Rusty said something that I can finally agree with him on: Open Bar. If I have to suffer through a wedding, I want enough drinks to wipe out the memory of it.
Canada’s free speech laws are a joke. I’m with you there that people who criticize things like Islam and gay marriage should be protected from prosecution. But using Canada’s example isn’t fair when discussing American policy. Our First Amendment prevents any of the chicanery going on north of the border.
But, and we’ve been through this, discrimination from businesses is unacceptable. Churches are fine. They can marry or not marry whomever they like. But a business is not allowed to reject gay clients any more than they can reject black clients.
When you have a wedding photographer unwilling to take pictures of a gay couple and that’s ok by law, why not a photographer who refuses to work at interracial marriages? Or a Jewish ceremony? Or a Catholic ceremony?
Noooooo…..please……lets not refight this one. Its Friday. Lets just all agree that cash bars suck and go out and throw one back for l’il russ.
I am really really torn about this issue.
I’m a gay conservative Republican. (Many times I forget that I’m gay, until I go to one of my local GOP parties. My friends there introduce me as a gay Republican. Then whomever I meet starts saying loudly and slowly, “I’m happy to meet you! I’ve heard so much about you!” I’m gay, not deaf.)
But I digress…
I understand, and almost agree, that marriage is a term defined as the union of 1 man and 1 woman. This is Biblical, and a cornerstone of society.
However I also know that the love homosexuals feel is just as real.
Actually, it’s not a choice. I know the crazy dykey moonbats we see on Zombietime look crazy (and they are, believe me), so it may seem like a few libs got together and said “I’m really gonna stick it to the mainstream. I’m gonna go gay!” This isn’t the case (although a few Feminazis from NOW may think differently.)
Anyway, I’m hoping most conservatives are past the idea that gays have no place in our countries polka hills. (Muslim countries are still hanging us by cranes.) Gay moonbattery is holding us back from acceptance by regular people.
Andrew Sullivan (gay moonbat ex-conservative wacko) does not speak for me. Ronald Reagan does.
Back to gay marriage- I believe in equal treatment under the law. So, however a union of gay couples is called or defined, they do need to have the exact same benefits are married couples.
Um, in case you haven’t heard, Catholic Answers – an American website – was recently entered in a Canadian Human Rights trial as a “hate site.”
A legal contact of mine said it wouldn’t take a lot for an agreement between America and Canada to extradite Americans to Canada if/when a complaint is filed against them.
Wedding photography is not a right. Photographs are not required. The essential services include medical, police/fire, etc. A private business should remain just that: PRIVATE.
Otherwise, if I were a smoker, I’d have the right to sue a bar/restaurant that went smokefree because it discriminates against me (and a legal activity), etc., etc.
If I had a photog refuse to shoot my Catholic wedding, I wouldn’t sue. I’d find another photog. In New Mexico and elsewhere, there’s more than one of them. And – in most faiths – there isn’t a prohibition on interracial marriage, or attending other wedding ceremonies, so there’s a difference.
What will you say when the gay couple living in CA decides they want to get married at X Catholic parish because it’s a nice church? That the Church should just cave because they “can’t discriminate”?
And these are the arguments that make me oppose gay marriage. It’s not about ‘acceptance’ or ‘tolerance’ or ‘equality’ – it’s about bullying and forcing those who disagree (on moral grounds or otherwise) with gay marriage to approve of it.
Last I checked, that’s borderline tyranny.
No it is not. As a matter of fact, it is easier than ever. Unless you are drinking the Kool-aid.
If you’re on the receiving end, they rock. If you’re paying the bill – especially with my family – you’re so, totally, utterly screwed.
and why not make them shoot porn also…and maybe some gay porn.that would make you happy rusty.
Uggg…Okay I’ve been sucked in.
Sambo, a private individual has every right to discriminate against whomever it wants. However, when you open a business and set it up as an corporate entity, that entity exists solely by virtue of the state. In exchange for the benefits of incorporation (most notably limited liability) you have to live with the consequences. And one consequence is that the business must abide by the state’s laws. And all states have anti-discrimination laws that forbid refusing service to someone based upon their sexual orientation.
It is vital that you understand that the business is the one discriminating, not the owner. They are separate entities. And so far as I can tell, there is no jurisprudence granting a first amendment right to freedom of religion to businesses.
Them’s the rules. If you don’t like it, don’t incorporate. Otherwise…
Suck. It. Up.
Well said, forcing any private business into a contract they don’t want to take is tyranny plain and simple. Find a different company more than willing to take your money, capitalism at its finest.
hey see-dubya, come on out and play 18 holes for say 100 a hole and see how silly our town is…..
You don’t check your rights at the door just bc you have a business. the muslims don’t seem to have to handle pork when they work at a bucher shop!
Ehh. I used to really be against gay marriage as well, but I’ve changed my views. The only problem I have with it, is that once we’ve crossed this line, which we have, where do we stop? Seriously. Where does one stop in regards to others wishes to get married? What if two brothers want to get married? What about two sisters? They are consenting adults after all.
You see, that’s what worries me. Where does it all go from here?
If you believe that private businesses are allowed to discriminate today, you are sadly mistaken.
I work in multi-family residential housing. The complex that I manage is owned by a small private company. However, the government has this wonderful section of laws lovingly referred to as Title VII or Fair Housing. These laws outline the 7 federally protected classes that I can not discriminate against. It also tells me that I have to treat everyone fairly and equally.
If I (and my company) were able to discriminate in any way we choose that means that I could turn away families, people of different races, creeds, national origins, and the list goes on. Other PRIVATE businesses are bound by the law against discrimination as well.
What you have proposed is basically segregation remade on the basis of sexuality. Totally unacceptable. Racists still have to deal with people of other races. Lots of people that dislike/disagree with many things around them are still forced to deal with them and not discriminate against them.
Your view that the government isn’t telling private businesses who they can and can’t discriminate is incorrect on its face. Just because sexuality hasn’t made it into the category yet doesn’t make discrimination on that basis right.
Churches and religious groups are an exception as they are granted special status under the law along with a few select others.
I’d love to see chap walk into a Muslim meat market and demand they serve pork. That should go over well.
Great call on the hypocrisy there sambo.
thats what I said above. the rules for incest shouldn’t apply to them since they can’t procreate.
I just read an article not too long ago about a muslim group buying a franchise and made them quit serving some of there breakfast items. The franchise owners were upset because that lost them business. Haven’t heard the outcome on that one.
The one I read that was similar was a Muslim owner of a Dunkin Donuts franchise that forced its workers to stop serving breakfast items with sausage in them. Might be the one you are talking about.
RedRepub,
Coincidentally, the only gay folks I’m currently acquainted with (friends of my girlfriend) are also conservatives. You’re definitely not the only one.
I’ve spoken with them about this issue, since I’m a Californian, and that whole court decision thing just happened here. It started out as joking around between friends, but became a serious discussion rather quickly. They both sounded as if they’re in the same boat as you, torn on this issue, for the same reasons you express.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think it matters one way or the other. If allowing gay marriage increases the happiness of some percentage of Americans without victimizing anyone, I’m all for it. If a civil union title will satisfy those seeking same sex unions, that’s fine with me too. Whatever makes people the happiest without being at the expense of others.
Might be it indeed.
Although I strongly believe that marriage is a sacred covenant between and man and a woman and must be protected as such, I am ambivalent about “civil unions”. I feel that this promotion in Palm Springs is part pro- tourism blather and other part, in your face anti-conversative propaganda.
The best way to handle this is for conservatives to not spend any money in these areas and have the local goverments watch their tourism base go down the tubes
I’m waiting for the day, we can marry our dogs. Oh, that’s been done already. Okay, how about our cats? It won’t be long before sisters can marry brothers, and brothers and brothers, etc. Hey, why don’t we just get ahead of the game, and just permit marriage of anyone to anyone…or anything if they prefer. That should make everyone in this sick society happy…well, until Islam takes over, then it’s back to square one, ladies.
Up next: SCOTUS defines ‘full faith & credit’ in regards to rump ranger rodeos & pink taco sororities.
Any bets on how that will turn out??
Up next: SCOTUS explains it all for polygamists.
Any bets on how that will turn out??
Jesus said in Mathew 24:37 “As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the coming of the Son of Man.”
I used to read this verse and think: It was bad at lots of points in history (Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind); it doesn’t necessarily mean now, but if these Jewish writings are true, we are uniquely like the “days of Noah” right now – and only right now.
The one time in history when homosexual “marriage” was practiced was … during the days of Noah. Where men were given in marriage to men, and women given in marriage to women.
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”–(Isaiah 5:20)
It is funny how they had a two pronged approach. One pushing for gay marriage and the other being to claim your ‘gender identity’. So if they do stop the gay marriage then it will me: my boyfriend, oh i mean girlfriend, think shes a woman.
all in the name of politicle correctness baby! and it’s just not this subject. launch a rocket at a childrens daycare and get your own state. stone women and gays but if you hate all infidels its ok.
the hysteria over gay marriage. good grief. it doesn’t affect my life, my liberty, or my property, and it doesn’t affect anyone else’s, either. so much for freedom and personal liberty, eh?
HO-ly… Startled me there when I clicked on the Shann Carr link.
Same-sex: the PC revision of the words gay and lesbian, which are themselves revisions of the word homosexual.
Because technical definitions just sound so…___________. (Mad Libs time)
Some here who support the homosexual lifestyle and are inclined to see no problem with so-called gay marriage (you can call a goat a pig but it doesn’t make it so) are like the frog in a pot of lukewarm water and never realizes it’s boiling to death once the flame is turned up. You’ve become complacent because so many are saying evil is good. You’ve convinced yourself that it’s now true.
It is simply amazing that this culture (within the recent decade or two) has become so enlightened that they’ve discovered something that all of creation found abominable and a perversion throughout recorded history. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this very reason – sin against God and sin against nature.
Homosexuality is a choice – to sin against God or not. It’s no different than any of the other sexual sins – adultery, fornication, pedophilia, beastiality and any other perversion mankind has dreamt up.
There will be consequences to sinful acts as there always is – maybe not this month or this year — but there will be hell to pay.
I believe the response – to quote someone above – was “suck it up.” And that the business owners can decide what they do and do not serve.
Of course, Islamic business owners will always win out with liberals. The tangled web of who is a minority class and who deserves protection is interesting, but it doesn’t include Christians or conservatives.
I ask again, to what Amendment can we point and say that people have a “right” to wedding photography or other services offered by private business? None.
And, no doubt, the argument that businesses exist at the mercy of the state means that any church with a tax-exempt status keeps its doors open at the mercy of the state and – therefore – cannot discriminate, either.
As I said above, I’d rather see all civil benefits for marriage done away with than have gay marriage.
Not recognizing my marriage civilly doesn’t undermine the fact that it’s valid in the eyes of the Church – which is ultimately what counts.
Here in Los Angeles, there’s been talk of adding extended hours, additional staffing and satellite locations for the city clerk’s office.
STG if they stay open one minute past closing my city council rep is going to be hearing from me.
Meanwhile, our wife-cheating mayor is in Israel, wasting my tax dollars on a “fact-finding” trip.
Funny how VillarMEChA doesn’t seem to have a problem with Israel’s right to protect themselves with a 10ft high security fence.
Woo! Equating homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia. Never gets old!
My uncle in-law (proper phrasing?) was a life-long resident of Palm Springs. He died a few months ago and I’m sure he’d be turning in his grave if he knew this was going on.
Actually, when I think about it, he was cremated so perhaps, I should say, he’d be rolling his eyes and shaking his head in heaven right about now.
What happened to Palm Springs anyway? It used to be such a nice place… until the liberals took over that is.
Mmm, scones.
Well said! I feel that same sex marriage is just an excuse for many gays to force acceptance on general society at large. I’m not opposed to civil unions but I don’t think that gays should be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. In an age where the basic, nuclear family, marriage, even parenthood is under attack by a permissive society, gay marriage makes a mockery of marriage at large. Heterosexuals are already doing a great job adhering to the 50% divorce rate in our country. We also have more out-of-wedlock children in society who’ve been failed because it’s just so easy to have a child, yet very difficult to give it a secure environment to grow up in.
It’s amusing that for every gay person who says, “marry me,” there’s another gay person who’s just not that interested. With the advent of common law marriages, many gays just live together these days. I don’t know or want to know their reasons but I suspect that the gay community is much more diverse than San Francisco would have us believe.
As the whole question of whether or not gays “choose” to be gay…. I think it’s a combination of factors. I’m not sure if I buy the whole “gay gene” thing. I think we all make choices based on our wants and needs. The people who think that gayness isn’t a “choice” need to consider why some gay folks decide, later on, that they’re not, in fact, gay. What about why there is bisexuality in our society? Or is that just a matter of, as the saying goes, “variety is the spice of life?”
And for those, like Chaps, who are under the impression that businesses never discriminate, then please rethink this. Businesses, for whatever reason, discriminate all the time. What about the grocery stores who kindly suggest to the irresponsible of our society, to put on shoes and a shirt for starters. Is that discrimination? Then, in my personal experience, and being someone who has both reported and encountered employment discrimination first-hand, it does exist and when you complain about it, to say, the state department of labor, you get nowhere. If you’re a military spouse, seeking employment, businesses CAN and DO get away with asking about what your spouse does for a living and how long you’ll be in a certain area. Businesses CAN deny military spouses employment for various reasons. This isn’t a practice I favor myself, since I was a victim of it. The essence of “equal opportuny” is a joke.
I’m sorry, but I especially don’t think the whole, businesses never/ever discriminate argument holds water. Especially for those military spouses, in a very anti-military, anti-war climate right now, seeking employment, and building their careers.
When someone can give me a legal explanation as to why gays should marry instead of perhaps favoring civil unions (which I support), then perhaps, I will give the matter more thought. Unfortunately, nobody every considered, that when they cave into any disaffected victim group (such as gays), they never address the unintended consequences of their decisions when gays go through a divorce or when children are involved.
I don’t know how all this will pan out but I can see a dopey divorce court TV program coming with gays fightin it out over the poodle.
opportuny=opportunity. Ehh, sorry about that.
British woman marries dolphin.
Swedish woman married to wall.
Indian man marries dog.
British girl marries car.
I’ll feel sorry for that poodle, AJ. What if it has to endure shared custody? The poor thing’s psyche will be scarred for life….
Perhaps, the SPCA will have to step in and cry animal abuse?
with gay marriages comes, gay divorces..
Also.. What would the rules be for the Wedding Crashers at a gay wedding..
lesbian wedding might not be the best to crash..
WTF?
why shouldn’t their ‘marriages’ be as ridiculous, gaudy, moronic and as money making based as the worst straight marriages?
Equality baby
I guess you can warm up your construction crane.
The Muslims not selling pork argument is stunning in its stupidity. They’re refusing to sell pork to everyone. That’s not discrimination.
If they refused to serve pork to a group of people, then we could talk.
Saying Muslims not serving pork is discrimination is like saying it’s discrimination if a wedding photographer doesn’t offer video service.
And EQ, nothing would make me happier than if churches, synagogues, and mosques lost their tax exempt status. Tax them as non-profits. That’s more than fair when you consider who makes more money at the end, PP or the Catholic Church.
Certainly would go a long way to balancing the budget.
That whole area in California (Route 111) is a silly place anyways. Complete waste of valuable water in the freakin desert. I would hate to know how much water it takes to keep all those green lawns and trees going. Once again, proof California is a very hypocritical state. Nothing to do with gay marriage I know. Just sayin.
Of course you would Demon-puppet, because you know that would close down the majority of the churches in the US which is what evil people like you want to have happen.
The problem, Jeddite, is that if the ruling paradigm is to be “anything goes – nothing’s wrong – who can say???” these things are all equally valid lifestyles – along with incest, polygamy and a host of other social wrongs. Hence, the comparisons you cited are valid.
yeah this seems “silly”
“Our nearly 60,000 acres of farmland are among the most productive in the world, generating per-acre yields that are among the highest anywhere on the planet.”
do a lil research there gator.
http://www.cvwd.org/about/about.php
– iamsaved
I’m insulted by this statement. Gay is ‘evil’? I believe it’s good simply because ’so many are saying’ so?
Maybe I should take the word on what is ‘evil’ from a book written over 2000 years ago by men, and which has been revised and re-translated dozens of times by men with agendas, just because so many are saying I should.
I’m more like the frog in the pot that realizes it does me no harm, has no effect on my life, that a couple other frogs of the same sex in the pot want to get a same-sex frog marriage. Maybe fewer pollywogs, but that’s fine with me too.
On June 14th, 2008 at 12:51 am, Rusty said:
Rusty, this statement completely nullifies your argument that PP should be supported because of the “good” it does in bringing indigent women OB/GYN health services.
If you were genuinely concerned about the health of the poor – women, men and children – then you would never suggest that the number one provider of free healthcare services, religious institutions, loose their tax exempt status.
For example, should the Catholic Church loose its tax exempt status, St Joseph Health Care, which operates several hospitals in my state and receives a significant amount of its funding for pro bono services from Catholic Charities in Cicinnati, Oh, simply could not afford to continue to provide low income people here with free/reduced treatments and services for everything from cancer to preventative medicine.
These people would be left with few to no alternatives in seeking needed health services, and I would say this same scenario would be true for many other states as well were all religious charities to loose their tax exemptions, as you advocate.
Do this and people will give less and politics will be preached at the pulpit, and your precious ACLU won’t have a claim on them, which would put them out of business.
No, Rusty, they don’t work, and the reason for it is because you cannot biologically replace a father with another mother and vice versa.
Gay couples are incapable of experiencing the depth of love that straight couples are because they cannot conceive children with their own genetic material.
Also, why should the state, a rational function of society, give benefits to couples who don’t produce children?
I can’t have children. Does that mean I shouldn’t be able to marry?
#73:
That is such an absurd thing to say. Do you feel the same for heterosexual couples who choose not to have children, too? Give me a break. People are people, no matter their sexuality or genetic makeup, they experience the same emotions and depth of emotions as you do. Also, this is the first time i’ve heard of the state being described as a “rational function of society” given the fear and suspicion our founders had of government.
But it’s an issue–a ballot issue–for the overwhelming majorities that vote against legalization of same-sex marriage.
The big issue that gay marriage aficionados avoid is the fact that overwhelming majorities consistently vote against it, only to have their will overturned by the opinion of non-elected officials.
The “fear and suspicion our founders had of government” was fear of unchecked power run amok, much like what you would find today on the California Supreme Court.
I know churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples do great things. Lots of non-profits do great things too. Non-profits in many states pay property taxes. Less tax, but they still pay.
Why should a religious food bank get special perks that non-religious food banks don’t get?
Exemptions can easily be made for schools and hospitals.
Some people say gay marriage is gay people looking for “extra rights.” No, that’s equal rights. Extra rights is not having to pay taxes based on religious affiliation.
A lot of Southerners would have voted to keep slavery too. A lot of people would have voted against integration. A lot of people would have voted against interracial marriage.
I couldn’t give a fig what the people want if they want to stomp all over civil rights.
Ooooh this will make the lawyers all happy. Wait about a month and watch for all the “Gay Divorces”.
I have no disagreement with gay marriage only that it will be a lot more complex legally than the participants expect.
Do you and lgm have a wager on who can write the dopiest non-sequitur? Slavery wasn’t overturned by a Supreme Court decision. It took a war and several constitutional amendments to eradicate that institution. People have written books about the Civil War. When you have free time, you might want to read one.
If you want to be a leader in the Gay Marriage Civil War…good luck with that. Maybe you seek appointment as a Rear Admiral in the Gay Navy.
Then you are not fit to be a citizen in a democracy.
Gay marriage is no more a civil right than polygamy, bigamy, incest, statutory rape or any other aberrant behavior du jour. Only a child thinks that way.
On June 14th, 2008 at 4:59 pm, chaos_reigns said:
Agreed, and I really think it is the lawyers that are driving this issue for the simple reason that they stand to make a mint in civil and class-action suits.
Nutz!:that=who
Rusty:
If you know any descendants of slaves, feel free to ask them to compare their ancestors’ ordeal with Siegfried & Roy’s. Then report back with your answer.
I’m betting you’ll hear that the chaining and whipping wasn’t a leisure time activity for slaves.
Or, as it’s called these days, “a day at the gay fair”; with poppers and Miller’s beer in lieu of cotton candy and ice cream.
purplepeep:
To be honest, I thought we had a deal with the gays. We’d keep politics out of their bedroom and they’d keep their bedroom out of our politics. What happened?
Someone left the closet door open.
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t understand the whole gay marriage movement. Given that the number of homosexuals in our population is so minuscule, I find it extreme to force a society into accepting a practice (homosexuality – not homosexuals) with which so many members of that society disagree, just so same-sex couples may share the “so-called” benefits of marriage. I mean if Joe and Jake want to marry each other for the sole purpose of sharing Joe’s health and life insurance benefits, why involve marriage? Why abandon civil unions which, until now, for some my$terious reason, were once considered idyllic for gay couples? Why, if it’s a benefits/insurance issue alone, doesn’t Jake get a job that offers the same benefits as Joe’s, and leave the courts – and society – out of the equation? If it weren’t for the unscrupulous actors with ulterior motives involved in this issue – like the greedy lawyers who see dollars signs all around it, and social activists who like nothing better than abusing the courts to mainstream the ludicrous into American society – it really would be that simple.
I once read where someone defined marriage as “a promise of love,” made before God, between one man and one woman. I like that definition and subscribe to it. Marriage is the perfect union of one man and one woman and is the bulwark of a functional society against decay: It is the ideal situation under which to raise children and reinforce the family as a single organism. In fact, because the state recognizes legitimate marriage as existing between one man and one woman, children and their mothers are ensured certain social and financial protections from the father should the marriage fail, making it vital for stay at home moms that we maintain our current definition of marriage.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, reduces traditional marriage – real marriage – to a mockery. It sets a horrible precedent for other, more controversial, marriages; it places an unnecessary and expensive burden on our courts; it drives up insurance premiums and deductions for all of us; and it is just not something to which I think young, impressionable children should be exposed. (Can you imagine explaining to a five year old why his/her friend at day-care has two mommies-/daddies? Yikes!)
To be clear: I do not object to homosexuals, they are our fellow human beings and deserve the same respect we show to others; I have no interest in what consenting adults do with one another behind closed doors, so long as no one gets hurts and things are kept legal. But I object to gay marriage for the reasons just stated, and because it exposes the sensitive and the young to a side of life and reality that may be too offensive and too harmful for them to handle in the long term. I see no explicit use in gay marriage as an expression of love between two same sex people, when civil unions have a proven track record of success in serving that same purpose. So I ask, why not continue down that path of success with civil unions? Why gay marriage, and why now?
Yup, DHD, I think most folks don’t give much of a hoot about private homosexual activity behind closed doors. What folks do care about is the demand that everyone should accept it as natural or normal – much less sanction it in any way, shape or form.
Well, AJ, I don’t think those into homosexuality need to go into a closet. They should keep it in the bedroom, though.
I believe in gay marriages – every man and woman who marry should have a shared life filled with happiness and joy, DBN. I don’t belive in redefining the term “gay” or in redefining marriage.
The real issue here is that the people of CA voted in favor of marriage defined as being between a man and a woman, it did pass by popular vote, and now a non-elected judicial system seems it right to remove the democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people. Liberal-Democratic-Socialism at its worst.
Makes we wish we could have a national referdum vote on this and finally be done with it, OnNo.
Great, winning issue if the GOP is not too PC-cowardly to press it.
Is it love or are some of these wonderful gay marriages going to occur just so they can go back to their home state, attempt to get a divorce and find out that they can’t because their home state won’t recognise their marriage as ledgitmate?
If the CA clerks are going to perform these travesities, then they should at least be able to grant the divorce as well and not mandate that you have to be CA resident to be able to get divorced in the land of hollyweird IMHO.
GSP
Do they throw rice at the wedding or fairy dust?
Who carries whom across the threshold?
I now pronounce you man and… ????
The local county clerks are already being instructed not to use “man/wife” or “do you take this man/woman.” *Eyeroll.* People have no idea how much this will change things they take for granted. The funny thing is an article in yesterday’s paper about how not every gay couple is tearing down a path to the courthouse. They realize things are much easier for them to remain “partners” than to be legally married. Maybe deep down they know it’s a construct not meant for them.
But I hear the wedding planners and divorce lawyers are quite excited!
Where do the dudes place the rings?
RedRepub said:
Isn’t this the issue? Whether homosexual love is as real as heterosexual? Or, is it different, or, is it sufficiently different we shouldn’t attach “marriage” to it. There are all kinds of love, for a parent, a brother, a friend, a lover.
It’s a difficult issue when you have to deem one person’s love as not good enough, or somehow twisted. From my guy perspective, male homosexuality seems abnormal. It seems like a psychological mistake. Is there love there? I don’t know. When some assert “homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love”, they don’t seem to realize others may have a different attitude than they do, or that they may be wrong.
Bad news! Unless the California Codes have been changed, all those same-sex marriages may be considered void. I point to California Family Code §420(a). Pay close attention to the last clause….
On another front, unless the Mayor and City Council members are deputized for the day by the County Clerk under California Family Code §401(b), any ceremonies they solemnize will be void as well.
Oops!