This weekend our President Brian Brown appeared on FOX News opposite Freedom to Marry's Mark Solomon in advance of the North Carolina vote tomorrow:
Brown has the last word:
"..there's very strong support for the amendment to pass and I think that's going to send a strong message to the four other states that are going to have marriage amendments on the ballot in November."
132 Comments
"If we hoped to repair what is wrong in the world, had had best start with the rectification of the names." Confucius
I hope you are proud of yourselves for all of the families you are hurting.
AD:
We are very proud of ourselves for the defense of the family itself, and the rights of children to have the laws recognize their own interest in being raised by their *very own* mother and father.
Not to worry, AD, this too will be overturned.
Mr. Solomon doesn't appear too happy about his "journey."
Great job Brian!
Yes, Brian, almost forgot to add how clearly you won that exchange.
Bravo!
@Rick DeLano,
I would hope that you wouldn't be proud if you actually had an understanding of what it is that you are actually doing?
Question of the month: If marriage is so important, why is it that we have never seen Mrs. Maggie Gallagher with her husband? Where is he? Why didn't she take his last name? Where is her wedding ring?
We're all still waiting for an answer.
It is not a scare tactic to state that this amendment will ban civil unions and domestic partnerships. It is not a scare tactic to state that this amendment will prevent gay couples from sharing health insurance.
These are facts. Not scare tactics.
Creighton:
Yes.
They will.
Too bad the marriage corruption movement cynically employed civil unions as a Trojan horse, and walked into court as soon as they had achieved them, in order to use them as the basis for lawsuits enforcing marriage corruption.
That one won't work again
Elias:
Unlike you, I state, and consistently defend, *exactly* what I am doing:
defending humanity's oldest and most important institution against the incredible self-absorption and biological illiteracy of the marriage corruption fanatics, who actually believe that the words "father", "mother", "male", and "female", have no relevance to the institution of marriage.
I am quite clear on my objectives, elias.
You are just a bundle of teenaged yearnings...don;t worry.
You'll grow up and understand, maybe when you have a good woman to bear you a son or a daughter.
You'll get it then, perhaps.
Rick, and it's what... your job or duty to slap them in the face by denying their households and families even the most basic access to government protection? For what purpose? To "strengthen" straight families?
Punishing gay families does not strengthen straight ones. There is no version of reality that makes that right, just, or good.
Rick, young gay men and women are raised by society hearing one message: get an education, get married, have kids, and enjoy life. To then expect to be able to marry for love and have that legally recognized is hardly self-absorbed.
Your solution, however, is to abandon love, mutual attraction, and support. To have gay men and women marry someone of the opposite gender whom they can never truly love only for the purpose of banging out a few babies...
That is not right. For you to suggest that is to prove your ultimate ignorance of the reality of punishment, discrimination, and hatred that gay men and women face on a daily basis.
Creighton:
So, voting is slapping in the face?
Please.
All the arguments have been made.
We will not buy yours.
Marriage is between a man and a woman,
I suggest your side start looking at other means to achieve whatever legitimate grievances exist, in order to advance what is truly the common good.
Your incredibly short-sighted, ill-conceived assault on marriage is blowing up in your face, and I can only urge you to get ahead of the curve.
Creighton:
You would be extremely well advised to recognize that marriage is not going to be redefined, and seek a way forward to address legitimate issues related to the common good.
Please understand that marriage will not be redefined, and every moment, syllable, and dime spent by your side attempting it is an investment not only lost, but wasted.
Perhaps after 2012 establishes the fact that marriage will be perserved in the US, we can expand the conversation to include possible remedies consistent with the common good.
Until then........32 straight.
Minnesota makes 33.
Rick,
I am telling you that the 'definition of marriage' is a farce. It is a catchy phrase your side picked up on to justify the maltreatment of gay couples and their families simply because you can.
You're fooling yourself if you think that marriage equality for gay couples serves no common good. It really, really does.
You're also fooling yourself if you think this is going away. As your side, largely supported by an aging and dying population, eventually fades away, support for marriage equality in America will continue to climb to 60% and then 70% and then 80%. Everyone will then look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
This is in answer to the misconception that marriage laws "hurt gay people." Pardon the length; it's worth a read.
"The part of the argument that cites hurt feelings is not of my concern. My feelings are hurt when judges rule to neuter state marriage licensing. We can't govern our society based on hurt feelings.
The part that gets my interest is the part that says a homosexual person is objectively hurt or harmed by not being able to get a marriage license with another person of the same sex. We should not automatically grant that this is true. Marriage neutering advocates should have to demonstrate harms that are different in nature than what they dismiss when marriage defenders say that neutering marriage causes harm. In other words, marriage defenders claim that neutering marriage causes harm, and marriage neutering advocates counter that either those things aren't really harms or that they can't be demonstrated to result from marriage neutering. We should, in turn, apply the same standards to their claims of harm by not being able to get a marriage license without a bride or without a groom.
It is easier to put forth a slightly different argument – that same sex couples will be better off with state marriage licenses. But even if true, that point can't be used as legal or moral argument to compel us to neuter state marriage licensing. Pick a recognized minority that has endured past discrimination in the USA – African Americans. Would African Americans be better off if they were all granted state university degrees? Certainly those currently without college degrees would be better off. However, does anyone serious believe that compels us to change the requirements for getting such degrees? An African American can go to a state university and meet the requirements as they are now, even if he or she strongly feels an aversion to doing so (as some African Americans, along with people of any other background, express).
Women would be better off if they never had to pay any federal income taxes again? Yes. So what? We all have to live under the same laws.
Same-sex couples may indeed be better off if they can get a state marriage license. However, that has to be weighed against the harms to society. That is how public policy works. There is no right to a state issued marriage license that compels us to remove the bride+groom requirement. Inventing one will do violence to our Constitution and our government process. If you support the neutering of marriage, pass a constitutional amendment in your state that does that. Subverting the Constitution hurts everyone, including homosexual people."
quote from The Playful Walrus
Creighton
Its striking the similarities between this debate and abortion. The "this will fade away mantra" based on mere polling data is exatly what was said forty years ago about Roe..
Im afraid thats about the best you could expect on your side...even with a victory from SCOTUS (unlikely) is 40 more years of protracted and deep division in this country.
The real definition of marriage is not hard to defend and people are not cowed by accusations of bigotry.
This is also helpful:
"What Is the Harm of Neutering Marriage?"
Posted by The Playful Walrus
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-is-harm-of-neutering-marriage.html
Enjoy!
Rick DeLano writes:
"Too bad the marriage corruption movement cynically employed civil unions as a Trojan horse, and walked into court as soon as they had achieved them, in order to use them as the basis for lawsuits enforcing marriage corruption."
Indeed, Rick. People of good will can only be betrayed so many times before we stand up and say "no more."
Yep, abortion is still legal. And according to that millennials poll NOM posted, only 28% thought abortion should be illegal. Remember, this is the poll Thomas Peters was touting.
@Rick DeLano#10,
Yes, I understand that you think you know what you are doing. But you have no idea that what you think you are doing is actually doing. None of you NOMulans do, If you did you wouldn't be doing it. And if you actually knew of the motives and what is going on behind the scenes with organizations such as NOM, you wouldn't be here. If you actually were capable of seeing the bigger picture, you wouldn't be doing what you are doing. there is more going on out there that you are obviously not aware of. Try digging deeper, looking harder, thinking critically, observing objectively instead subjectively. that's how one gains wisdom and knowledge. That's why I come here.
eliasasm, let me save you some time. If you research Mr. Delano, especially on Facebook you'd discover the he liked gays as much as you like cancer.
Pete (writes)
"Yep, abortion is still legal" - At what price though? It certainly is not the panacea that was promised & it only has been held onto by poisioning our politics and denying the people a right to vote.
Its certainly not the "just so story" Creighton and others elludes to, that pro-marriage people will become politically and socially irrelevant.
People do not (40 years on) wondering "what all the fuss is about" when it comes to abortion.
Fitz,
We are not talking about abortion. Like all other potential conversations, that should remain separate.
There are gay couples who stand for marriage equality who are both pro-choice and pro-life. They also have nothing in common.
Your citing abortion, however, indicates that you are only capable of looking at this as a political issue rather than a personal one, which it is for thousands of gay families across the country.
If we are going to go your way, though, I might add that it is striking how similar the gay civil rights movement is to the black civil rights movement.
eliasasm - by all means - please enlighten me? I find myself thinking the same thing concerning your side. Please point to what I may be missing. I can do the same.
DoE, did you even read that opinion piece you posted? "The harm of redefining marriage is... the harm of redefining marriage". It cited invisible, future "concerns". It claimed marriage equality for gay couples resulted in straight couples not marrying anymore... claiming that a government will stop protecting parental rights...
The rest are simply things that change as gay couples are incorporated into society rather than rejected by society, yet does not constitute harm.
You do realize that all of your concerns are shallow, invisible, or outright incorrect, don't you?
DoE:
One of the first concerns of that post, for example, cites the Netherlands and wedlock. It fails to take into account the role of Registered Partnerships in the Dutch Kingdom, which are becoming more popular over the extremely religiously-themed 'marriage agreement'. You would consider the Dutch use of "Registered Partnerships" to mean the couple is simply cohabitating, when they are, in actuality, using a different legal construct/concept that is beginning to imply the very same thing at a social level.
DoE, as for your free speech claim... that is nothing more than poppycock. Nothing is preventing ANYONE from standing up in the public square and engaging in free speech. Freedom of speech implies that the government will not stifle speech. It does not, however, imply that the government will protect individuals from consequences of unfavorable speech.
Or are you going to pretend you didn't all praise Chick-Filet for supporting your side while simultaneously spanking Starbucks for not "remaining neutral".
For a side that is so "silenced", you guys sure are noisy.
"Any depiction of marriage, such as in the general media or school curriculum, will be required or strongly pressured to include brideless or groomless "marriages"."
Not really that true. You will notice that, aside from the tiny incident with the mural in Rhode Island, gay men and women really have no problem with an exclusive representation of a straight married couple in media. As for school, if marriage is being taught (which I've never heard of or experienced myself), it should be of note that all married couples, gay or straight, are represented and students are not taught that one is better and the other should be avoided. One cannot avoid innate sexual orientation.
"Parents and employees will lose any "opt-out" leverage they have when it comes to promotions of homosexual behavior or neutered marriage."
Makes no sense, DoE. I thought NOM and her supporters like you had a neutral stance when it came to 'homosexual behavior'. You, yourself, are always the one to claim that gay couples can live together and love all they want. Suddenly you're promoting a source that believes children are taught to be gay in our nations schools? I missed that memo.
DoE:
"Religious organizations, congregations, and clergy will be pressured or outright forced to perform, host, and affirm same-sex "weddings""
An outright lie. No religious organization has ever been forced to perform, host, or affirm any marriage ceremony against said religion's teachings... That example of the church in New Jersey that denied access to a private-owned, public-space they received a tax incentive for doesn't count.
You managed to miss the point completley. Im not interested in talking about abortion nor am I comparing ss "m" to abortion.
I was simply pointing out the fact that supporters of abortion claimed what supporters of same-sex "marriage' now claim. That in the future opposition would wither away and pro-life/pro-marriage views would become anathema.
This strikes me as highly unlikley.
Anyhow, DoE, I'm done. You might want to read what I wrote and respond quickly. I'm not sure the NOM Moderators will allow my calm, respectful, and civil comments to remain on this blog for very much longer.
Regards,
Creighton
Fitz,
That can be said about any two topics whatsoever. My original claim still stands: Abortion and Marriage Equality are two different social issues. You should treat them as such despite the reflection that, in general, social issues always favor the minority. In the case of abortion, one might add that there really isn't a minority whereas in the case of marriage equality, the minority is quite clear: lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans.
"You would be extremely well advised to recognize that marriage is not going to be redefined..."
It has already been redefined many times, such as when it was changed from a lifetime commitment. It has already been "redefined" in many countries and several US states, and the nation's capital.
Who says it is not going to be "redefined"???
"You do realize that all of your concerns are shallow, invisible, or outright incorrect, don't you?"
There none of these...They are deep, emmenetly visible and well grounded.
The cultural left wants to redefine a fundemental social institution. They are outrightly undermining a fundemental social norm.
That norm is that children should be born into married intact male/famle households.
That norm is of such widespread importance and impacts the next generation so profoundly that the "plight" of gay couples not feeling "recognized" pales in comparrison to the much greater cause of bringing men and women together and keeping them together for the good of themselves and there children.
Fitz,
They're about as deep as a puddle in Arizona.
I am telling you again that the "definition of marriage" is a meme. It's an empty catchphrase your side states over and over again in order to hide behind what you're really doing: that is harming gay couples, their households, and their families simply because you want to.
Take a look around. The norm is that children ARE born into married, intact, male/female households. That is the norm. That is not going to change because gay couples can legally marry.
It is funny, however, that your protecting 'the norm' often comes at the cost of making life much more difficult for gay couples and any children they are raising...
In fact, it completely ignores those children who are not in the norm... making sure that more of them who are without parents end up aging out of the system.
Because it's better, right? That children have no parents rather than two same-gender parents. Hrm?
Allowing gay couples to marry DOES NOT PREVENT straight couples from marrying and having babies.
Your effect is completely absent a cause.
I'll say it again, Fitz.
Your effect is completely absent a cause. In no version of reality does allowing gay couples to marry damage society.
People will marry so long as marriage is socially important. Babies will be had. Straight men aren't suddenly going to stop liking sex with women. Some of those babies are going to be gay. Most of them will be straight.
The world will continue revolving... unless of course it doesn't continue revolving, which will have absolutely nothing to do with gays and their wedding registries.
Confucius’ Rectification of Names:
“If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.”
The marriage corruption movement in completely dependent upon the misuse of language in defense of their proclivity.
Creighton (writes)
"Take a look around. The norm is that children ARE born into married, intact, male/female households. That is the norm. That is not going to change because gay couples can legally marry."
You take a look around - 70 illigitamacy rates amoung African Americans 50% amoung Hispanics. 40 percent of ALL children are now born out-of-wedlock. That is the emerging "norm" that gay marriage will help reinforce and make it impossible to jusitify addresing these harms.
The mistake you make is one of pride. You think all these marriage supporters are not "really" concerned with marriage but only hate gays or what-not.
On the contrary - they know all about what is required for a healthy marriage culture and its elemental definition is simply one important predicate neccessary to maintain and/or help address the problems blighting the insitution of marriage.
W
The marriage corruption movement is at war with the laws of nature because natural law shows them for who they really are; a organized well-heeled horde of decadent miscreants
Well, it appears we are indeed at loggerheads, Creighton and elias and cothinkers.
I merely reiterate:
If you folks think you can win with the redefinition of marriage approach, knock yourselves out.
Sometime it comes down to an honest difference of worldview.
That's when it becomes a culture war.
See you in NC tomorrow.
I get the biggest kick out of the marriage corruption meme. Are we in denial that marriage has been corrupted for a long time and it wasn't the gays that did it?
@Fitz,
The point you aren't getting is that your point is your point. It's not mine nor everybody's. The point is you NOMulans don't seem to be able to accept that there are points outside of yours, that there are other ways to look at things besides yours. You claim that that is us, yet I have not seen one example on this blog that would show that any of you would even entertain the thought. Everytime I say such things, if I get a reply it just says 'yeah but that's what you are doing'. That's right, but I get that. You don't.
And Fitz, you decide to blame that on.... teh gayz?
Allowing gay couples to marry equals... straight dads abandoning their babies? Because... teh gayz made marriage less important.... ?
A healthy marriage culture is one where couples to be married think long and hard about marriage and what it means to them. You should work more on that and less on preventing a same-gender couple the legal protections and social perception of permanence that marriage implies.
You're fighting the wrong people. You're fighting against people who really, really want to get married and have the government legally recognize that as valid and important.
Instead, you should be doing what many gay couples know to be true: teaching that marriage is important and shouldn't be entered into lightly. And trust me. There are many straight girls and guys who get married when they really aren't ready for it and don't understand what it means and requires.
@Rick DeLano#40,
I merely reiterate, your hate has fogged your ability to see the big picture. If you were to see the big picture you would see the responsible party which is why you don't want to look. It's that simple.
Eliasasm,
You declared this war on the laws of nature and now we stand in defense of our birthright. Nobody is asking you to change, but here you are demanding everybody change to accomodate your own sense of guilt.
People are starting to realize that when they acquiesce to your immorality they become accountible for your sins,
The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!
@Creighton,
Excellent, thank you.
Creighton
I'm not blaming anyone and you cant demonstrate were I have done so. What I and the people at NOM are doing is defending a fundemental social insitution from redefinition. We are defending the very concept of intact married families.
Perhaps the best concise explanation for your concern is as follows.
"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."
Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
We cant defend or rebuild what we cant even define. Many gay people dont want to admit this but the cultural left itself understands this all to well.
There these miscreants go again; refearing to themselves as "Gay People" as if they were the proverbial Unicorn from antiquity.
You folks had to of know you were on this war you declared when you found yoursleves completely dependent upon the misapplication of language in defense of your proclivity.
correction:
you were on the wrong side of...
The opposition is demonstrating its only real strategy - rambling on and on and on, while saying nothing. This is the curse of anyone who has no positive argument for their position.
The fact remains that marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. Simple and concise.
I'm gone from this thread. Your story has become tiresome.
Randy, your logic is backwards. You, yourself, are demeaning and chastising gay men and women, easily implying that we change to become straight. Marriage equality for gay couples implies that no one change. No gay man or woman is ever going to state a straight couple shouldn't marry because they are straight.
It's funny that no other NOM supporter on this forum challenges you. Allowing you to continue with your hateful rhetoric only shows us NOM's true colors, and the colors of her followers.
Fitz,
No, you are not. Again, your effect is absent a cause. You are pretending that you are defending the 'concept of intact families' by doing nothing more than preventing gay couples from forming legally protected families themselves.
In fact, when it comes to NOM and your work here, you are doing absolutely nothing in the way of encouraging intact families.
If you wish to encourage intact families, you would do just that: encourage intact families. Instead, you spend 99% of your time blocking gay couples from legal protections and social acceptance that would do so much good for this society.
Nothing says "protect families" more like beating the gays... obviously.
Fitz, you really shouldn't pretend that you are not against same-gender relationships. You really are. Why?
1. You don't correct Randy
2. Despite the fact that gay couples symbolically marry, you believe marriage is demeaned if they legally marry. This means that proximity to a legal marriage license by a gay couple devalues 'the institution' (in your eyes).
3. Your actions in trying to create a society where gay couples are less safe, less secure, and less happy being absent all of the social and legal rights, benefits, protections, responsibilities, and support that marriage implies.
You just have to admit it. You think we're worth less.
"You just have to admit it. You think we're worth less."
Not at all.
We just think you have fewer votes
Creighton (writes)
"You just have to admit it. You think we're worth less."
I admit it. Male/male & Female/female couples are "worth less" than Male/Female couples.
Why?
Well..Men and women are members of the one & only class of couples that can produce children. While any member of that class may not or cannot produce a child, they remain members of the class of couples that can produce children. Same sex pairings can never produce children. They are members of a class that always and everywhere are incapable of producing children. Therefore same sex “marriage” necessarily severs marriage from procreation. It both androgynizes the institution and separates it from any necessary link to childbearing.
Most people are heterosexual and only opposite sex pairs can conceive children. Your standard explicitly states that a child’s natural Father (or Mother) is non-essential to marriage, that any combination of adult is sufficient. It further reinforces and locks in the notion that all family forms are inherently equal. They are not. Yes, there is a philosophical maxim that reads – “If it’s everything it’s nothing”. We can’t defend what we can’t define. You are attempting to severe marriage from its historical and biological heritage. The effect is to say that marriage is outdated and any family form including single parenting is acceptable
Creighton,
LGBT dictates that not all perverts are "Gay."
Your misapplication of language in defense of your depravity is unacceptable.
(L)esbian = Woman who does woman
(G)ay = Man whgo does man
(B)i-sexual = people that will do anything
(T)ransgender = Confused
Maintaing the defintion of marriage as commanded by God only denies perverts the right to remake this nation in their image.
Yay, Rick gets to vote his bigotry! The KKK want in on this action, didn't Rand Paul want undo the civil rights acts?
Tsk, tsk, tsk, Pete.
The sparks are beginning to come out of your ears, the eyes are rolling up into the back of your head, and you are reducing yourself to a perfect picture of carpet-chewing rage and frustration......
all because your fellow citizens have heard, and rejected, your arguments.
Grow up for....well.
I was going to say for Pete's sake.....
Except that the courts, not the people, get the last say!
Randy,
Making up your own definitions, huh? Trans individuals are those who have Gender Identity Disorder. Look it up.
As for the LGB component, thank you for reducing us all to simple behavior. It's so good that you can look at couples in love and see only what they do in the sack. Congratulations.
Thank you Brian Brown and NOM
Marriage must be protected in NC.
Gays say they only want government protections for their families but they can get that without the word marriage.
Why do they want the word marriage? To force our churches to marry gays or else lose tax exempt status. To teach our children to hate their faith and go against their parents.
Don't be fooled!
Rick, what is your problem? Really? I'm curious. How is this fun for you? You do realize that you are creating an environment and a society where LGB youth feel so incredibly outcast and rejected by people like you that many of them fall into deep depression and some even commit suicide, right?
It's not only inhumane of you to behave as you are right now. It's downright evil.
Wow, 53 posts and the word "procreation" was not mentioned until post #46, and within a quote, no less.
Creighton, et al.: Marriage is the institution that unites men and women with their offspring. Its government and societal purpose is to establish rights and responsibilities: for parents, to take responsibility for that which they create; and for children, to be given the right to be raised by the mom and dad who created them. Establishing such rights helps assure that the taxpayers are not going to be on the hook for paying for the upbringing of an abandoned/orphaned child.
Same-sex couples can never procreate and, as such, can never serve the societal/governmental purpose of marriage. All same-sex couples with "families," involve children who have been deprived of ta least one of their parents; the very thing that marriage is designed to prevent.
Changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples breaks the all-important link be tween marriage and procreation. Breaking that link discourages male-female couples getting married to prepare to reproduce and from a family. We see what happens when the government interferes with marriage in poor urban communities where government money to single moms discourages fathers from staying around to take responsibility for their kids: a 70% illegitimacy rate. We see where government intervention with marriage leads to higher divorce rates in no-fault divorce laws passed in the 1970s.
Creighton:
It's not personal, really.
But then again, I doubt that will matter much to you.
I do enjoy the political battle, but then again, I have been fighting for so many years to defend our freedom and sovereignty against the- truly incredibly- evil marriage corruption movement.
It always feels good to have fought for good, and against evil.
As I have told you many times, we are faced here with a foundational battle of irreconcilable world views.
It is not necessary to impute hatred to those with whom one disagrees.
It is a typical tactic of the juvenile mentality to do so however.
In any event, I am sorry to have to say that I am personally completely committed to the defense of marriage against the marriage corruption movement.
There is just no getting around it.
Creighton -
Let's be honest, shall we? Any person who commits suicide has deep-seated psychological issues leading to their suicide beyond the rejection of their sexuality.
Creighton,
You avoided the question. You obviously do not like the unavoidable answer:
There is no such thing as a Gay
You might as well refear to yourselves as Goony-ga-ga's for all the good it does you.
Rick,
I can tell that it is not personal to you. That's you're MO. You feel justified because it doesn't impact you in any way, shape, or form. You see us as the devil incarnate. It's no surprise that you garner enjoyment by treating us as such.
I see your actions as inhumane and profoundly immoral because you inspire very real and avoidable harm to the lives of LGBT Americans. For that, I feel very sorry and sad for you.
Rick DeLano
I truly feel sorry for you. You say you have fought hard, against what and for what? A non-existing enemy (except in your own mind) and for an ever evolving concept that you believe to be unchangeable. Sigh, such a waste of a life. When you could be out fighting for the rights of the homeless, hungry, ill and poor. But then who would work SO hard on those groups? Oh, right, Jesus. And Jesus said what about same sex marriage? Absolutely nothing.
Damn this site. I had a nice post to educate Creighton about marriage, and it is delayed in posting, I suppose because of its length. When it does show, it will be buried somewhere in the middle of the other posts instead of being placed at the end.
NOM, I love ya, but you really frustrate the hell out of me when this happens.
Overcame:
Happens to all of us.
I suggest a repost, avoiding the mystery algorithm-triggering words or formatting (wish I could tell you what they were!)
MarkOH:
Thanks for sharing.
I should probably assure you that your views are a matter of indifference to me, but in the interest of politeness I will instead assure you that I intend to give your words every bit of the consideration they objectively merit.
Cheers!
@Creighton, Mark:
I promise, gentlemen, to give your observations every bit of the consideration which they objectively merit.
Now, back to the topic at hand-
GO NC!
Let's win it by 20!!!
Overcame, you don't need to educate me. I have a perfect example of a married couple: my own parents who adopted me when I was 3 days old and who have been married for 33 years. They want the same for me: lifelong love, happiness, and companionship in marriage with a person I love, even if of the same gender. I trust them over you any day.
Creighton:
God bless your parents.
And God bless you.
You are one vote.
I am one vote.
There is no other way to settle foundational and irreconcilable differences of worldview......
Its not great, but it beats shooting at each other.
Rick,
You're correct. It does beat shooting at one another. It is still unjustified. You are electing to vote in such a way as to cause very real, measurable and avoidable harm to real families. Because you can. That will always be historically recognized as immoral and perhaps evil.
Creighton:
I believe we have both made our points.
I am sorry, we simply do not agree.
Our world views are irreconcilable on this question.
We shall have to settle the matter politically.
Not that it will matter, but I urge you to consider the political realities at work here, and try to consider alternate solutions.
You will not overturn marriage, and the attempt will bring no benefit at all to the poor homosexuals who imagine that they gain from being cynically deployed as an expendable asset in the culture wars by their Marxist tutors.
Creighton:
Alas, we shall have to agree to disagree.
I commend for your consideration the political realities at work here.
Marriage will not be overturned.
Your neighbors have heard all the arguments, and believe me, they are generally very compassionate people who do not seek the harm or diminishment of anyone.
But they agree with me, in far greater numbers, than they agree with you.
I suggest your side consider other approaches.
Marriage is not going to be surrendered.
Creighton,
You are not protecting "Real Families." Real families are connected by a common biology; not a common proclivity.
You are demanding your depravity be redefined so as to lend an appearance of acceptability to that which is wholy unaccaeptable. If you truly believed your proclivity was just you would not be insisting it be delcared that which it is incappable being.
You must stand on your own merit, or die on the vine just like everybody else.
@Rick,
I think you have way over stepped the line by addressing us as evil. That comment should have you banned, but it certainly exposes your hate. And to think that it is ok to vote against one specific component of our society exposes you further.
elias:
The irony of your comment #72 above is so rich, that I suppose it is proof positive that you are, truly, among those "who do not know what they do".
All the best to you.
“If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.” Confucius
Randy,
Adjust your definition. A husband and wife are a family even without children. Or do you reduce something as complex as family to something so simple as present genitalia?
I have no genetic bond to my parents or siblings. They are still my family. Or do you trash adoption as well? Smarten up. Your attitude belongs in 1965.
And it's kind of insulting to childless married couples to say that marriage is about children.
Jim,
It's also kind of insulting on his part to imply that adopted children have no family.
And it is absolutely insulting to imply that we are evil.
Rick #69 (hmmm)
"You are one vote.
I am one vote.
There is no other way to settle foundational and irreconcilable differences of worldview......"
Ah, so basic civil rights should be put to a popular vote? Rick, do you agree with interracial marriage? Because when it was forced on us by some 'activist judges' deciding Loving v. Virgina June 12, 1967, about 73% of Americans were against it. Jump to May 20, 2011 where a Gallup poll should 53% of Americans believe SSM should be valid. Seems SSM has more support than interracial marriage had when it became legal.
But don't worry, among the under 30's, the percentage is up to 70% so it is only a matter of time.
OOPS, "showed", not "should"
To poster #79: Except that interacial marriage did not change or redefine marriage and the courts were right to fix this civil wrong.
The interracial couples who wanted to marry equally like everyone else where obeying the laws and rules on marriage. They were denied their civil rights when they tried to marry equally and the courts had to step in.
HOWEVER NO HOMOSEXUAL HAS EVER BEEN DENIED MARRIAGE WHEN THEY WISHED TO OBEY THE LAWS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!
ONE MAN/ONE WOMAN
John Noe
Of COURSE looking at it today one can say it did not "change or redefine" marriage, but that's EXACTLY what it did at the time. Prior to it being legal, marriage was between a man and a woman of the SAME race (course, earlier, African Americans were not allowed to marry so that is yet another change).
To paraphrase you:
"HOWEVER NO BLACK HAS EVER BEEN DENIED MARRIAGE WHEN THEY WISHED TO OBEY THE LAWS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!" And the laws of the time was to marry only another black. See? No difference than denying same sex couples to marry.
Creighton: You have made excellent points, all which have fallen on deaf ears and hearts. I come on here occasionally to try to educate these hateful souls, but in the end I leave them be - they will soon be like the Japanese soldiers found decades after the WWII was over, still fighting and thinking their life was in danger.
John,
Your argument is moot. At the time, no black or white person was denied marriage when they tried to obey the laws like everyone else... that is by marrying someone of the opposite gender and of the same race.
Many of them, however, wanted to marry for love and were legally denied. Sound familiar?
There are many relationships that involve love.
Not all are marriages.
In order to retain the essential, defining characteristic of marriage- that is, the uniting of the two genders of our species in stable relationships from which children commonly result and within which they are best nurtured.........
We simply keep making our case to our fellow citizens.
Time after time.
See you in NC tomorrow.
Creighton, regarding freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., you seem to have missed a few headlines lately. If you'll kindly scroll back through previous NOM posts, you'll see plenty of evidence to actual negative consequences due to SSM, where speech, religion, education, and parental rights are concerned. An excellent place to get an excellent insight on the real issues is here:
opineeditorials.blogspot.com
Their thorough side bar will take you to some wonderful debate.
Have a great evening!
Congratulations to NC for another win to protect and preserve marriage as it has always been. Come November, the GOP will put an end to all this same sex friendship to be called "marriage" nonsense, just like NC has done today. Marriage corruption will finally be over come November.
The arguments of SS"M" advocates can be summed up the following manner:
"I have the mind of a spoiled child and the reason why my parents won't cave in to every one of my demands is because they hate me!"
"We cant defend or rebuild what we cant even define. Many gay people dont want to admit this but the cultural left itself understands this all to well."
Excellent, Fitz!!
I was severely disappointed reading Creighton's responses to you in posts #51 and #52. Disappointed because I believe that you are talking above the heads of the SSMers here (and that is a compliment to you). Nevertheless, this makes me happy because I believe your comments *cannot* be dutifully addressed, even by the "best of the best."
Creighton - (Still waiting for my other post to appear.)
As for your parents' 33-year marriage: I'm going to sound very insensitive here, but it needs to be said, notwithstanding the PC, victimhood environment in which we live.
Your adoptive parents are not your real parents; you come from a different genetic make-up from both of them. That affects the very nature of the relationship between you. It also has a psychological impact on you, knowing that those people are not your real parents.
Now I obviously haven't witnessed your upbringing, but given that you were brought up by non-gentically-related adoptive parents, which deprives you of the unique connection between "real" parents and a genetically-connected extended family; and that you are psychologically affected by your awareness of this fact, look at what happened: you ended up having same-sex attraction and adopting a homosexual lifestyle.
As you were not formed by the union of them, not part of either of them, your adoptive parents do not suffer the heartache that "real" parents experience at having a child who chooses a homosexual lifestyle, so, of course, they support you; you're someone else's child. And really, what choice do they have but to support you or be estranged from you?
I apologize for being harsh, but you're the one who decided to come to this site
Creighton, I agree with GZeus, most excellent posts and factual points. But then again I have to agree with GZeus again, this crowd cannot be educated.
I have posted this video a couple of times and no one seems to want to discuss it. Why? If you all support doing something against me based on the religious aspect, at least give me the respect to discuss it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY
eliasasm,
Your video has been acknowledge to be nothing more than a desperate attempt to interpret biblical text out of context in order to paint your proclivity in a more favorable light.
The idea of individuals spending their entire lives ignoring the intent of their own reproductive system is a 21st century concept; it has basis in nature.
elias -
The video is over an hour long. Who has time for that?
There are plenty of secular reasons for why marriage should not be redefined to accommodate homosexuals who don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Creighton -
I'm going to post and abbreviated version of my post that has yet to appear:
Marriage IS the union of a man and a woman. It exists to unite a man and a woman with their OFFSPRING. It establishes rights and responsibilities: The responsibility of moms and dads to raise their offspring, and the rights of children to have their moms and dads.
The government/societal PURPOSE of marriage is to assure that moms and dads take responsibility for their offspring so that they do not become charges of the State and a burden to the taxpayers.
Same-sex couples are incapable of procreating; therefore they are unable to fulfill the purpose of marriage. Moreover, in every same-sex "family" with kids, the children are orphaned by at at least one of their parents; the very thing that marriage tries to prevent!
Legalizing same-sex "marriage" would break the connection between procreation and marriage, a very important link. Once that link is broken, fewer people will marry to have children. We see this in the AA community where there is a 70% illegitimacy rate, because marriage is discouraged through government welfare.
Oh, great. My re-post to Creighton also got lost in NOM's filtering system. This SUCKS NOM!
Over,
Anyone who wants to use religion against me needs to find the time and not divert the issue.
Posters #83, #85 again as always twist the facts. Interacial marriages did not change or redefine marriage. It was people wishing to honor the institution equally like everybody else and were denied the benefits. This civil wrong had to be amended. With marriage being between a man and a woman they deserved the same equal rights as everyone else.
In true apples for apples comparison if a homosexual male was trying to marry someone of the opposite sex and were denied a marriage license then by all means they deserve the same legal protections as the rest of us. But just as the blacks did not try to make up their own rules the same must hold true for the rest of Americans.
The fundamental right to marriage does not give you the right to change or alter the meaning and definition of marriage. Their is no right to make up your own rules in the Bill of Rights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM&feature=player_embedded
John John John,
Marriage is not defined in the Constitution. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. You cannot redefine what is not defined. You people are the ones who want to define. You people are the ones that want to change the Constitution and make up your rules. What's preventing you from seeing that?
Sorry, John Noe. Your predicesors of the day, did believe that interracial marriage was not real marriage. In fact the the judge that sentenced the Lovings said even the bible was against it. Stop rewriting history.
SSA,
I beg to differ. My adopting parents are my real parents. They are not my biological parents, but they are who I know and love as parents.
I enjoy your line about my being gay because I am adopted... that was worth quite a few laughs.
Given the words you said and trashing the parental worth of all parents who adopt children (and subsequently all children who are adopted), I cannot help but feel that you are an extremely sad, misguided, and twisted individual.
You'll make up anything to justify your own self-hatred, won't you?
eliasasm (writes)
This is simply wrong as a matter of FACT. Both sides in this debate both concure that marriage is in FACT in our consitution and is a fundemental consitutional right.
One side claims the 14th amendment requires we change the definition of that right while the other side (ours) claims that you cannot change the definition of a fundemental right.
Its that simple. Marriage has been found in mutiple Supreme Court precedents to be (what is called) an "unenumerated right". The list of such rights are extensive and include a the "right to travel" the "right to educate your children" & the "right to organize labor and collectivley bargain" amoung others.
Your approach is wrong headed and factualy difficiant. I can expound on this if you like?
@Fitz101,
Show me where in the constitution marriage is mentioned and I will concede.
eliasasm (writes)
"Marriage is not defined in the Constitution. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution. You cannot redefine what is not defined. You people are the ones who want to define. You people are the ones that want to change the Constitution and make up your rules. What's preventing you from seeing that?"
{RE: My comment at #101}
eliasasm, eliasasm, eliasasm,
Hardly, As Justice Cordy wrote in dissent, the majority of the court had -
“transmuted the "right" to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage itself.”1
"only by assuming that 'marriage' includes the union of two persons of the same sex does the court conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples infringes on the 'right' of same-sex couples to 'marry'.”2
"[i]n context, all of these decisions and their discussions are about the 'fundamental' nature of the institution of marriage as it has existed and been understood in this country, not as the court has redefined it today.” 3
Maintaining that marriage's - “'fundamental' nature is derivative of the nature of the interests that underlie or are associated with it” -and that a an - “examination of those interests reveals that they are either not shared by same-sex couples or not implicated by the marriage statutes.”4
1,2,3,4, - Goodridge v. Dept. of Pub. Health,798 N.E.2d 941, 955 (Mass 2003)
(Justice Cordy dissenting)
eliasasm
"Show me where in the constitution marriage is mentioned and I will concede."
Ok.. The IX Amendment to the Consitution.
This is illustrated in the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley,Zablocki v. Redhail, Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, Skinner v. Oklahoma, & Baker v Nelson
This is widley excepted fact by both sides in this debate. You appear rather small minded and simplistic in your approach and understanding of "legal thought".
You cant just adopt your own personal approach to consitutional jurisprudence - it need be grounded in accepted understandings.
poster #98 writes this absurb motion:
You people are the ones who want to define. You people are the ones that want to change the Constitution and make up your rules. What's preventing you from seeing that?
No it is you who thinks you have a right to define marriage and impose it on the rest of us. It is you that wants to make up your own rules.
Poster #99 your views have already been debunked.
@John Noe#104,
Why are you picking and choosing and not showing the context of what I said? It's just like the poster yesterday who posted a story and added his own words to set up the story to deceive you. What he was trying to do was change the narrative so he could make you believe that the story was about something that it was not, just like you just did. Happens here alot. Changing things to make them be something they are not, just exactly what you all are trying to do with this whole gay marriage issue. It's obvious that you all think that no one could possibly be smarter or wiser than you.
And
Not ready to concede yet, especially since what you say about the constitution actually protects fundamental rights which is why Prop 8 failed recently. You proved my case. Watch the Prop 8 film if you can stomach it.
@John Noe#104,
You are the one that wants to change the constitution and make it say what you want when what you want it to say isn't there. We are not changing anything.
Fitz, I meant to add you to me reply also.
eliasasm (writes)
"Not ready to concede yet, especially since what you say about the constitution actually protects fundamental rights which is why Prop 8 failed recently. You proved my case. Watch the Prop 8 film if you can stomach it."
I am familiar with the prop 8 case. As stated BOTH sides rely on the fact that marriage is a fundemental constitional right. This is the case in the prop 8 trial as well.
Yet you reflexively hold to your position that "fundemental rights" need be specifically enumerated to be "in the consitution". They do not & marriage is such a right and the precedents (above) clearly define that right.
Fitz,
so there is no argument against gay marriage then.
Hmmmm, 2 adopted posters, two gay people. Nope, no connection. And then RJ starts with the personal attacks. Typical tactic when the truth is what one is arguing against.
I'm not saying being adopted causes same-sex attraction, but I am suggesting that there is a different relationship between, say, an adoptive father and his son and a biological father and his son, the latter having more of a vested interest, if you will, in the outcome of his son, and thus more likely more engaged than the adoptive father.
This is why the rest of the world thinks less of America now than at any other time. We claim to be the land of the free, yet our history is one of slavery, Jim Crow laws, suffrage, and LGBT oppression. In a country founded on individual liberty, with a Constitution and judiciary which protect the minority, it still baffles me to understand how people can honestly feel it is right to try to legalize discrimination. I understand that not all people think that two people of the same sex are the same as two people of the opposite sex, however, if history teaches us anything it is that the antiquated views held by an aging majority inevitably fall to a society that wishes to uphold its most sacred belief: that all men are created equal.
Time has always been on the side of justice. Denying the legal recognition, rights, and benefits of marriage to loving individuals will be seen as a blemish on our history, not unlike slavery and the Jim Crow era.
A final thought which is actually a question for the NOM supporters: If you were to eliminate the religious justification of your argument, what is left to stand on? If the answer is natural law, then I posit this question: If being gay is unnatural, why do straight parents keep having gay babies?
eliasasm (asks)
"Fitz,-so there is no argument against gay marriage then."
Hardly: the mistake you are making has been pointed out before. As Justice Cordy wrote in dissent, the majority of the court had -
“transmuted the "right" to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage itself.”1
"only by assuming that 'marriage' includes the union of two persons of the same sex does the court conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples infringes on the 'right' of same-sex couples to 'marry'.”2
"[i]n context, all of these decisions and their discussions are about the 'fundamental' nature of the institution of marriage as it has existed and been understood in this country, not as the court has redefined it today.” 3
Maintaining that marriage's - “'fundamental' nature is derivative of the nature of the interests that underlie or are associated with it” -and that a an - “examination of those interests reveals that they are either not shared by same-sex couples or not implicated by the marriage statutes.”4
1,2,3,4, - Goodridge v. Dept. of Pub. Health,798 N.E.2d 941, 955 (Mass 2003)
(Justice Cordy dissenting)
See?
Austin
As the Washington dicesion illustrates
We vigorously reject any attempt to link the discriminatory Anti miscegenation laws in Loving with this State’s DOMA. The Washington Court of Appeals in Singer correctly noted:the Loving and Perez courts [Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948)] did not change the basic definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman; rather, they merely held that the race of the man or woman desiring to enter that relationship could not be considered by the state in granting a marriage license. 11 Wn. App. at 255 n.8. Numerous other courts have all rejected the claim that the decision in Loving somehow challenged state laws reaffirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman.25 Careful review of the historical context of Loving further undermines the
dissents’ disturbing attempt to link constitutionally void, racist laws with a historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman. Anti miscegenation laws were anathema to the “color-blind” constitution articulated in Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson.26 Anti miscegenation laws infringed upon the union of one man and one woman by injecting racial status as a qualification. Such laws contradicted the fact that a man and a woman of any race have the natural right to marry and have children. This right is protected by the United States and Washington State Constitutions. Racially discriminatory anti miscegenation laws also violate the right to marriage between a man and a woman. Here, in contrast, the State’s DOMA simply confirms the common law understanding of marriage as a union of a man and woman. It is the dissent that would abrogate the common law understanding through judicial fiat.
Austin (asks)
"If you were to eliminate the religious religious justification of your argument, what is left to stand on?"
As stated above, we would have the secular law for instance. We would also have history, biology, sociology, anthropology, experience & reason to list a few.
My question to you is- without spurious analogies, grandstanding, historical predictions and the like -what is left to stand on?
Fitz states you can rationalize discrimination without a religious motivation based on the following:
1) History - Slavery was accepted for most of history and is still practiced today in some parts of the world, yet we do not today condone slavery in the US anymore.
2) Biology - reproduction has never been a requirement for marriage. If it were, the government would issue reproduction licenses. Also, gay men and women have always and will always be a part of society,
3) Sociology - Society has not collapsed in the countries and states where gay marriage is legal.
4) Anthropology - Are we studying the petrified remains of drag queens or something? (I have no clue what this has to do with the current debate)
5) Experience - "to each his own" What you have experienced in your life is dramatically different than any other person and is therefore subjective.
6) Reason - I would reason that by allowing gays to marry not ONE thing would change for heterosexual couples who are already married or want to marry.
The court systems have evolved with society. Cases which once held slavery, sufferage, and 'serperate but equal' to be valid are now seen as repugnant. A clear change on how the court views gay issues is the substantial change from Romer to Lawrence. What once was illegal and justified is now legal and protected.
Our country has a proud history of doing the right thing. although it might take decades, equality will overcome ignorance and big otry.
OK let's try this again, you guys and gals are looking at things from a point of view that you are choosing to have. That's wonderful and I will give my life for you to have the right to have the point of view that you have chosen to have. Your repeated retort is, 'but you're doing the same thing'. You are absolutely correct. However, our point of view has something that your's, obviously, doesn't. We understand and acknowledge and observe and listen and actually hear other points of views. Sorry, but there actually are other points of views other
than your own. Some are just as valid as your's and some are not. And there are some that make your point of view invalid. That does not mean any of then are right or that any of them are wrong. It means when you allow yourself to look at other pov's, you will see which one seems to be appropriate and fit in the best with the situation at hand. I'm just saying that from bigger perspective with the situation at hand, this situation can end, if you want it to end.
Oh, it will end, all right.
We will win every election in 2012, and the Supreme Court will uphold Prop 8 in 2013.
Simple.
The more likley scenario is that the supreme court is more likley to use the prop 8 case to restore marriage to its singular definition (1man & 1woman) across the country striking down the handfull of states that have it.
Why; because its the best politically and legally for them. It squares with the consitution and precedent.
Austin
Concerning your Loving Anti-miscegenationist argument.
I would draw your attention to the argument that was forewarded by nothing less than the deep blue very liberal and very influential New York Supreme Court in it's recent decision
Hernadez v Robles.
"Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institution to be appropriated for nonmarriage ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriative project is to betray them. In other words, the Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy. That disanalogy is between the intention of Perez and Loving to protect marriage from appropriation for nonmarriage purposes and the intention of the present marriage project to make such an appropriation. Thus, those who deploy the Perez/Loving argument, whether advocates or judges, are misleading people, including perhaps themselves."
Hernandez, 805 N.Y.S.2d at 379–81, 381 n.3, 382
Here the court is saying that proponets of same-sex "marriage" are like the racists who crafted the anti-miscegenation laws that were the basis of Loving & Perez. Like the racists of old, same-sex "marriage" supporters are attempting to use the foundational constiutional right to marriage to advance gay identity politics. Just as the anti-miscegenationists were intrested more in promoting segregation than in the instiution of marriage, they sought to use marriage as a vehicle for that end. Likewise gay marriage supporters seek to use marriage law to advance their interersts to an end that is not marriage. Marriage is seen primarily as a vehicle to advance gay "rights" and concern for the foundational constitional; right of marriage as but so much grist for the mill.
Now that type of language used by a State Supreme Court is so powerfull and blunt that (If people knew anything of the law) Its very existance in such a prominent and indeed direct case on the merits for same-sex "marriage" would (or should) give even the most ardent same-sex "marriage" enthusiast real cause for concern. The fact is that it shows the ideological nature of such claims for re-difineing marriage