Dear Marriage Supporter,
Governor Hickenlooper has called a special legislative session to address civil union legislation, and Colorado Family Action is hosting a Rally for Marriage at the State Capitol in Denver tomorrow! Please make an effort to come to the Capitol over the lunch hour tomorrow to show your support for marriage.
As recently as 2006, the people of Colorado voted to reject civil unions and affirm marriage. Now Governor Hickenlooper is trying to pressure the legislature to pass this dangerous bill.
This is exactly the sort of bill that courts in California and Connecticut used to demonstrate that the state no longer had any justification for marriage—concluding that civil unions were an unconstitutional and discriminatory "separate but equal" status.
Your legislators need to hear from you tomorrow! Please join Colorado Family Action and make a powerful statement at the Capitol tomorrow!
| WHAT: | RALLY & PRAYER FOR MARRIAGE |
| WHEN: | TUESDAY, MAY 15th, 2012 |
| WHERE: | WEST STATE CAPITOL STEPS (200 E COLFAX AVE, DENVER 80203) |
| TIME: | 12 NOON-1PM |
Please, marriage is fundamental to our society, and this civil unions bill represents a serious threat to the future of our marriage laws. Please do whatever you can to free up an hour tomorrow afternoon.
This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.
38 Comments
The GOP made sure it died in committee. I guess they don't want a vote.
("now", not "not")
My my, NOM's deleting civil posts again.
Is NOM interested in "protecting" marriage, or just keeping gay and lesbian couples from having any rights?
Come on NOM; why do you insist on protecting yourselves from these unprovoked assaults?
Michael C
When the California SC declares civil unions an unacceptable compromise, what are the alternatives?
NOM is interested in protecting marriage first and foremost.
Reciprocal Beneficiary = excellent compromise
Redefine marriage? No deal.
Where did Pete's comment about the Colorado PPP poll go? I guess NOM isn't too crazy about that plurality (47%) who favor same sex marriage, or that
whopping majority (62%) who favor civil unions. I suspect this comment will find it's place in limbo along side Pete's.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_CO_041312.pdf
"NOM is interested in protecting marriage first and foremost" at the expense of families.
Michael C
Please ask the activist judges on your side why, at the expense of families, they declare CU/DP's unacceptable.
I think this was deleted too.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Rhode Island’s governor on Monday declared that the state will recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, giving gay couples the same rights as heterosexual ones when it comes to health insurance and a slew of other benefits.
The order signed by Gov. Lincoln Chafee in a Statehouse ceremony directs state agencies to recognize marriages performed out of state as legal and treat same-sex married couples the same as heterosexual ones.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ri-governor-signs-order-to-recognize-same-sex-marriages-performed-out-of-state/2012/05/14/gIQAL89FPU_story.html
I thought NOM embraced our first amendment right to freedom of speech, they harp on it every chance they get.
Sex "is" a reproductive act ("is not" was a typo. so sorry).
With Gov. Chafee's order, almost 20% of the country now live in a state with marriage equality.
Well done Governor!
Ummm... wait... didn't NOM used to say they were only against the "redefinition of marriage" but they supported civil unions and domestic partnerships?
I recall that was once the case.
AnonyGrl, that was NOM's initial posturing but that soon gave way when they revealed their full anti-gay stance.
Btw, I'm watching the incredible Zach Wahls on Lawrence O'Donnell. This son if two lesbians is phenomenal
*of
When are you perverts going to stop refeering to yourselves as though your proclivity turned you into a species upon yourselves?
There is no such thing as a "Gay People." You miscreants might as well go around calling yourselves Goony-ga-ga's for all the good it does.
In the world of the marriage corruption supporter words can mean whatever you want them to mean.
Randy, your name calling shows how mature the NOMers really are.
My fellow Americans,
It's not equal.
An argument from logic; no more, no less:
1+1 does not equal 3, right?
Hetero sex has the potential to make babies (it doesn't always, but there's a risk).
Homo sex will never make a baby.
Therefore, homo sex does not equal hetero sex.
Sex = reproductive act. Homo sex = mutual foreplay.
Put another way, homo sex may feel good, but with no body parts that are made for each other, you're forever stuck at 3rd base.
Since they're not equal, why should marriage be?
No ill will towards any LGBT's. Not calling for any laws to outlaw what they do in private.
But babies are the reason marriage exists. Without babies, no one would have thought up marriage. This is why interracial marriage is logical, but gay marriage is not.
Hope that clarifies it.
P.S. Those who post here as a "gay Christian" (Why just pick on Christianity? Why not "gay Muslim," "gay Hindu," etc.?), please ask yourself, what kind of God would "make" you that way but not give you alternative sex organs?
Peace, in Jesus' name, and Semper Fi.
You call yourselves "Gay."
Serious question: what is it specifically about Reciprocal Beneficiaries that makes them less dangerous than civil unions or domestic partnerships? Why can't they also be used as a stepping stone?
You call yourself, "Christian?"
Jesus loves your pervert comment.
Hi five Pete for comment #20!
We won, the Colorado legislature just killed the proposed everything but marriage bill by a 5 to 4 vote!
Marriage wins another victory!!!
My fellow Americans,
Every time I see a silly yellow equal sign on a bumper sticker my brain says "it's not equal!"
Here's why (an argument from logic; no more, no less; no names or hatin' on anyone):
Homo sex is fake sex.
Hetero sex has the potential to make babies (it doesn't always, but there's a strong chance it will).
Homo sex will never make a baby.
Therefore, homo sex does not equal hetero sex.
Sex = reproductive act. Homo sex = mutual foreplay.
Since they're not equal, why should marriage be?
Babies are the reason marriage exists. This is why interracial marriage is logical, but gay marriage is not.
Hope that clarifies it.
Peace, in Jesus' name.
>>You call yourself, "Christian?" Jesus loves your pervert comment.
Hi. It sounds like you would agree that Christians are supposed to go by the bible, right? Well, as you likely know, the bible refers to homosexual behavior as an "abomination" before God. So we can split hairs over which terminology a Christian should use in this regard, but I don't think the latter really sounds any better than the former, do you?
And please note: when the scriptures use this word, it's referring to the person while they are continuing to live in bondage to those acts. God wants all to come to repentance. In his letter to the Corinthian church, the Apostle Paul names multiple activities to which some in the church there had previously been in bondage. He then goes on to say: "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed (immersed/"baptized" - see Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21), you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." So, according to the Apostle Paul, it is possible to give up homosexual behavior through Jesus Christ, just as they did back then and just as many testify they have today.
Randy never disappoints, always showing his true homophobic colors.
Eh...civil unions don't bother me really.
Guess I'm bit more liberal on this issue than some. I'm for full protection under the law but believe Marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, private contracts between spouses that afford them all the benefits work too.
@AnonyGirl
If you do some reading you will find that NOM believes Marriage between a man and a woman should be the only legal union. However, the organization recognizes that certain regions of the country are more liberal and progressive leaning so they'll promote civil unions if it means protecting the definition of Marriage.
Talking about civil unions. I was for civil unions once for gay couples until I found how childish the gay community is and how they didnt give a damn about the voters of California including members of my family. That is when I changed my mind about civil unions for gay couples. They only have themselves to blame for the way I feel now.
Michael C, why should the law favor the gay identity group?
There are millions of families in the nonmarriage category and the vast majority are not gaycentric, contrary to your pro-gay favoritism.
Society may discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage.
There is no reasonable justification for favoring the gay subset of nonmarriage over and above the rest of the types of relationships and living arrangements that populate the nonmarriage category.
No, sexual attraction is no trump card -- not for others who are ineligible to marry. No, neither is love nor romance. Besides none of that is proposed to be made compulsory for those who'd partake of SSM or Civil Union.
Protection equality addresses vulnerable families. So-called "marriage equality" as the pro-SSM bumper sticker would have it, is pro-gay bigotry. Provision for reciprocal beneficiaries has long-existed and is well-suited to the nonmarriage category.
Authentic marriage equality is manifest in the requirement for the participation of both sexes in each marriage and in the provision for responsible procreation; this covers the man, the woman, and the children they'd potentially have together through their comprehensive interpersonal relationship as husband and wife.
Charm,
You can spin it any way you like but separate (and in this case UNEQUAL) is not equal. Society may discriminate between marriage and nonmarriage but not when it denies certain of it's citizens the rights of marriage.
Which certain citizens are specified? Evidence to back your claims, Markoh.
Hi Chairm, I do not think the law should favor gays and lesbians. I believe the law should favor commitment, stability and families. The government should endorse, protect and hold accountable those who further society by actively take care of themselves, each other and their children.
I'm not quite sure of your distinctions between marriage and non-marriage. To me, marriage is two people (in love) committing themselves to forever take care of one another and potentially raise children. I would then consider non-marriage to be everyone else.
I am, of course, not speaking in universally legal terms, but I would be interested in hearing your definition of non-marriage.
MarkOH can only answer your question, Daughter of Eve, by invoking gay identity politics.
Treating sex-segregative relationships the same as sex-integrative relationships -- under the auspices of a social institution whose core meaning is sex integration combined with provision for responsible procreation -- is pretty much an example of what MarkOH would like to imagine himself as standing against: "separate (and in this case UNEQUAL) is not equal."
Michal C,
There is a marriage category. The rest is nonmarriage is populated by other types of relationships and other kinds of domestic living arrangements.
You said: "marriage is two people (in love) committing themselves to forever take care of one another and potentially raise children".
You also said: "the law should favor commitment, stability and families."
As I said earlier, love is not a trump card for those ineligible to marry.
Certainly there is love in the prototypical sibling friendship which is platonic; likewise with many other domestic arrangements and nonmarital types of relationships -- including groups.
Commitment, also common in the nonmarriage category. Likewise the interest in stability for vulnerable families. Lifetime commitment among nonsexualized domestic scenarios is very common outside of the marriage category. By the way, the vast majority of that category is ineligible to marry. I am not referring to just that subset of man-woman couples who cohabit outside of wedlock in sexualized relationships.
Marriage integrates the sexes; it provides for responsible procreation; and as a foundational social institution it means these things, at minimum, and as such its core meaning is a coherent whole. It is not bits and pieces.
The types of relationships that populate the nonmarriage category comprise a wide spectrum that the gaycentrism of the SSM campaign marginalizes, without warrant.