gay marriage

If you're going to stand against something...

....maybe there should be a real reason for it, not just vague claims of "fear".

"A storm is coming"?

"The clouds are gathering"?

"I am afraid"?

Then move to the frakkin' basement and hide....but what does this have to do with same-sex marriage?

"I'm a Massachusetts parent helplessly forced to watch public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay."

Uhm, have you ever heard of home schooling?

I'm curious what they actually teach in the schools about gay marriage. Did this mother really think her kid wasn't paying attention to gay marriage and how it's becoming real? If her son is little---it's not being covered at all. If he's not so little, then he's probably forming his own opinions that may not match yours anyway. Are you prepared for that?

"They want to bring the issue into my life."

By making you see gay people get married? How is it being brought into your life?

"I'm a California doctor, forced to choose between my faith and my job."

You could always move to Utah or some other conservative place, until the times catch up even there.

"I'm part of a New Jersey church group, punished by the gov't because we can't support same sex marriage."

How is the government punishing you? And is it "can't" or "won't"? I really don't care whether your church group does or doesn't support gay marriage---that kind of reform must happen from within a congregation. How is having the legal definition of marriage (a contract written and overseen by the state, not the church) updated to include gay couples punishing your church group?

"My freedom will be taken away."

This is where the vagueness of the commercial bothers me. What freedom are we talking about? How does two women (or two men) getting married threaten YOU? I'm serious. Leave me a comment and tell me how YOU are threatened (if you're one of the people who are represented by this commercial) by two women (or two men) marrying.

I don't want to hear about how the god(s) you believe in will rain fire and brimstone upon us, blah, blah, blah.... If that's all you have to say, you and I will never agree, so don't waste my time. In fact, I'll say this clearly and up front: for this post, I will delete comments which only refer to how much G/god hates gay people or any variant thereof.

So, all you people who are terrified of gays forming families and being equal in society with you---standing next to our partners and being given the right to be responsible and protected---tell me why you're scared. Give me real reasons. Otherwise, you just look like a bunch of pathetic sheep being told what to believe, to think and to feel.

They Really Said That!

Okay, I'm just shaking my head in disgust at the ignorance running rampant around Prop 102 here in Arizona. I found a site for the supporters of this proposition... Look at what they said in one section (and I don't think I'm taking it out of context, either):

The threat from California

Additionally, the legality of gay marriage in California sent out powerful shockwaves of destructive gay energy throughout the country. Without an amendment to our constitution specifically barring homosexuals from obtaining marriage rights, this destructive force will continue to turn thousands of upright, decent straight couples into deranged, out-of-control gay perverts.

Okay.... I just gotta ask. Would one of you (straight) readers please tell me: could anyone convince you to go gay? I mean...really? Did you feel that "powerful shockwaves of destructive gay energy"? Did it suddenly make you (guys) look at Matthew McConaughey and go all weak in the knees? And you gals? How about that Angelina Jolie, eh? (Of course, I thought she was hotter before Brad, but that's another topic... *wink*)

I'll repeat what I used to say on the LGBT alliance panels in college: Close your eyes. Imagine a kiss that makes your toes curl, hands curving around you in that way you desire most and feel the pounding of your heart. It's just a kiss, but it wakes the desires of your soul for the intimacy it promises. And when it ends, you open you eyes.

Who do you see? A man? A woman? The answer to that question isn't really an issue, until you stop to think of what you are...and suddenly it's a BIG DEAL. You are who you are. You desire whom you desire. End of discussion. No one can force you to feel something you don't.

Stop the spread
New research from the Family Focus Forum (FFF) indicates that homosexuality may in fact be a communicable disease. In fact, many previously heterosexual men are now leaving their families for no apparent reason in order to persue careers in fashion design and hair styling. One has only to tune in to Bravo to see how such shows as Shear Genius or Project Runway are transforming popular culture toward the sin of homosexuality.

Okay, I'll break this down. First, why would "many previously heterosexual men" leave their families? Could it be that the narrow-minded preachings pushed them into straight marriages?

"But, Anne, you just said you can't force someone to feel something they don't."

Exactly. So in the cases of these men (and women) leaving their families to "become" gays, maybe they've just decided to stop lying? How many gay people have heard from their mother, "But don't you want to get married?" (Which totally makes me laugh, when I think about this Prop 102... "Uh, yeah, Ma, so don't vote for it!")

As for the multitude of shows showing gay/lesbian people and characters....shows only last if they sell ad space. Right now, gay is hot. And frankly, because of all the work the anti-gay groups have done to deny a "normal lifestyle" to gays, gays usually have more money to spend than straights do....so, in short, gay sells.

(That's not even covering the whole weirdness about how some straight men find the topic of lesbians quite interesting... 'cause that's a whole other post!)

Too many people I've spoken to who've come out later in life, cite the pressure to marry and have kids. Or to not disappoint a parent. Or the pressure their church put on them. Until our communities understand the pain we are inflicting on each other by demanding people be what we want/expect them to be, we'll keep seeing people who have lied to themselves and their loved ones, to avoid the hate, anger and disappointment we've taught them to expect.

Your marriage may already be in trouble

It is estimated that, since 2006, approximately 20,000 heterosexual marriages have failed in Arizona due to inadequate protections from the possibility of activist judges ruling in favor of some future homosexual plaintiffs. State authorities fear that we may be on a slippery slope of failed heterosexual marriages and broken families if we don't take immediate action to pass Prop 102.

To-wubba-who?

First, the whole thing is based on an estimate. And I'd really like some connecting evidence. Sure, you can quote some statistic about the (obviously heterosexual) marriages which have ended in divorce since 2006. But, where are they getting "due to inadequate protections from the possibility of activist judges ruling in favor of some future homosexual plaintiffs." from?

And which "state authorities" fear this "slippery slope"?

I call "bullshit" on all of this. There's no supporting data. Since most cases are public record, I'm sure such a concerned group of citizens could point to specific examples...were there any. Instead, what we have is hate and fear. How interesting that we want to protect an institution theoretically built around love with hate and fear.

It gets more ridiculous as I continue to read:

Landmark Marriage Poll Asks "What Makes Your Marriage Special?"

30,000 married Arizonans were interviewed in order to determine what makes their marriage important to them, and what makes it last. The survey results have a percentage of error of 2 percentage points.

The first question: What makes your marriage special to you?

The responses:
9% Not Sure/Other
12% Raising our child/children together
21% Our love and respect for one another
58% Because the gays can't have it

Clearly, allowing gay marriage would render over half of all Arizona marriages completely irrelevant.

Another survey question attempted to gauge potential threats to existing marriages, and the results were astounding.

The second question: What would be most likely to break up your marriage?

The responses:
4% Financial difficulties
10% Cruel treatment/abuse
14% Incarceration of spouse
18% Spouse cheating/adultery
54% The legalization of gay marriage by activist judges

Allowing gay marrige would completely destroy over half of all marriages in Arizona.

Are you just as speechless as I am? Are you just as sure as I am that these are made-up numbers? I mean... first, only 10% of the 30,000 married Arizonans--that's only 3000 Arizonans---would break up their marriage over cruel treatment / abuse. Does anyone have a problem with this statistic? And are they really expecting me to believe that only 5400 of these Arizonans would have a failed marriage due to their spouse cheating (which is what adultery is, thank you)?

From the page on The Minuteman Project:

Arizona chapter president Jim Gilchrist thinks his members can leverage this specialized equipment and training to help the state enforce Proposition 102 after it passes in November.

"We figure the state is gonna need some help dealing with all the gays from California trying to get in and use our benefits. The California-Arizona border is one of the least secured borders in the world, and we are not willing to stand by while our politicians do nothing and let this crisis spiral out of control," he said.

Members have already set up an observation outpost just outside of the Maricopa County clerk's office in Phoenix, and have began work on a makeshift fence along it's perimeter.

What? Are these "minutemen" expecting a moving drag show? What is so great about Arizona (especially if Prop 102 is passed!) that makes these people think "the gays" will be coming here in droves??? And what makes them think they have the RIGHT to deny any American citizen to cross into Arizona? I'm just...speechless.

(Well, not actually or this would be a pretty empty post.)

Are we supposed to take them seriously?

I am appalled at the rhetoric being spouted by the supporters of Prop 102. I also imagine very few of them are readers of the true masters of science-fiction. If they were, they might not be so "up in arms" over such a total non-issue: gays exist. Get over it.

I'm going to take a break from reading that page and sharing my vitriolic response. I can feel my blood pressure rising in reaction to the crap I've read. Ugh. Now I really wish I had a copy of In & Out. Oh well, I guess it'll have to be Bound instead.

Continuing the conversation...

I got a comment on Thursday about my...let's call it a rant...on Prop 102 here in Arizona, (to amend the state's constitution and define marriage as between "one man and one woman"). I wish the commenter had been willing to leave their name...

I'm going to respond here, in the hopes of continuing the dialogue and perhaps getting some answers. It's entirely possible that this particular commenter and I can't continue the dialogue because we cannot agree on some basic concepts.

I'll quote the post, snipping the full text of the mentioned Bible references (I'll try to link them, so you don't have to hunt down your/a Bible to know what was said).


Anonymous said:

"If I understood this post accurately, then I state the following:

I do not agree with homosexuality because it is a sin. Period. There is no room for acceptance of this behavior in our society. That said, I do not judge homosexual relationships; that is up to God to do. I offer this truth from the Word of God for consideration: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Society makes sin acceptable as a means to an easier end. What society doesn't understand is the easy path is not the right one. Matthew 7:13

Any secular viewpoint on this matter (Constitutional rights, etc.) is mere opinon, but only the Word of God is the prevailing & everlasting truth."


Okay, Anonymous. In America, you're permitted to believe that homosexuality is a sin. You are welcome to attend a church that preaches it and casts it out and so on. I'll even grant that society may change its views on things that were once considered sinful. For example:

"In 1958, the Christian fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell, at the time a defender of segregation, in a sermon railed against integration, warning that it would lead to miscegenation, which would "destroy our [white] race eventually."[12]

In the United States, segregationists and Christian identity groups have claimed that several verses in the Bible[13], for example the story of Phinehas and the so-called "curse of Ham", should be understood as referring to miscegenation and that these verses expressly forbid it. Most theologians read these verses as forbidding inter-religious marriage, rather than inter-racial marriage[14]."

Quoting from miscegenation at Wikipedia.

I'm sure there are people today who still believe these things to be true. To those people, I say it's impossible for me to continue to discuss this topic with them because we do not agree on basic principles.

If you're still here and reading, then I'll continue to respond to Anonymous. Let me repeat the last part of Anonymous' comment.

"Any secular viewpoint on this matter (Constitutional rights, etc.) is mere opinon, but only the Word of God is the prevailing & everlasting truth."

Mm. Well, I'm reasonably sure Anonymous and I really cannot continue to converse on this topic because this sounds like they belief their religious views should be codified into man's laws. And that's what our forefathers struggled to prevent when they wrote:

"Article the third [Amendment I] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

see it here.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Okay, you say, but that's the federal Congress. Sure. But the Fourteenth Amendment makes it clear that: "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." see it here

Let me repeat a key part for emphasis:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

To Anonymous I say again: You can believe as you like, but the governments which make this country are limited in what they are permitted to do. I could wish for the Federal government to remember its own limitations. But in the meantime, I'm not going to help my state's government go against the Constitution.

I break it down to this quote:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

So, once again I ask to those who read here: why does Arizona need to pass an (illegal) amendment to the state constitution to prevent gay couples from marrying? Will it "pick your pocket" or "break your leg"?

The hour is late (it's 3 am!) and I'm tired. I'll try to fiddle with the CSS and create a "quoting block" so it's easier to see when I'm quoting someone. If I can make that happen, I'll edit this post for clarity.

ETA: I finally figured it out! Hopefully I haven't already over-used it in this single post!

Can someone please explain to me.....

Okay, a little buffer before I jump right in, since the last post was so...

Anyway. I was looking for something on my desk and I bumped into a piece of mail I set aside for later. I guess now it's later. Prepare for my gasket to blow right here.

"Say Yes! on 102 Yesformarriage.com"

Those of you who've had the pleasure of having a conversation with me on topics regarding DOMA and its ilk know what's coming. For the rest of you, this is your last warning to wander away before I vent my steam.

Still here? Oh, goody!

Can. Someone. Please. Explain. To. Me.....

How does a couple of men getting married next week threaten my eighteen-year old marriage?

Okay. Sorry. Needed to get that out. But seriously....Is my marriage any weaker today because Ellen DeGeneres committed herself by law to Portia de Rossi?

I get that those who have religious reasons for not agreeing with homosexuals getting married might want to prevent them ("the gays") from getting married in their churches. I get that some of the really conservative people out there don't even want to think about what "those people" do behind closed doors. "Lalalalalalala, I'm not listening!" (That's okay, I wasn't telling!)

But when discussion about changing the Constitution of a State or the Country comes up, we're talking about the legal definition of marriage. We're talking about the protections, rights and responsibilities defined by the State---and reciprocally recognized by all fifty States in Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America:

Article. IV.

Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

(see for yourself)

So, please, would someone explain why it is bothering you (the conservatives who want to prevent "those people" from gaining legally recognized marriage rights and responsibilites) that there are people out there who want to declare before the world their commitment to one person?

"Those people" want to stand before their family and friends and say, "I love this person. I want to be responsible for the care and protection of this person. I want to be able to care for them, provide them with health care and retirement benefits. I want to own a home together with them. I want to grow old with them. I want to build a family with them."

And please, let me short-circuit the excuse I really don't want to hear: but gays can't have children. Uhm, neither can many straight people out there, but there's no one trying to pass a law denying marriage to sterile people. And there's no one trying to prevent sterile people from adopting and building a family. So, please don't try that routine. I'm not buying it.

I've known gays both promiscuous and chaste. I've known straights both promiscuous and chaste. I've known married straights who've been less faithful than some of the commited gays I've known. And trust me, you can't "peg" all the gays out there. Honest. Someone you know... someone you may never have suspected... is gay.

And for the record, you'll note I haven't stepped forward to identify, "But I am a straight supporter." Or not. Frankly, what I am is my own frakking business. These days, I like to keep that behind closed doors, thank you kindly.

If everyone wasn't so busy trying to segregate and deny, I'm betting most of the lesbians and gay men out there would be (and many already are!) pretty quiet about who they are too. If everybody would quit trying to poke their heads in the sand and pretend "those people" don't exist, we could all just get on with the work of living and loving, instead of having to fight to live and love.

Syndicate content