NOM BLOG

How will gay marriage affect you?

 

Dear Marriage Supporter,

Meet Damian Goddard.

On May 9, 2011 Damian had it all: a loving wife, two small children, and a dream job he loved as a sportscaster, for the Canadian equivalent of ESPN.

What happened to him is an absolute outrage.

Click here to watch the newest Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance video interview and listen to Damian tell you how the same-sex marriage movement turned his life upside down.

As the battle in New York over same-sex marriage heated up, Damian wrote a note stating his views on his own personal twitter account — to just 175 or so followers: "I completely and whole-heartedly support Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage."

The next day he was called in by his bosses. He expected a slap on the wrist, maybe a demand he apologize — "How can I apologize for something I don't want to apologize for?" he recalls wondering to himself.

Instead he was summarily fired. "We're terminating your contract."

One of his bosses twisted the knife "Damian do you remember that conversation we had a while ago about the plans we had for you and these other shows at Sportsnet? Well that's not happening now, you're fired!"

Thankfully, Damian is speaking out in defense of marriage and religious liberty. He is refusing to be silenced by the big bosses.

Today we are proud to announce that Damian Goddard has joined NOM's Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance, to speak on behalf of the rights of decent, loving, law-abiding citizens to speak, to write, to donate, to organize and to act to defend marriage.

Please watch the video detailing Damian's ordeal and meet the newest member of our team!

A decade ago, the courts imposed gay marriage where Damian lives. He remembers being asked by pro-gay marriage friends and relatives, "How will gay marriage affect your marriage?"

Well, now he knows: "Eleven years later I lost my job for saying I believe in one-man and one woman marriage!"

But despite the unjust and heavy penalties, he is paying for speaking up for marriage, Damian has no regrets.

"I would not change a thing. I stand by what I said," Damian says. "The words ‘Be not afraid!' keep ringing in my ears — I cannot shake it. It's so strong... ‘Be not afraid, be not afraid, don't worry — so I'm not afraid."

God, he says, has a plan.

Damian Goddard has two messages for each one of us:

"It's got to stop, we have to stop it from escalating from getting any worse than it is right now...there's a fight under way we each of us have to make a choice: speak up!"

Will you stand with this incredibly brave man by helping us get his message out? A donation of $5, 10, or 100 will help us help him stand up for not only for his rights, but for you and your family's rights.

Speak up! Be not afraid! Damian Goddard is an inspiration to us all!

Sincerely,

Brian Brown

Brian Brown

Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
NOM Education Fund

P.S. Please help us break the myth that the same-sex marriage movement is about "live-and-let-live." Forward this email to three friends right now so they can see the truth and get involved.

Simply visit MarriageADA.org, learn about the vicious attacks on your religious liberties, and make a generous contribution today. Thank you again, and God bless you!

54 Comments

  1. Posted November 15, 2011 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    Seeing these people being mistreated just because of their faith is sad. I know now we are truly fighting satan.

  2. John
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Keep up the good work NOM. Thank you for exposing these hypocrites

  3. Louis E.
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    As a non-religious person,this is not a religious issue.

    The homosexual lobby want no opinion of homosexuality but theirs to be allowed a public voice,and isolating opposition as "religious" is one of their tactics.

  4. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    At stake is religious liberty and freedom of speech. Freedom is never free, and he is certainly paying a price to defend his. I support him.

  5. Michael
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

    First, this is in Canada not the United States. Canada doesn't give special speech rights for magical thinking. Religious speech in Canada is treated just like other speech. I commend this company for terminating his employment. They certainly wouldn't want their viewers to assume they share his views. Canadians have a long history of protecting minority rights and civil liberties - a history that significantly exceeds the United States.

  6. Margaret Gallagher
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    Ohh Michael. Firing people who tweet "I believe in the true and authentic meaning of marriage" is something to be commended?

    Very sad we've come to this.

  7. Michael
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    It's "very sad" that religion is loosing its stranglehold? I disagree. I think it's absolutely delightful that reason and science are finally prevailing over mythology and religion.

  8. Spunky
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    'He remembers being asked by pro-gay marriage friends and relatives, "How will gay marriage affect your marriage?"

    Well, now he knows: "Eleven years later I lost my job for saying I believe in one-man and one woman marriage!"'

    That doesn't answer the question. Yes, he lost his job because he spoke out against gay marriage, but the questions was about his marriage, not his employment status. Also, the question was, "how does gay marriage affect your marriage," not "how does speaking out against gay marriage affect your marriage."

  9. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    "Religious speech in Canada is treated just like other speech."

    Is all speech in Canada protected, or only some of it? The U.S. constitution protects all speech, though the Constitution has been undermined in the name of political correctness.

    " I think it's absolutely delightful that reason and science are finally prevailing over mythology and religion."

    So, Canada is so advanced they don't need any of that love-thy-neighbor, or thou-shalt-not-kill-or-steal-or-commit adultery-or-covet stuff; Canadians don't worship idols (including their own intelligence), and they never need a day of rest?

    Fortunately, I know of some wonderful religious growth in Canada, and the marvelous effect it has on mothers and fathers and their children, in strengthening families and increasing happiness in home life.

  10. Rob
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

    Speech has consequences, even for religionists.

  11. Peter
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    Spunky is entirely correct. This has nothing to do with gay marriage. This is a freedom of speech issue. It just so happens the speech was about gay marriage - it could have been about any number of things. What you should be campaigning for is freedom of speech. Nice try though...

  12. Seamus
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    Wow. Remind me again: Why it was wrong for Hollywood studios to blacklist Communists?

  13. P. Edward Murray
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    Just plain unadulterated MEANESS! That's what this stuff really is!

  14. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, NOM, for this story and video. Mr. Goddard is a very well-spoken man and the production of the video itself is excellent.

    I'm certain that many people who watch the video will be shocked when they learn that Mr. Goddard's 1st Amendment rights are being trampled by the gay agenda. This is a fact that is seldom reported. I'll share it with as many folks as I can.

  15. Rob
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    Rights can't be trampled by an agenda. That's a non-sensical statement.

  16. Louis E.
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    Goddard is a Canadian and thus has no "First Amendment rights".But I note that he didn't characterize his views as religious,and I consider "reason and science" to forbid treatment of homosexual relationships as unobjectionable.

  17. Ash
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, NOM for all the work that you do. Mr. Goddard's story is a sad one. But his courage and determination are inspirational. Thanks for sharing.

  18. Posted November 15, 2011 at 9:59 pm | Permalink

    Notice that people can express any opinion on the NOM face book -even those who oppose them. Would that be true in Canada? Remember whatever side you are on, If all speech is not protected, nobody's speech is safe. Then all that matters is who has power this decade or century. True?

  19. j. fox
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    What next? The homosexual SS will have us arrested for teaching our children the difference between right and wrong.

  20. bman
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    Spunky->"Also, the question was, "how does gay marriage affect your marriage," not "how does speaking out against gay marriage affect your marriage."

    The question at the top of this blog is, "How will gay marriage affect you?"

    While its not the "your marriage" question he was asked 11 years ago, his case shows its the more correct question to ask, instead of the other one.

    No doubt gays prefer to go around asking the "your marriage" question. After all, its safe to ask because it restricts the harm to one marriage only, namely, the marriage of the person who is being asked the question.

    Its like asking, "how does it hurt your marriage if a couple across town gets a no fault divorce?" as if that proved "no fault divorce" poses no harm.

    The real question, though, is "How does a public no fault divorce law hurt marriage in society?"

    Its when we ask the question from the perspective of society collectively that we see the harm of a no fault divorce law.

    The same principle applies to same sex marriage.

    Its not how it would hurt "your marriage" but how it would hurt "marriage in society."

    Its not how it would hurt "your freedom" but how it would hurt "freedom" in society."

    Its not how it would hurt "your" morality, but how it would hurt "morality in society."

    Its not how it would hurt "your" religion, but how it would hurt "religion in the society."

    Its not how it would hurt "your" child, but how it would hurt "children in society."

    Indeed, its a strawman tactic to go around asking the "your marriage," question because it creates a false illusion of no harm by asking the wrong question.

    The correct question to ask is how a public same sex marriage law would harm the society.

  21. Tom Beckers
    Posted November 15, 2011 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

    Keep up the good work NOM. Keep telling the world what the true agenda of the gay lobby is - to destroy the family. SSM is harmful to everyone and every marriage will be negatively effected. If allowed, by destroying the family it will destroy society.

  22. Nathan
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 2:11 am | Permalink

    Well let's see, he got fired for being against gay marriage. But gay marriage is illegal. So making gay marriage illegal doesn't protect anyone. So why exactly is gay marriage illegal?

  23. KAK1958
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 2:33 am | Permalink

    I don't happen to think he should have gotten fired, but sorry folks, this is not a freedom of speech issue. It is a company policy issue. Try to think of it with some liberal issue instead. Let's say an employee of Goldman-Sachs sent a tweet in support of Occupy Wall Street. It didn't mention G-S by name nor criticize any specific company, but sympathized with the protesters' grievances and indicated a donation was forthcoming. Would G-S be justified in firing that person? I don't think so, but some might. But as many companies are "at will" employers, meaning no cause for termination is needed, you can get rid of someone without even telling them why, even if the "why" is an expressed opinion with which they're in disagreement.

  24. Dane
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 4:11 am | Permalink

    Honestly if we take out the religious and political sides of this entire argument how would homosexuality effect us? For me anyway the only people or things that are effected by the decision is to those that openly oppose such a union do they not also have the right to pursue happiness to do things that make them feel good about themselves. The only way their decision can affect another person or anything is if we let it have that power. This world is changing our cultures and our societies are changing they always have been and always will change that is its nature. Just look at our history and follow its progression we do things now that were unthinkable in another time or place and in that time or place they do things we think are unthinkable. Isn't it time now to see how these people are people and not just look at them through skewed lenses showing us only the supposed evil different lines of thinking label this as whether it be religious or political. Ask yourself what would you do if your choices and ideals came under attack by those around you just because you were different than the norm?

  25. Randy E King
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    It affects us by codifying into law the acceptability of discriminating against those who do not partake in same-sex sexual relations.

    It is a well known fact that same-sex practitioners will promote other same sex practitioners to the detriment of the organization they are working for. Just take a look over at ABC and their blatant pimping of the acceptability of sexual depravity on ‘Dancing with the Stars’ and the recent revelations of a huge drop in ratings.

    ABC will not acknowledge that the ratings drop is directly related to their full frontal support of sexual depravity because the powers that be at ABC are the ones who are pimping this depravity as acceptable - to other people’s children.

    I do not want my tax dollars being used in support of an activity I find morally repugnant. The very definition of tyranny is the forcing of others to support that which they would whole heartedly go to war in opposition to.

    You are pimping popular culture Dane; the United States sprang fourth in opposition to that which you are demanding we now accept as inevitable.

  26. allan e
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    The effect same sex marriage has for me is that New York, my life-long home, finally joined the GROWING number of states granting equal rights to all it's citizens. This is the was the Founding Fathers intended things to be, separate and completely unaffected by religious dogma. As of July, my same sex partner of nearly 30 years and I were married and now enjoy the same rights and protections as every other married couple in the state. Inevitably, those protections will extend to the Federal level as well.
    Though un-Chrisitan in spirit, non supporters of SSM and equal rights are as free to not support it as anything else. Companies that choose to terminate employment of employees whose behavior and speech jeopardizes their corporate image and integrity, whether related to this or other issues, are free to do so.

  27. Spunky
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    @bman

    You are correct that there are other questions to ask about gay marriage, not just "how does it affect your marriage?" But that wasn't my point at all.

    They answered the question "How will gay marriage affect your marriage" with "Well, now he knows: 'Eleven years later I lost my job for saying I believe in one-man and one woman marriage!'" That doesn't make any sense. Yes, they should have bridged that question into the more general question "How does gay marriage harm society," but they didn't. They answered a more specific question incorrectly, which demonstrates shoddy writing. That was my entire point.

  28. ResistSSA
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    @bman - Excellent comment, as usual. Thanks for your posts.

    @Dane - I think most people in this county have a live-and-let-live attitude. But live-and-let-live has consequences, some which impact us at an obvious individual level, and some which impact us less directly and less obviously through societal changes. Those latter changes take time to be realized, and the ones who most suffer the unintended negative consequences of them are our children.

    I don't want my kids to choose a homosexual lifestyle; I want them to get married and bring up their children in a society that values male-female unions and moms and dads bringing up their kids in a married household.

    If you want your kids growing up in a society that thinks children should view homosexuality as an equal choice to male-female relationships and that believes marriage has nothing to do with conceiving and raising kids, then you and I will never agree.

  29. ResistSSA
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    "This is how the Founding Fathers intended it to be"

    Yeah, I'm sure that George Washington was a big fan of boys marrying boys. So delusional.

  30. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    Allen E., with all due respect to the good person I'm sure you are, do you mean to imply that before SSM was passed in your state, you were legally barred from entering into marriage, based on your sexual orientation?

    Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that NY neutered the state of marriage for all individuals, such that it is fundamentally changed from its opposite-sexed (and therefore child-responsible) institution, into an adult-centric union which no longer offers the protection to women and children it once did? And all that without any reference to religious belief. How did it affect presumption of paternity in your state?

    Marriage equality already existed in NY. Formerly, each union used to require the equal representation of both sexes in each public union, with no discrimination against their individual sexual orientations. That was equality under the law. Now, it is become a gender-segretated union, which allows individuals of the same-sex to discriminate against the opposite sex in their public union.

    But it doesn't serve all same-sex loving relationships. Siblings are still denied "equal protection" as you put it, as are parents and their same-sex offspring. Do those relationships not merit the same "rights and protections" you were seeking?

    It all boils down to this: individuals have rights and privileges; couples or groups don't. You already had rights and protections as an individual citizen as was your due.

    It's not now nor ever has been unconstitutional or unjust to legally recognize different relationships as being different, and treat them accordingly. Marriage between a man and a woman is unique in its ability to not only unite the sexes, but to tie those two opposite-sexes to their mutually shared offspring. NY can no longer guarantee that safety net to children.

  31. bman
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Dane->Ask yourself what would you do if your choices and ideals came under attack by those around you just because you were different than the norm?

    Dane, do you think youth should be trained to believe that men having sex with men is acceptable behavior?

  32. Vicki
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Even the Founding Fathers' slaves would be against same sex "marriage"

  33. bman
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Nathan->Well let's see, he got fired for being against gay marriage. But gay marriage is illegal. ...

    Gay marriage is legal in Canada, which is where he was fired.

    Spunky->Yes, they should have bridged that question into the more general question "How does gay marriage harm society," but they didn't. They answered a more specific question incorrectly, which demonstrates shoddy writing. That was my entire point.

    The older question was technically about "your marriage" and not "your job." That much is granted.

    If that was all you wanted to note, then its noted.

    I dispute the significance you assign to it, though. The difference is not substantial.

    I view it like two branches on the same tree and he pointed at the lost job "branch" as a reasonable proxy for all the branches.

  34. Vicki
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    bman: Dane, do you think youth should be trained to believe that men having sex with men is acceptable behavior?

    Unfair question. Youth should not be trained to believe that men having sex with woman is acceptable behavior either. If my kid thought it was okay to have sex with the opposite sex, then they would think it okay to have sex as teenagers. The shouldn't have sex until they are married!

  35. John
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    This is still Canada and its laws, not to be confused with the US's first amendment.

  36. j. fox
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    Same-sex attract
    ion has sure afftected penn state. I would say SSA is harmful to children and society.

  37. rubo
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    I had to quit a job after being discrimated against on the job by a lesban professor who knew that I did not support special gay rights. Many want their own "special" rights but don't want to support the rights of those who don't agree with them. It was sad and a real life lesson.

  38. Louis E.
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    Allan E (no relation),
    I too am a lifelong New Yorker,and as long as our state disgraces itself by allowing same-sex "marriage" I feel morally obligated to marry elsewhere (I am not religious and a religious ceremony is not an option).There is NO issue of "rights of citizens",only the obligation of government to elevate opposite-sex unions,whose existence serves the public interest,over same-sex one,whose existence harms the public interest.

    So would you approve my terminating an employee who embarrassed me by opposing the prohibition of SSM?

  39. Spunky
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    @j. fox

    Please don't convey the message that gay people are any more a threat to children than straight people. This is FALSE.

    There has been an abundance of research done on this topic.

    Here's a video summarizing those findings.

    Now, it could be that you're saying SSA toward children is harmful to children and society. This is absolutely true. However, OSA toward children is just as harmful, yet I don't see you mentioning that. I thus come to the conclusion that you are are inferring that gay people are more likely to molest children, which, as stated earlier, is false.

    And by the way, Jerry Sandusky is married to a woman and has no history of being attracted to men his own age, so even your example is irrelevant.

  40. Ash
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    This is capitalism at work- there should be no law against firing some-one if you feel their views do not reflect your organisation's- if you don't like it, boycott their product or service.

  41. Hammer
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    It hilarious reading -Americans- react to a truly -Canadian- scenario. Gay marriage is LEGAL in ALL of Canada. As ESPN fired Hank Williams Jr for calling Obama "Hitler" (a view the lovely Mr Goddard shares, going by his right-wing, anti-Obama tweets), Sportsnet fired Goddard for expressing a viewpoint that is offensive to its viewers, and bad for business. End of story. Goddard was a pretty good sports broadcaster. It's a shame that he couldn't keep his religion to himself. He's a wannabe American, who found out "public hating" is not a good career move in Canada, a very tolerant nation. He needs to move to the Deep South or Texas.

  42. Louis E.
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    Hammer,viewers offended by PRO-"gay" viewpoints should not be forced to watch only those whose views offend them.The "tolerance" excuse doesn't hold water when only those who buy into the nonsense excuses the "gay" offer for homosexual activity are "tolerated".

  43. janice spiak
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    We r suppose to live in a free country and our constitutional rights are being taken from us. Christians have a greater authoriety to respond and be
    SUBMISSIVE TO "tHE bIbLE". tHIS KIND OF CHRISTIAN BASHING THAT IS GOING ON TODAY IS UPSURD AND UNSTITUTIONAL. Freedom of speach and freedom of expressing opposing viewpoints are suppoose to be protected under the constitution. Lets protect every Americans constitutional rights, not just the ones we deem as being "Politically correct". Sincerely, Janice A. Spiak

  44. bman
    Posted November 16, 2011 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    Vicki->The[y] shouldn't have sex until they are married!

    Your argument depends on creating a hybrid value system that brings gay sex under the Christian moral code.

    Since no community promotes it or accepts it your argument is based on a non-reality, and is therefore moot at best.

  45. Daughter of Eve
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 12:25 am | Permalink

    "public hating"

    Exactly how is supporting marriage between a man an a woman "public hating?" Do you mean to imply that for the last several thousand years, everyone who's defined marriage based on its being opposite-sexed, has been a hater? That's a mighty big stretch of the imagination. If those who choose to engage in homosexual behavior were specifically barred from marriage based on their sexual orientation, you might be able to make some kind of a case. But you can't, because it's not true.

    Marriage between a man and a woman is the only true kind of marriage; everything else is a hollow imitation. Only marriage between a man and a woman can both publicly unite the sexes and provide children, the natural means society propagates itself, with the mother and father who are both mutually responsible for that child's care. Is that hateful to say that? NO, it's simple and irrefutable truth.

    Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

  46. Dane
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 5:59 am | Permalink

    This is all kind of funny you know people are feeding statements into other peoples mouth's and such it's great lol. There is a preconceived notion of what a marriage is and it seems no one wants to see any kind of change in anything to do with it and no trained is the wrong word for it the word i would use is teach are children to be tolerant and respectful of others choices of what they do in their personal lives. As far as i can see a gay couple who wishes to adopt a child seeing as the are incapable of conceiving to me is a good thing it just takes one more child out of the system. As far as i can tell the lgbt community wishes nothing more than tolerance and equality. tolerance is need on all sides

  47. bman
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    Dane->....trained is the wrong word for it the word i would use is teach are children to be tolerant and respectful of others choices of what they do in their personal lives....

    Tolerance and respect should be taught with the golden rule.

    It stops being about "tolerance" when it involves reading King and Kingto 2nd graders where two kings "feel a stir their heart," fall in love, get married, kiss, and have valentine shaped heart between them as they kiss.

    That is an attempt to indoctrinate everyone's children to have the counter-moral beliefs that gays hold.

    Consider, also, what a gay columnist recently said about promoting homosexuality in the schools.

    “Recruiting children? You bet we are,” he said. “Why would we push…classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?”

    The full article is at: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-journalist-lets-face-it-we-want-to-indoctrinate-children

    In short, the "teaching tolerance" claim is a Trojan horse.

    If you vote for same sex marriage you effectively vote to impose counter-moral gay beliefs on everyone's children via the public schools, and to violate parental rights, religious rights, and freedom of conscience for virtually everyone except for the gays.

    That is not the definition for "tolerance" Dane.

    Its the definition for "totalitarianism."

  48. Ash
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    Ok, this is the "real" Ash (the one who is a regular poster in favor of NOM, and against ssm). So I'm wondering who the person is on post #40 using my screen name. I never wrote that comment.

  49. ResistSSA
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 10:06 am | Permalink

    @bman gets it right again. I'd only add that by constructively stripping the procreative element from marriage - by including a combination of sexes that can never, ever procreate - then marriage will no longer be viewed as important for having and raising children. This fact will result in more children born without the promise of having their mom and dad taking responsibility for their upbringing.

    We see this already in the inner cities where welfare laws have discouraged marriage. Dads run away from their children, single moms and their children left behind fall into poverty.

  50. ResistSSA
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    @Ash -

    A pro-SSM-er borrowed by Name, as well. So I changed my name to one that explains my position so that any comment counter to that position is easily identified as a fake.

  51. Ash
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    Thanks, ResistSSA. Good points to bman, and good idea with regards to screen-names. I think SSMers would retch at the thought of using your new name, lol. I'll wait a while to see if it continues; if it does, I'll change my name.

  52. Louis E.
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Dane,there must be no "tolerance" for claims of the "equality" of right and wrong,and being same-sex makes all same-sex sexual relationships profoundly wrong.The immediate disbandment of any "lgbt community" that emerges anywhere must always be demanded until achieved,because such "communities" exist specifically to further the tendencies toward wrongdoing of those who they seek to include.Children should be taught that same-sex sexual relationships should never exist,and persons in them are not qualified to teach that.

  53. Posted November 17, 2011 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    @daughter of eve: i think you're living in some parallel universe. SSM WAS illegal in NY before 7/24/11.
    Having and raising children is not the defining issue of marriage...being in love and committed to each other is. Having children is an option. If your religion mandates that you must marry and procreate, that is not a LEGAL issue, it is a religious one, and I am still wholeheartedly in favor of keeping the church out of my LEGAL business. It's thte VERY reason we left England. Separation of church and state must NEVER be abolished or overlooked.
    As far as this imaginary "safety net" children have in a hetero marriage, try to remember that there are as many hetero child molesters as homosexual ones and they BOTH are disgraceful, disgusting AND illegal.
    @Louis E: if you feel so strongly about the new law in NY that you would actually go to another state to get married, go in good health. that is your choice and your right, just as it is thankfully my right and choice to have married my same sex partner.
    by the way, today is our 30th anniversary. any of you SSM haters care to chime in with stats about how many hetero marriages last that long?

  54. ResistSSA
    Posted November 17, 2011 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    @allen - Why do you think humans began forming couples in the first place? Since we're all capable of loving many people, why would we limit ourselves to pairs, or for that matter, why would we want to bond permanently at all? Procreation: only one man and one woman can make a baby, hence only one man and one woman make a marriage.

    Elements of marriage have changed over time (e.g., love was not important in arranged marriages), but the one thing that never changes and never can change is the defining factor: one man, one woman. Take that factor away, and you've destroyed marriage.