The Gay Community Is So Incredibly Stupid We Really Don't Know What Else To Say Anymore
On Tuesday, walking back to Buzzquarters here in Boystown, we passed the Center on Halsted where a demonstration and march against the Prop-8 court ruling in California was just starting — one of those moments in life where we watch grown men and women behaving like kindergarteners.
Because, honestly, that’s what this “march” felt like: Field Day at the end of the school year where all the kids come out together en masse at the direction of their teachers, but none of them really know why they are there, what they are doing, what the point of any of it really is, only that they need to make as much noise as possible and wear lots of bright colors.
We turned over in our heads what we wanted to say about the Prop-8 court ruling and the LGBTQ community’s reaction to it for the last two days, and we keep coming back to the cluelessness of a grade school Field Day — because almost no one at that march had any idea what the court ruling was about, who really passed Prop-8, and why they are all complete and utter fools for voting the way they did in November 2008 but expecting different results today.
First of all, fools, the courts in California are not the enemy. Courts do not legislate, no matter what Sondra Sotomayer thinks. Courts decide, based on the rule of law, whether legislation passed by the voters or enacted by elected legislators is constitutional and valid. That’s what the court in California did: affirming the constitutionality of a measure Democrats in California passed in large numbers while electing Dr. Utopia president.
Yes, fools, DEMOCRATS, not Republicans, are to blame for Prop-8.
No matter how many times Tom Hanks and the Hollywood crowd tries to tell you differently, Dr. Utopia won California by a healthy margin in 2008. Prop-8 passed on the same day by a healthy margin. 85% of Dr. Utopia’s black supporters also voted for Prop-8, more than any other group who supported the measure. 95% of those black voters in California are Democrats.
Democrats, Democrats, Democrats.
So, we don’t know what to say about all the people at the march here in Chicago on Tuesday who were screaming and yelling about the Republicans taking aim at the LGBTQ community and generally being up to all sorts of cliched evil. When the Republicans do evil things, we certainly call them on it, and truly believe they deserve heat for whatever bad things they get up to. Condoning the religious zealots on the right certainly earns Republicans criticism (just as Democrats deserve flak for enabling the loons of the left).
But, Democrats passed Prop-8 and so Democrats need to educate themselves on the separation of powers in state and national government because courts cannot overturn legitimate and well-crafted legislation that Democrats voted for and passed just a few months ago.
So, this is the first reason the “March on Halsted” this Tuesday was farcical.
The next broken record we’ll play this morning is the old chestnut “You will never win if you keep using the word marriage, dummies”. This is one of our least favorite of all our many repetitions – mainly because we truly do realize that absolutely no one in the LGBTQ community will ever listen to common sense and practicality on this. We know that rebranding “gay marriage” as “equal partner rights” or “spousal equality” or “cromulence” would all solve the problem at hand. It’s the word “marriage” that people object to — reasonable, rational, normal, non-hateful people — who, for whatever reason, get stuck on the word “marriage” and never move forward. They don’t want people to suffer financially. They don’t want two people to not be able to buy a house together if they want. They don’t really want to pry into anyone’s lives. But they just have a knee-jerk reaction to the word “marriage”.
It’s like when, a few years ago, the fruit companies selling “prunes” realized they had a branding problem and started packaging their product as “dried plums” (or at Whole Foods and other more fanciful places, “sun-kissed plums” or “sun-loved plums”). People who shouted YUK! at the thought of PRUNES happily snatched up the DRIED PLUMS — because they are intensely stupid and never realized they were hung up on a word. Loved the dried plums and crammed as many into their pieholes as they could, but hated, hated, hated those prunes.
People, and we’re talking mainly to the LGBTQ community here, a demographic that includes many marketing execs, graphic designers, and all manner of consultants of various stripes and abilities, why on Earth is an entire “movement” ignoring the simple fact that over 100 years of solid consumer marketing data proves that BRAND IDENTITY MATTERS, in America in particular.
Companies rise and fall on the strength of their brands. Billions are spent a year tweaking copy in the seemingly most miniscule and relatively unimportant marketing materials because of the simple fact that WORDS MATTER to people more than the actual products themselves.
Couching financial and spousal equality in terms of “marriage” is as stupid as trying to get a pack of yuppies at a bar to snack on a big bowl of something they associate with geriatrics and the grandparents they never want to visit down in Boca. But stick some “healthy, sun-kissed plums” in expensive Japanese bento, jack up the price by half, and tell these fools there’s a very limited supply and not everyone can have them, and you’ll lose a finger or two if you don’t get away from those plums fast enough.
It is all about the marketing, but the LGBTQ community refuses to see that.
Maybe there are conspiracies involved here — finally resolving the “gay marriage” issue will put a lot of people out of work, like the people who organized this “spontaneous demonstration” that was professionally coreographed, complete with well-spaced cheerleaders, people with bullhorns, and enough professionally-made signs for anyone who would carry one. There is a whole cottage industry comprised of people who keep the “gay marriage” battle running — an industry on both sides of the aisle, actually.
These people do not want peace. Peace is bad for business. Sensible marketing and an approach that will actually resolve the matter once and for all is bad for business. Screaming and yelling and ignoring basic facts while berating Republicans for no good reason is what this “movement” is all about.
If they really and truly wanted “marriage equality” now, they’d rebrand what they are asking for so people wouldn’t get hung up on the word “marriage”. If what you are asking for is equal financial, legal, and other couples’ rights, ask for those, in a way that gets your argument across rationally without needlessly flaring up emotion against you.
If it worked for prunes, it can work for you too.
© 2009, HillBuzz. All rights reserved.
Also Recommended:
- In Nancy Pelosi's defense, she IS incredibly stupid and doesn't understand much of what people tell her
- Dinner Conversation Tonight: Do Either of the Political Parties Exist Anymore?
- LGBT Community Endorsements in Pennsylvania
- We Will Not Be Distracted Anymore
- Hopium: Not Just For Porcupines Anymore
Latest Buzz:
Help HillBuzz by Shopping Amazon
"Bee" Advised!
I look forward to your comments. Please follow these simple guidelines:
- Please do not complain about your comment not yet showing up
- Stay on topic of the article ("This is OT, but..." = bad!)
- I will STING if you troll, spam, bait, swear or attack someone
Maybe I’m paranoid, but my understanding is that the use of the word “marriage” was calculated & deliberate. People realize that “marriage”, in most religions, is considered a sacrament. Legislating gay “marriage” versus “civil unions” is part of the secularists agenda for the US to emulate Canada & establish a semi-permeable wall between church & state where the state can regulate the churches, their sacraments, scriptures, sermons, etc etc to fit various groups political agendas….but, again, I might be engaging in hyperbole.
Maybe. My fear was that once gay marriage was permitted, someone would show up to a (Catholic, Luthern, LDS, Baptist) church and demand a marriage ceremony. And when they got turned away, they’d sue for discrimination or attempt to get the tax-exempt status change or the like.
Of course, I doubt they’d try that with at a mosque.
Trust me. No Gay person will end up asking for a marriage ceremony at a Catholic, Lutheran, LDS or Baptist church
unless they are serously masochistic.
Oh we will have gay marriage in the Novus Ordo Catholic Church soon enough.
Churches can set their own guidelines for who they marry. My in-laws are Catholic and wanted us to marry in a Catholic church. The church said no because I wasn’t Catholic. Actually neither of us had the slightest interest in religion at the time so no church should have felt required to marry us.
Some churches require the couple to not only be members but to go through classes or counseling first. Perhaps the outcome will be for churches and church members to take unions in the presence of God more seriously.
Besides, there are churches that would perform same-sex marriages. They already do commitment ceremonies.
Yes, churches can and will be sued for not performing marriages. That’s the whole point and why they insist on “marriage.” It’s not just another word. It’s has special rights and meanings that will allow them to go after churches everywhere (except muslims will get a pass).
The ACLU will engage in legal blackmail to go after every religious person or organization that refuses to perform or honor a gay marriage. Activists will sue to stop all public funds going to churches that refuse to perform gay marriages. They will also sue to have churches that don’t perform gay marriages banned from all public property including universities, parks, etc. They will use the same argument that the ivy leagues used to ban the military from their campuses i.e. DADT is discriminatory and the university has the right to ban all discriminatory organizations. The ACLU will bleed the churches for years.
I am old enough to remember the final days of segregation. Many of these same arguments were raised, such as churches will be forced to marry interracial couples. That seemed to be the issue that scared white churches.
What happened, at least in the South is that majority black churches remain majority black churches and have formed their own identity. It is a shame that we continue to worship separately, but having sat in a church as a child and listened to the deacons ranting about how they would never allow integration, I understand how this came about.
A couple of weeks ago we went to the funeral at a church that was 100 percent black. Us and only a couple of other white guys from work were the only white people in the overcrowded sanctuary. The man who died a few days after retiring, had worked in a racially mixed office. Probably majority white. His funeral reminded us that church segregation continues to this day.
Now I see the same thing happening with gay churches. They are establishing their own presence and their own place in their communities.
Having witnessed this pattern twice in my lifetime, I am far more bothered by the ease with which we divide ourselves as Christians than the possibility that some will use this as a way to destroy the church.
FLMOM:
Thank you for recognizing that the argument about religions being “sued” is a total deception conjured up to scare folks who are mostly ignorant on this subject.
The catholic church routinely denies their “sacrament” of marriage to people who they disqualify due to their doctrinal religious restrictions. Who’s suing them? NO ONE!!!
I don’t know anyone in the gay community who wants religious marriage in a church that doesn’t welcome them. For the record their are churches that do and will welcome gay couples and will perform gay marriage. I personally don’t want religious marriage or religion period, but that’s me!!
“Of course, I doubt they’d try that with at a mosque.”
Good one. Now there’s something to protest about….
They should try that at a mosque…..it is the most medieval & restrictive and repressive of all the world’s antique religions. Time to expose the hypocrisy.
Yeah, in Iran where the Islamic Theocracy rules, executing gays and lesbians is codified in the law.
By some estimates there were 200 g/l people executed in Iran in 2008.
I think a mosque would be the ideal place to demonstrate.
There is already the regulation of church through the tax code.
I know. Churches are held accountable for how they spend every cent.
If a church opens a day care center or school, they have to follow the same rules as other schools.
If a church offers food distribution programs and receives commodities or money from the government they have to follow strict rules.
Churches should realize that it is in their own best interest to defend separation of church and state. The more the lines are blurred, the more power they give the state.
Any one see this and/or have thoughts on it?
http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/05/26/obama-goes-a-courting/
These gay community “leaders” are complicit in this ugly episode because when it was time to stand up for their community and against Barack Obama these “leaders” remained silent.
We wrote about the complicity of gay community “leaders” in The Shame Of The Democratic Left, Part III:
The Democratic Left, and yes, Gay-American leaders, threw Gay-Americans under the bus this past year in order to worship at the unworthy Barack Obama’s altar. Now the Democratic Left and Gay-American leaders are whining that Obama has stabbed them in the back.
Not once during the primaries nor during the general election did these leaders hold Obama to account. Not once did these leaders threaten to withhold votes – the only language political thugs like Obama understand. Now they are whining.
Barack Obama has indeed stabbed Gay-Americans in the back. Barack Obama can’t be trusted… by friend nor foe… Obama simply can’t be trusted. But the very late protests by the Democratic Left are whines from hypocrites.
One of the issues on which we prominently opposed Obama was the issue of gay rights. We prophetically wrote:
Gay-Americans must realize that Obama has gay-bashed in the past. If it comes down to getting votes from evangelical voters, socially conservative African-Americans or any constitutency group – Obama will betray Gay-Americans:
As I understand it civil unions are fine. It is only the word ‘marriage’ that is at issue.
I can’t recall where I heard this, but it has been suggested that all California needs to do is stop using the word ‘marriage’.
I suspect this is what will happen.
This would make ‘marriage’ strictly a religious term. After all, churches can call a union within the church whatever they please.
If this happens and the word marriage is no longer used for secular unions, but only by churches, AND it is still protested by gay rights groups, they will lose the support of people like me.
I fully support equal rights for everybody.
But separation of church and state means that churches have a right to call ceremonies within their sanctuaries whatever they please.
I agree, FLMom, but will the gay community accept that? Many on BOTH sides of the argument, it seems, have dug their heels into the word “marriage” and refused to compromise or accept anything less.
Also, the gay community and their supporters need to find a more pragmatic argument. Watching videos of the rally in CA yesterday, everyone was getting all sappy and whining, “But, we’re in loooooooove. Let’s all just looooove each other! Its all about looooooove!! All ya need is looooove!!” Actually, you need a more concrete defense. I’d stick with the civil rights and equality under the law bits.
I support equal protection and rights for gay citizens but, like Hillbuzz pointed, its frustrating when they go about it all the wrong ways.
FLMOM:
You are right some people treat the word marriage like it is some holy word, even while they can’t resist defiling themselves. I wonder why the religio nutz aren’t screaming their brains out when murderers, or child, or drug dealers, or gang bangers, or child molesters, or rapists, or people who’ve already been married a dozen times get “married” since it’s such a holy word? And in case those who protesth haven’t noticed, the word marriage is working just fine in the states of CT, IOWA, MA, ME, NH, VT and the District of Columbia, where gays & lesbians have access to the civil contract of Marriage. The sky is still where it’s supposed to be and the world has not ended, even though teh gay are getting married there.
The truth is most of us are not interested in Religious Marriage, we seek Civil Marriage. Now if states want to quit calling it marriage and then give everyone, regardless of orientation, access to the same legal contract, it’s the states prerogative,
but until then the vast majority of gay people seek parity in civil law. And while the Hillbuzz guys, who I’ve always admired greatly, are against gay marriage, which is absolutely their right, they’re definitely in the minority within the gay community. Wow, they are a minority within a minority.
The fact is, we will have gay marriage and it will be sooner rather than later.
And thanks Hillbuzz for the great pictures of the march. They are beautiful
Then the churches need to come up with another word for it if the “Sacrament of Marriage” isn’t distinctive enough for them.
Thousands of jurisdictions in this country issue marriage licenses and there is no requirement that the marriage occur in a church. The hetero couple married by a justice of the peace or at city hall or by a minister on the beach aren’t married? They don’t check the married box on their tax returns? They have civil unions? No, they don’t. Marriage is a civil institution and should be available to all citizens. Gay people pay taxes to keep the bureaucracy running same as straight people. Maybe, strategically, some think it better not to call it marriage but it is and we wouldn’t have to play word games if the religious would get over themselves and stop the turf war.
The ruling in California came down to the word marriage. It sounds as though they ruled that so long as the state dropped the word marriage, all would be fine. All civil ceremonies regardless of orientation would be called civil unions or whatever word they chose to use. Sounds like anything but the word marriage would be acceptable.
What I’m saying is that separation of church and state should mean that while the state can use whatever other-than-marriage word it wants, they should have no right to tell the churches what to call their ceremonies. Again, understanding that some churches would perform same-sex marriages. I don’t see how the state should have the right to tell the churches what they can call their ceremonies.
To me it is a separation of church and state issue. I support gay marriage. I support any life choice for any couple that leads to a more meaningful and lasting relationship.
Even if the state drops the word marriage from their documents, I assume most people would still refer to their union as marriage.
I have a gay friend who has been with his partner for twenty years. Without giving it a second thought I refer to his partner’s dad as his father-in-law.
No matter what the official documents say I think we tend to use the more familiar words.
Our first wedding ceremony was a civil ceremony. I have no idea what the paperwork said. It would not have mattered. To us, that was the real ceremony. The one in the church to make the families happy was a complete farce.
And we’re coming up on 28 in a couple of weeks.
Actually, my understanding is that the California case came down to a different issue. They ruled that because “the people”, in a vote, voted against gay marriage, that the legislature couldn’t pass a law overriding what the voters decided in the proposition.
California is different than many states, in that we can make laws by proposition. So I think the court was saying that the approval for gay marriage would have to come in the form of a proposition that more people vote for than against.
You’re right that the civil documents are what make the marriage. Someone could get “married” in a church, but if they didn’t have the civil documents, it wouldn’t be legal. The civil marriage is the actual marriage, the religious part is something extra that some choose to add on.
Good point. If the simple change was made on all government documents of the word “marriage” to “union” were to occur and partners right were applied to these unions, I think we’d have agreement. Is there something that is missing here or is it this simple? The primary issue might be establishing what constitutes a union (i.e. the union of two people).
Yes, the facts are what they are. And yet nobody seems able to engage with the facts in a real way.
So, I have a relative who is schizophrenic. In average conversations suddenly she will introduce profoundly nutty hallucinatory statements and ideas that are utterly at odds with the obvious reality. She has always been that way, but at least it is a disease with a name. I know from experience that no amount of arguing of demonstrating can bring reason through the walls of her illness. The door is closed. It is for me to accept and let it go.
But, the gay community does not have the excuse of serious chronic incurable illness to explain away why they will not come to grips with the obvious facts that democrat voters in a solidly democrat state are responsible for Prop 8.
That’s not what the post election statistics show, those stats demonstrate that only 30% of those who identified as Democrat supported Prop 8. Do I blame the democrats for rolling over and playing dead on Prop 8 when it was important for them to speak out strongly against prop 8, HELL YEAH, but face it, The repugs supported it in droves.
Barack, as usual, was a no-show on Prop 8 resistance, but I’m one of those gay people who saw through him and cast a protest vote for the republican candidate whose position on gay marriage was essentially no different than Barack’s. Still, many gay people were snookered into a Barack vote with the promise to repeal DOMA and to do away with DADT. That’s part of what the protests are about, the gay community feels betrayed, especially since Barack still hasn’t addressed this issue. Frankly I’m glad this has played out the way it has because it has pulled the veil from Barack Obama and has removed the blinders from the eyes of many in the LGBTQ community. Sometimes what you don’t want to happen ends up being the best thing for you. Maybe that’s the case with the clusterfuck “yes we do, but no we don’t” ruling by the California SC.
I agree Hillbuzz. I live in Los Angeles and had many coworkers go to the march and I told them they needed to stop using the word “marriage” and I got blank stares. It’s as if I was speaking another language.
I explained most people’s objection was “marriage” and keeping it between a man and woman, a foundation of our society. Use a different word like civil unions with all the rights as marriage and you will have more support.
I can’t stop laughing at the dried plums reference. I noticed them last year, and thought to myself, “aren’t those prunes?”
That’s the way to sell Prunes!
Didn’t the Dimocrat Party sell us a lovely bunch of PRUNES in 2008!!??
lol
Hillbuzz,
One of the things I most admire about this site is the consistent ruthless warrior-like honesty about everyone and everything.
Your fearlessness in critisizing those with whom you share many other beleifs makes you guys stars.
This same ‘blind-justice’ style frankness is what keeps me checking back day after day.
Bravo.
I love the prune analogy too. Giggle.
But Gay Dems are blind voters. Most would vote for ET if he has a D after his name or even the devil himself.
Most people just vote for the smile. Hart nearly won for his smile.
Voting for Obama was voting against their own best interest. He’s more of a threat than Anita Bryant or Phyllis Shaffley EVER was.
I would say that MOST people voted against their own best interest when they voted for BO, not just SOME gays (they didn’t all vote for him).
So many dems, independents, and yes, even republicans who crossed over, were blind voters.
Yup, I like dried plums, hate prunes. There is no universal reason to memories and emotion. You guys are spot on in your analysis. Good luck with that, though. People are occasionally frustratingly stupid. Sorry if I’ve insulted anyone, well, oops, everyone, but at least I include myself at the top of the list.
This is so awful it’s laughable. The whining has just begun. It’s getting good now. Check out the Rachael Maddow video on No quarter. This is a must see. She is about to soil her undies over the way the pretendident talks out of both side of his mouth and upstaging the constitution the way he does all the while using words like “upholding the rule of law” and the video of Biden where his borrowed Oblahma’s teleprompter fell down……
“Obama simply can’t be trusted. But the very late protests by the Democratic Left are whines from hypocrites.” ~ quote from Hillary is 44 site.
Speaking of Hillary, if they had let her KEEP her primary win, Prop 8 would have never passed. Stupid is as stupid does.
We will serve no fine whines before their time!
I agree and disagree at the same time. I was at the march and marched alongside my fellow gays. I do agree alot of fools and special interests left loony bins were there. Some woman jumped in front of me frantically screaming about Karl Rove and how she is going to protest his event that is coming up in chicago. How she is going to take down the bush admin for war crimes.. all i can think is umm yawn thats old news and really all money and energy should be going to fixing the country and putting us on the right track not going after those from the last admin. Plus this is a GAY march protesting prop 8 not all theat crazed left bullshit I’m so tired of. I don’t blame the courts i blame the democrats and the voters. I still do think prop 8 is hateful anti american anti the 14th amendment and DADT is just as vile and de-humanizing
Back to the word i once believed it is just a word. You know what i don’t want a separate water fountain called civil union. I want the same rights every american has because thats what America is.I want the same rights as ever race creed and sex. I demand it actually and i rather fight harder and wait longer to get the same as everyone else. then a watered down no where near the same rights as marriage bull shit policy.
I also I’m so sick of everyone blaming everything on the republicans. I am of neither party affililation i believe in candidates not parties. I saw one of the overly liberal bumpers where every sticker is about saving some animal, or insect or equality and i saw a save America sticker: take down the republicans. Really I’m so sure every problem you face is because of republicans. get a clue idiot your party as brain washed you and your a walking zombie. To the point that when dems harm you…who do you blame the republicans and the conservatives. When is the far left going to realize there sound as stupid if not more that the far right.
save america: take down the left and the right and start driving down the middle.
screw extremes: im a moderate
well said.
I’m going to use my rights to advocate for the marriage between me and my sister.
You think that’s a way to make a point? Why don’t you marry your dog, at least you’d be married to your intellectual equal. I hate like hell to tear you dog down like that.
Nice to see you here, Carolyn.
“”Courts do not legislate, no matter what Sondra Sotomayer thinks. Courts decide, based on the rule of law, whether legislation passed by the voters or enacted by elected legislators is constitutional and valid.”"
PERFECTLY SAID! We agree on more and more than I would have ever thought.
Obama’s goal was to have those minorities on stock and standing by to bring them out at any opportunity when his numbers start to come down. He has a couple of more liklable surprises when his numbers start coming back down in months from now.
If people in the Golden State feel this issue should be re-adressed, they should change peoples attitudes, the Courts have to uphold the will of the people
Actually the court has an obligation to defend the rights of it’s states citizens. I hate to say but California SC decision was a giant clusterfuck. It basically boiled down to we’re upholding prop 8, but we’re going to let the folks who got married, before the vote, stay married. The CA SC judges screwed up royally and it will be overturned. Hide and watch.
This should have never become a referendum. People should never be allowed to vote on the rights of a minority. PERIOD. It’s immoral and un-american. Thank god white southerners didn’t get to vote on rescinding Jim Crow and on mandating integregation.
Last time I checked, this is still the United States of America and we do STILL have a Constitution, so Listen up:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
oh yeah because we’re REALLY observing the Constitution right now huh? sorry carolyn…go tell it to the judge…oh yeah..it’s also interesting to me that you capitalized every proper word in your post except for God…hmmm
MIA: What’s the matter, don’t you have a better comeback than pretending as if we don’t have a constituion that is the foundation of the law of the land? And why do you care if I capitalize the word god. Is there a law requiring that I do so? Do you think god is going to come and get me if I don’t capitalize in the manner you find acceptable? You really do think you have a right to tell others how to live, don’t you?
Here ya go Mia, god, god, god!!!!
And in case you haven’t noticed the civil contract of marriage is just that, A CIVIL CONTRACT and just as the laws of the land were changed to allow interracial marriage the LAW WILL be changed to allow gays to marry the person they LOVE, not the person YOU think has the proper physical qualifications. IT’S GONNA HAPPEN!!!
We are going to tell it to the judge and we will win this legal battle.
As for my spelling of god, why do you care? Is there some law that I’m unaware of that says I should capitalize to satisfy your religious beliefs. My belief system informs me that god, has been co-opted by so many nuts in defense of their hatreds and phobias that he/she/it is no longer a proper noun in our culture. Don’t like it, sue me!!!
Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. It is licensed just like any other privilege, and in that gays and straights have the same freedom … to marry someone of the opposite gender. There is no discrimination in that.
You want letter of the law, there it is.
Now … about CA, don’t they have full civil partnership rights? I know gay couples are allowed to adopt and I believe they have full partnership rights there. Not all states do, but HB is right, if the word “marriage” were dropped from the entire situation, every state in the union could then be free to vote on or even assign partnership rights. Arguing over terminology is not beneficial and won’t get anyone the rights they deserve.
Seriously, think about it …. if gay marriage legislation won’t pass in California, the most liberal state in our country, where would it pass? All the other states which allow it have been forced into through judicial decree.
A privilege reserved for those who believe as you believe? Bullshit!!! It’s a contract that confers thousands of benefits and the heterosexual community has determined that only it has the right to that contract. Once upon a time whites decided that blacks couldn’t go to school with whites, or urinate in white bathrooms, or drink from white water fountains, or sit in the front seats of a bus because only the privileged whites could do those things.
And quit pretending like marriage is some sacred union that my presence will defile.
I’ll believe marriage is a privilege as soon as convicted murderers, behind prison walls, can’t marry their penpal.
I’ll believe marriage is a privilege as soon as convicted child molesters are banned from marriage.
I’ll believe marriage is a privilege as soon heterosexuals figure out how to honor their own marriage contracts.
Privilege my ass!! It’s a civil contract, nothing more, nothing less.
Exactly Carolyn KB. Civil Rights are not subject to vote; that’s the whole point. And, separate but equal makes me vomit in my mouth.
Let me make this perfectly clear. IF GAYS CAN MARRY, IT WILL NOT AFFECT CHURCHES. THEY DECIDE WHO THEY MARRY. I can’t marry in the Catholic church, because my husband is divorced. That’s discrimination, but churches are private entities that are allowed to discriminate. The state is not allowed to discriminate. Churches are allowed and do it every second of every day. The ACLU will not sue churches; as there are no grounds. Is that perfectly clear?
And, again, subjecting civil rights to a vote is crazy. The south would still have Jim Crow if it were subject to a vote.
currently in Canada, there are lawsuits against the church for not wanting to mary gay couples. It will happen here, don’t believe it won’t.
You will then open yourself up for lawsuits from polygamists, which is happening in Canada.
Please look at the long term consequences on society and its foundations, not your own narrow self interest.
When Polygamy is in play it will alter society especialy for women. Wanna see how far as a society we can fall? Keep looking down that narrow rabbit hole.
What’s wrong with civil unions and all the rights attached that marriage affords? Or is it just a need to be accepted?
Very realistic article. I have a lot of black friends, and they are very against gay marriage, but for gay rights. If there was a way to give gays equal rights and not call it gay marriage everyone would be for it. What happened to civil unions?
Anyway, in ancient times, wasn’t marriage created in the church in the first place to prevent gay unions, and other types of couplings people were getting into? The church is there to regulate behavior. If that seems unpleasant than people should not ask for a church marriage.
there’s a great interview with Sarah taking questions from Alaskans on C4P…:)
I feel your pain. All day long, I’m listening to how Black firefighters can’t be expected to read manuals and remember stuff. Fools. The dyslexic guy passed! How about this argument- you failed because you’re stupid! The only thing stupider is when Black people argued that having a swimming requirement for the Coast Guard was racist because Black people can’t swim.
Hillbuzz, you are looking for a fair solution and so you don’t think like the crazy activists. I, having grown up with lunatics, understand how they think. As Spock said, “insanity does not have reason but it may have a goal.” In California, civil unions gave gay partners everything but the word marriage. This is the position you advocate but the gay activists rejected it and sued anyway. They are not interested in gay rights but they do want a weapon they can use against religious people and organizations. You can’t sue a church for refusing to perform a civil union. But, churches will be sued for refusing to perform marriages. The ACLU will use legal blackmail to threaten lawsuits and huge legal fees for every person or church who refuses to fall in line with their agenda. Already, they have sued and forced the Catholic church to close down an adoption agency that specialized in disabled children, a church for refusing to rent out its wedding hall to gay couples, eHarmony for not having a gay section of their Christian dating service, and a photographer for turning down a job for a gay ceremony. If they ever succeed in getting gay marriage, they will immediately use it to stop all public funds from going to churches who refuse to perform gay marriages including all social services, hospitals, schools and adoption agencies run by churches; they will move for churches to be banned from all public property including k-12 schools, universities, and state/national parks that hold boy scout jamborees, etc. Of course, going after the tax-exempt status of churches is the brass wing. Their goal is to destroy or bankrupt as many religious organizations as possible and push them from the public square. Gay rights are incidental to their main agenda. That is why they push for the word marriage and will never settle for civil unions or whatever else you call it.
Well said.
If Tim Geithner was confirmed and he is a tax cheat criminal, Sotomayor will be confirmed.
No one would try? Uhh.. in Canada, Europe, including the Scandinavian countries they are trying to force churches to change their beliefs, as well as to be forced to “marry” GLBTQ (et al) people. In several European and Scandinavian countries, there are law suits in progress seeking to do just that.
In Massachusetts, after gay marriage was legalized, gay people deliberately targeted Catholic Charities adoption agency, despite the fact that there are many adoption agencies across the state that would have worked with them, screaming discrimination. It was part of an orchestrated attack, no one is deceived. The GLBTQ movement seeks to redefine “Christian” to mean “homophobic”, “love” to mean “sex”, and so on. Those claiming they seek, “tolerance” have shown themselves to be very intolerant.
After the big flap after Prop 8 passed, Elton John was quoted as saying he didn’t understand why US GLBTQ groups were so fixated on appropriating the word marriage, when the problem was a lack of federal recognition of civil unions. He went on to say that in the UK they have civil unions, don’t care about the word marriage, and they have federal recognition and no problems. He recognized that it was about attacking religion, and not in any way seeking to advance civil rights.
Underming the right to be free from religious persecution and government control over religion establishes a dangerous precedent, it also opens the door to religious control of government. They might want to paint Christians as intolerant, how would they feel if Islamacists had control over government? But then again, the extremists in the GLBTQ movement don’t tend to think much beyond their hatred for others.
I’d recommend they read an article by gay journalist, Johann Hari, that was published in the very left wing Huffington Post, “The Strange, Strange Story of Gay Fascism”, last October, it’s very apropos.
Very well said. When you point out the fact that gay activists have been suing churches for years, they accuse you of being paranoid and using scare tactics. I would add the Freedom of Choice Act to your examples. Dr. Utopia says he supports FOCA and would sign it as president. FOCA would repeal the religious exemptions for abortions and force Christian doctors and nurses to perform abortions or quit. (BTW, these are the same types of exemptions that gay activists claim would be in any future legislation to protect churches from having to perform gay marriages. Right, right.) The Catholic Church pushed back against BO and said that if FOCA was enacted they would be forced to shut down maternity wards and hospitals so that Christians would not be compelled to perform abortions in Catholic Hospitals that serve millions of people, especially in poor areas. (Either outcome would be a huge win for the ACLU types because either Christians would be forced to perform abortions or shut down the hospitals.) So in the end, the gay marriage activists would have us believe that the Dear Leader actively supports legislation that would force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions BUT no gay activists would EVER consider suing a church to force it to perform gay marriages or ban Christians from college campuses. Hmmmm….
Again you don’t know what you’re talking about. There has been 1 case involving a gay couple in NJ who wanted to rent a Pavillion on church ground for their wedding. The church rented the pavillion out to the general public for public ceremonies but refused to rent it to the gay couple for their wedding. This case had nothing to do with the church performing a gay marriage. It had to do with church management owning a tax exempt private property which it rented out for non-church functions to the general public and refusing to rent it to 2 gay people.
Again you are fear mongering because that’s the only thing you have.
Now individual church members petition their churches all the time to change tradition, custom or beliefs. A good example would be the petition of women to become priests in the catholic church, or the petition of individuals to have the churches drop their restrictions on divorce. Churches are no different than any other institution when it comes to the demands of it’s members.
Now, if you want to just go ahead an nail a sign to the door of your church “NO GAYS ALLOWED” then go ahead and do it, because that’s essentially what you’re saying anyway. BE AFRAID OF THE GAY, BE VERY, VERY AFRAID.
And Hillbuzz, doesn’t the homophobia of some of your regulars bother you?
Carolyn, Here in New Mexico a photographer was sued and lost because she would not shoot photos of a same-sex ceremony. Our first amendement rights are slowly being taken away. I am sure there are thousands of photographers who would have no problem to shoot that ceremony but the Christian photographer was targeted.
We have given many examples which you ignore. The Catholic adoption story is an excellent example of the ACLU / gay activists agenda. In Boston, there were adoption agencies that allowed gay adoptions, but Catholic Charities did not because it was against their religious beliefs. Catholic Charities focused on hard to place disabled kids and yet they were specifically targeted by the gay activists. I am sure that there were people like you assuring everyone that the gay activists had no intention of suing the Catholic church and would never, never force a church to go against its religious beliefs. You are wrong. The church was sued. Faced with the choice of years of litigation (the ACLU bleeding the church dry) or shutting its doors (withdraw from the public arena), the church shut down its adoption agency. A win for the ACLU and gay activists, a loss for disabled children who need homes. Here’s a link to one of many articles about the story.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/
Instead of addressing our arguments, you persist in name-calling.
“And Hillbuzz, doesn’t the homophobia of some of your regulars bother you?”
The only proper response to that comment is the little boy yelling RAACISTS or hot men in their underwear pix. Hillbuzz, and its readers, reject the knee-jerk name-calling and bigotry favored by the Obots.
RedneckHillbilly:
First, I responded to the question of gay marriage, Period. There will never be a civil suit brought by any couple to force a religion to marry them. It will not happen. Religions have ALWAYS decided who meets their specific criteria for marriage. Example, the catholic church will not perform a religious ceremony for unbaptized people, or divorcees. The only acceptance of divorcee marriage by the catholic church is to have your previous marriage annuled by the vatican.
As for people suing for the right to adopt, if Catholic Charities is taking public money then they are getting the tax dollars of gays and lesbians and they are leaving themselves WIDE OPEN to a lawsuit because what they’re saying is my sexual orientation proves I can’t be a good parent even though my tax dollars are helping to fund their services. You can’t take my tax dollars then tell me I can’t eat in your soup kitchen because I’m gay, or work in your charity office because I’m gay or use your adoption services because I’m gay. If any church wants those services cut off to gays and lesbians then they need to refrain from taking tax dollars, period.
As for the catholic charities story, Please provide a link so I can read the ENTIRE story and not just your version of the bad, dangerous gay folks trying to force poor catholic charities to surrender innocent children, or else.
And frankly THERE IS A TON OF HOMOPHOBIA HERE, I don’t know whether that fits you or not, you decide.
And as I think about this more, even if Catholic charities doesn’t receive tax dollars why should they deny adoption to a stable gay couple who could provide a warm, loving, nurturing environment for a child? Do you think gay couples are somehow less able to parent and love and care for children than heterosexuals? If you believe that then perhaps you should provide something to PROVE that a gay couple can’t provide the level of competence, love, caring, compassion and love required to raise a child that a straight couple can provide. Of course we know the catholic church, even as it has provided shelter to pedophiles, expresses it’s homophobia at every possible opportunity. What a load of Hypocritical BS.
So, let me see if I understand you. A catholic charity in the adoption business should be allowed to turn down qualified people who are good citizens and good people simply because they don’t like their sexual orientation? Is that what you’re saying?
And you’re not homophobic?
And FYI, catholic hospitals have been in and out of the baby business ever since Roe V. Wade, nothing new there.
And Another FYI, do you know catholic hospitals will not cover contraception medications in the employee
prescription drug plan?
How stupid is that?????
And don’t try to tell me anything about catholicism because I was born a catholic and practiced for nearly 40 years before I left in disgust over their treatment of women and their coverup of child abuse, not to mention their refusal to support the use of condoms in Africa where AIDS/HIV is rampant and killing, men, women and children.
I read the story from your link and remembered it. Perhaps I should remind you that denying people access to a service that the church provides (with the assistance of public funds)because the church dislikes their sexual orientation is NOT on a par with denying a religious ceremony or membership. Catholic charities allow people to adopt children who do not meet their religious standards all the time. Do you think that everyone who adopts from catholic charities adheres to all of the tenets and laws, dogmas and doctrines of the catholic church? Obviously not, so in essence the catholic church is cherry picking.
And FYI—–Gay marriage is legal in MA.
Buffy:
Why would a photographer refuse to photograph a wedding or any event that is legal? Why would any merchant or entrepreneur who provides services to the public for profit deny that service to any person? If the photographer can deny his services because he just doesn’t like gay people
then why not the Dept. store or Restaurants and Banks and Doctors and Dentists and Hospitals? Why don’t you just support the right of those businesses to deny their services to any law abiding, tax paying citizens because they don’t like their skin color, or their religion, or their gender, or their marital status, or their hair color, or their shoe size.
Seriously, why don’t all of the merchants who think gay people are unworthy of receiving goods and services just put signs in their windows that say “NO GAYS WELCOME HERE”. Do you support that? If so why don’t you just come out and say it because that’s exactly what you’re advocating.
Why does the military allow contentious objection? Why should a photographer or any other profession no be allowed the same freedoms? Sounds like you have a lot of disdain and hate for Christians or basically anyone who disagrees with you. This is where the dangers of the same-sex ‘marriage” debate goes. Why can’t you just live and let live. If a photographer or Catholic Adoption agency does not want to do something FINE. Go somewhere else. You are just trying to get legitimacy from people who don’t agree with you. Why don’t you start your own same-sex adoption agency and let others operate the way they wish. The biggest discriminator against same-sex marriage and parents isn’t the Church but biology.
Buffy:
I love your version of christianity, it’s so loving, kind and generous. So, Christ-like?
This is the United States of America, if you own a business you cannot deny your services to people based on your personal prejudices.
I don’t care if you approve of my sexual orientation or not, I don’t approve or your attempt to exclude me from society, but if you came into my place of business I would sell you my goods or services.
I don’t want to belong to your religion or for that matter any religion that doesn’t want me, but I am entitled, as a United States citizen to the goods and services of merchants of for profit merchants or any organization that is partially funded by tax dollars.
So I ask you Buffy, Do you think merchants should put up signs saying “WE DO NOT SERVE GAYS OR LESBIANS IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT” because that’s what you’re advocating with your defense of the photographer. Why don’t you just take it all the way and say gays and lesbians aren’t entitled to goods and services by anyone unless it’s another gay or lesbian.
And while you’re discriminating against gays in goods and services, why not go after all those folks who break the commandments or don’t follow all the church laws and doctrines. You could just put out a sign that says “NO PEOPLE ALLOWED TO BUY GOODS AND SERVICES AT THIS ESTABLISHMENT WHO I DON’T LIKE AND/OR AGREE WITH” That should be a really profitable business.
And if you want to read hatred, read your last post to me.
And Buffy, you’re not arguing against gay marriage and you’re certainly not arguing for all christian, you’re arguing against gays and lesbians PERIOD!!!!! You think that merchants who do not like gays or lesbians should be able to deny services for no other reason than personal prejudice. That’s your bottom line.
And biology has nothing to do with marriage. I’ve known people who were married and never had sex, I’ve known 80 year old people who married who couldn’t procreate. I’ve known people who got married to immunity from deportation to another person. I’ve known people who married for money. I’ve known people who married for spite. Please spare me the biology argument, that argument argues against the authors of this blog that you’re so fond of.
Why can’t you just say it, you believe that merchants should be able to deny services to gays and lesbians simply because you dislike or disagree with our orientation. That’s really your position. Your attempt at an analogy with a conscientious objector is ridiculous.
Of course you know the guys who run this blog are gay, so do you think a merchant has the right or the moral prerogative or even the moral obligation to deny them services or goods because they dislike or disagree with or feel religious angst toward their sexual orientation? That is what you’re saying with your argument in support of the photographer. The photographer isn’t a religion, she is a merchant providing photography services to the PUBLIC, and the couple in question weren’t getting married, gay marriage isn’t legal in NM, so it couldn’t have been anything more than a commitment service. Wow, that’s sounds like a serious threat to christianity. I wonder of the photographer makes sure all of her clients are in total compliance with her religious beliefs? What a bunch of hooey!!
Buffy writes: “The biggest discriminator against same-sex marriage and parents isn’t the Church but biology.”
Buffy: In case you didn’t know, gay people have children too. Some through artificial insemination, some conceived through woman/man sex, some through adoption. There is no sociological evidence that gay people aren’t as good at parenting as heterosexuals, none. In fact I’ve raised 4 children, they’re all heterosexual, I have 8 grandchildren and 5 great grandchildren. My partner and I are such freaks, don’t you think?
The only thing that my life offends is your faux christian sensibilities.
I also don’t know why you read hillbuzz because you share more of the intolerant views of Perez Hilton than Hillbuzz who is willing to have a adult-like discussion on this issue and work toward real solution. BTW, I believe it is wrong for anyone to reproduce by un-natural means whether they are attracted to the other sex or the same sex. Who you are attracted too makes no difference to me.
I’ve been reading HillBuzz for a long time though commenting infrequently, still I do comment occasionally. I was with HillBuzz during the Presidential Election, so we’re not strangers. If the authors of this blog don’t want my comments they have my email address all they have to do is email and ask me to not post and I will honor their wishes. And obviously “who” gay people are attracted to DOES make a difference to you because you are advocating for the right of business people to refuse services to gay people.
So, let me see if I understand you, if gays were allowed Civil Unions without the word marriage
you would then think gays are eligible to adopt? There have been many studies that show gays and lesbians are just as successful parenting as straight people. And if I could have a Civil Union would you still defend the right of the photographer to deny services to me because I’m gay? How about the Pharmacist or the Physician, can they deny me prescription medication
or medical services because I am receiving domestic partner benefits instead of spousal benefits and simply because they don’t approve of my sexual orientation?
C’mon Buffy what exactly is your position? Is your position “go away gay people” or is it “don’t expect straight business owners to provide you services” or is it “don’t expect the same rights in our society as straight people, even if you’re in a civil union, because your sexual orientation isn’t accepted by my religion” or is it “drop dead gay people”. I’m having a hard time following your argument
The thing is this is America and a Christian photographer or Catholic Adoption agency and under the first amendment has every right to not preform a service based on religious grounds. How about the Muslim that HillBuzz feature that didn’t want to sell pork at his Dunkin Donuts? Is he discriminating against all who eat pork? No but that is his religious belief and no one should be denied their very basic human right protect the belief they hold very dear. I am sorry but forcing some one who doesn’t agree with you to agree with you is what is very detrimental with the very things you are proposing and what hurts the same-sex arguement. It sounds like you are more about taking away anothers (ie Christians) genuine right. It is this type of intolerance that many sensible people are arguing against. And I don’t think you should have to stop commenting on this blog. I am sure HB and everyone else here appreciates your comments, again this is America we have free speech as well as freedom of religion.
My position is the same as HillBuzz. Don’t call it marriage. But also don’t make people who don’t agree with you do something that goes against their moral judgement. It’s that simple. Religious liberties are in the first amendment for a reason.
Exactly.
CarolynKB’s rambling diatribes simply reveal that she belongs in the March of Idiots that are the subject of the post. The only interesting fact she revealed is that she no longer calls herself a Catholic. Catholics everywhere rejoice!
So why haven’t you answered the question? IF GAYS GET CIVIL UNIONS DO YOU THINK THAT GAYS SHOULD THEN BE ABLE TO ADOPT? AND DO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO HIRE GAYS OR RENT PROPERTY TO US OR SERVE US IN PUBLIC RESTAURANTS OR SELL GOODS TO US BECAUSE OUR ORIENTATION OFFENDS YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS?
Do you think that HillBuzz supports discrimination against gays and lesbians in the workplace or in hiring or in public restaurants or in the dispensing of medical care or medications or in society at large? No ones arguing for religious marriage, who wants the brand of non-christ like christianity you’ve expressed here. And in case you haven’t noticed, the splinter in both of your eyes is so big how would you ever be able to spot one in mine or anyone else’s? As for catholicism, it’s got much bigger problems than me!
HillBuzz, do you support discrimination against the LGBT community in hiring, or in housing, or in any public accomodation or business that is open to the public? Do you think that an employer (non-religious entity) should be able to say “you’re fired because you’re gay and my religion doesn’t approve of you” or that an apartment complex should be able to say “we don’t rent to gays or lesbians because we only want straight people here because of our personal religious beliefs”, or that a physician or pharmacist should be able to refuse their services because the patient is gay?
Seriously HillBuzz, I want to know if that’s your position, because if that’s what you’ve said here I’ve never read it.
Marriage IS a religious institution and through the “marriage” demands, we are asking a religion to change their belief to accomodate our needs. Our true needs are to demonstrate our love and comittment to one another and recieve the same equality and benefits thats any marriage provides.
I watched a financial discussion on a cable channel that had nothing to do with the issue. In the conversation, a gentleman was explaining that he and his partner had done this or that business wise. What was funny was that the gentleman interrupted and explained that by referring to his partner, they were not in a relationship together, He said he felt the need to say that because the word partner had become used by many couples to define their relationships,he thought he and his business partner should think of a word to describe their business relationship from now on. Myself and my better half refer to ourselves as partners. Words……
This new administration is not devoted to change, because their supporters will let them get away with not providing any.
However, I wouldn’t look to the Republican Party for that social leavening. Honestly, we’re opposed to any rights for gay folks.
Steele told you to your face he’d oppose your cause once you were finished helping us tear down Obama, by any means, fair or foul.
Dick Cheney seems to have one redeeming quality – he loves his daughter!
He was and remains in support of gay marriage. “Freedom means freedom for everyone.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/cheney-offers-his-support_n_209869.html
How is it that every other person in this country (or, not from this country) can get married? But ooo… don’t be gay. Can’t get married… you can be incarcerated and get married… you can be here illegally and get married. But, a taxpaying citizen who happens to be gay can’t exercise the right to marry? Turd blossoms!
As has been said before, “gays should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us.”
Great article. I tried explaining this to a gay friend of mine back in the 80′s and he didn’t get it. He still doesn’t.
I’m against gay marriage. And the argument that marriage is for all is ridiculous. Words have definitions and “marriage” has one just like the word “female” has a definition. If we go with the gay marriage analogy, it’d be like saying that the word “female” should be used for all sexes, otherwise there isn’t equal rights. It’s absurd. Words have definitions. Changing those definitions isn’t how you get more rights.
If language did not exist, you could still have rights. The words used to describe them are an entirely different story. Most people don’t have problems with gay rights. They simply don’t want the language to change. Get your own word. No one’s stopping you.
SEPARATION OF RAUNCH AND STATE
(It’s still legal – and always God-honoring – to air messages like the following. See Ezekiel 3:18-19. In light of government backing of raunchy behavior (such offenders were even executed in early America!), maybe the separation we really need is the “separation of raunch and state”!)
In Luke 17 in the New Testament, Jesus said that one of the big “signs” that will happen shortly before His return to earth as Judge will be a repeat of the “days of Lot” (see Genesis 19 for details). So gays are actually helping to fulfill this same worldwide “sign” (and making the Bible even more believable!) and thus hurrying up the return of the Judge! They are accomplishing what many preachers haven’t accomplished! Gays couldn’t have accomplished this by just coming out of closets into bedrooms. Instead, they invented new architecture – you know, closets opening on to Main Streets where little kids would be able to watch naked men having sex with each other at festivals in places like San Francisco (where their underground saint – San Andreas – may soon get a big jolt out of what’s going on over his head!). Thanks, gays, for figuring out how to bring back our resurrected Saviour even quicker!
If you would care to learn about the depraved human “pigpen” that regularly occurs in Nancy Pelosi’s district in California, Google “Zombietime” and click on “Up Your Alley Fair” in the left column. And to think – horrors – that she is only two levels away from being President!