Sunday, January 24, 2010

Cindy McCain Supports Gay Marriage


Senator John McCain is not a proponent of same-sex marriage and stated during the 2008 campaign that marriage should be between a man and a woman. He also doesn't believe that children should be adopted by gay parents even though he and his wife, Cindy, have experienced the joy of being adoptive parents.

Now, his daughter, Meghan, who was a registered Independent at 18 and voted for Kerry in 2004 and then switched to Republican when her father ran for President in 2008, is an advocate for gay rights. She did an ad campaign for No H8 last year for co-founder and photographer, Adam Bouska, and will be keynote speaker for Marriage Equality Week at George Washington University next month which has drawn criticism from some college Republicans.

I don’t think anyone has been caught off guard by Meghan’s stance. From her scandalous twitter pic, her post at The Daily Beast about sex to her gripe with Ann Coulter, Meghan is known for her candidness and has been referred to as a maverick regarding politics. But what about Cindy McCain? What’s her stance on gay marriage?

Well, she’s FOR it! While accompanying her daughter to a photo shoot to promote Meghan’s new book “Dirty Sexy Politics”, Cindy saw Meghan’s No H8 photo on Bouska’s wall and mentioned that SHE would like to support the campaign to show that party affiliation doesn’t matter because marriage equality is a human issue not a political one. Bouska couldn’t have been more surprised or pleased! He immediately retrieved a white t-shirt from a nearby rack, as Mrs. McCain was wearing a black turtle neck and the campaign calls for white t-shirts, and set to work on shooting the elder McCain right on the spot.


What about John? How does HE feel about his wife taking the opposite stance than he on gay marriage?

Senator McCain released a statement that reads:
“Senator McCain respects the views of members of his family. The Senator chaired the effort to successfully pass Arizona Proposition 102, the Marriage Protection Amendment, and his opposition to gay marriage remains the same. Senator McCain believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman.”

What does Meghan think of her mother’s support of gay marriage?

Meghan’s twitter account displays her and her mother’s photos and states,
“I couldn’t be more proud of my mother for posing for the NOH8 campaign. I think more Republicans need to start taking a stand for equality.”


I will go on record and say that I’m proud of Mrs. McCain too. I don’t think this is a Democrat or Republican issue, either. It IS a human issue, as Cindy McCain said. It’s an issue of human beings being deprived of “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. If gays are in love and it would make them happy to get married then they are being deprived of a right and that right is marriage. In my opinion, marriage isn’t a religious issue because one must first obtain a license from the state and then a ceremony is performed in a church or wherever, even by a JP in a restaurant. Now, I don’t believe a religious institution should be forced to perform any ceremony that goes against their beliefs but I think it’s totally unfair that gays should be denied the same rights as heterosexuals. We are created equal and if gays don’t have the same rights then that is discrimination. It’s cut and dried to me and no amount of bickering back and forth is going to change my mind…trust me, my husband has tried, my family has tried—I’m not budging unless someone can give me a really good reason and I’m fairly certain I’ve heard them all.



~~I want to add, as a side and personal note, that I had respect for Mrs. McCain before her support of No H8. I met her during a 2008 campaign rally at the old Pittsburgh airport. After the rally, Senator McCain, Cindy, Senator Lieberman, his wife, Betty, and Tom Ridge came off the stage to “greet” the audience. I wanted to “greet” Mrs. McCain but was about 12 people back from the stage so I had to “nudge” my way to the stage. During my “nudging”, Cindy noticed me. I guess that wasn’t difficult as I’m tall, especially with heels--about 6 ft, and my blonde hair practically glows. Anyway, we made eye contact and she would’ve passed me up had she not stopped her security men and WAITED for me. She held out her hand, which I took, looked me straight in the eyes and said, “Thank you so much for your support.” I held her hand for a few seconds and said, “Mrs. McCain it is such a pleasure to meet you.” Her eyes were soft and kind and her smile very welcoming as she said, “The pleasure is mine.” Then she gave my hand a slight squeeze. I will never forget that because I thought it was very kind of her to wait for me as she most definitely didn’t have to. She could’ve just moved along with the security men and ignored the fact that I was trying to get up there. After all there were dozens more hands to shake and people to thank. I thought she was a gracious woman and obviously I was correct. She’s also very pretty in person, by the way.

79 comments:

  1. As a liberal I applaud Cindy McCain for being a non-bigoted conservative, the kind of person we need more of.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pam I was never a fan of Cindy's(surprised? LOL), but I am applauding her because she is not afraid to stand for something her party tells her not to. I would like to say also, I adore Meghan for her individuality and outspokenness. Way to go McCain ladies!

    That was a nice story you told about you and Cindy. And I NEVER woulda guessed you to be that tall Pam, by your picture you look like a petite little thing!

    BTW, I hope your trolls don't vilify you over this post! lol

    ReplyDelete
  3. Infidel & Sue: I hope MORE people not only applaud Cindy McCain, but follow in her footsteps.

    Sue: Yes, I'm tall almost 5' 9" and since I always wear heels that takes me to 6ft. I am petite though (size 2) for my height. But if you thought I was tiny, you should see Cindy McCain, she's teeny-weeny!

    As far as Meghen, I may not agree with her on everything or how she goes about it, but I admire that she thinks for herself.

    I have no doubt that the vilifying will come. I’m ready for it and I’ll hold my ground as I always do when I firmly believe in something.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was really pleased to see Cindy standing up for marriage equality. I think it's important for high-profile Republicans to step up and show that they're not afraid to go against their party line. Human rights shouldn't be a subject for debate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am a little surprised at Cindy McCain's stance for gay marriage. One reason I am opposed to gay marriage is that I think liberals would take advantage of this cause to force all Churches to allow gay marriage, when many Churches are opposed to gay marriage. I am all for gay couples having all of the same benefits as a heterosexual couple, but that can be attained by way of civil unions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great article especially your little personal touch at the end. I'm probably one of the rare librals who actually likes and respects Cindys McCain. She's a pretty remarkable woman.

    I'm proud of her and Meghen.

    Teresa - how could those nasty ole liberals force churches to do anything. They are not the ones who constantly try to subvert that part of the Constituion that calls for separation of church and state.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Teresa: Actually I think a lot of “people” are “surprised” when a Conservative/Republican supports gay marriage, which, to me, is preposterous considering it’s not a political issue. Do only Democrats/Liberals have gay children? Of course not. There are gay doctors, lawyers, bankers, secretaries, construction workers, waiters, homemakers, car salesmen, hair dressers…and not every gay person is registered to vote just like not every straight person is registered; therefore it's a HUMAN issue.

    Being anti-gay marriage because you believe liberals would take advantage of this cause to force all Churches to allow gay marriage I think is an unreasonable argument for denying gays marital rights. It’s based on the “unknown” or a “fear” of something that hasn’t happened and most likely won’t happen. IF Liberals or gays would try to FORCE churches to marry gays then those of us who believe that churches have the RIGHT to their religious doctrines would come out in droves to defend the churches and I believe the law would side with the religious institutions.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Teresa: One reason I am opposed to gay marriage is that I think liberals would take advantage of this cause to force all Churches to allow gay marriage

    I'm curious why you think so. I have never heard any liberal advocate doing such a thing. Generally we don't care what churches do or don't do, so long as they refrain from obstructing people from obtaining equal rights before the secular state.

    The push for gay marriage is exclusively a push for civil marriage. Once that is achieved, some churches will perform such marriages, others will not, just as each religion has always had its own rules and taboos. So long as the separation of church and state is upheld, the state has very little power to require any church to do anything, nor do most liberals much care. What we care about is the secular civil law.

    ReplyDelete
  9. tnlib,
    I have to disagree. Liberals are the ones that impose their views and intolerance on others. Liberals do that while forcing conservatives to pay for it via the government. Civil unions would give the exact same rights to gay couples, as if they had that marriage certificate. If it was really about human rights and not about gays infringing on Christian beliefs than gay couples would accept civil unions as being proper and acceptable.

    Pamela,
    If a gay couple can have all of the same rights by way of civil unions (without a piece a paper stating marriage) why is that piece of paper needed so much? Civil unions would give gay couples access to their partners health care, health insurance etc. I just believe that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. Why do liberals have to stir up the waters or rock the boat on this issue when it has been accepted for so long that marriage is supposed to be bewtween a man and a woman?

    Can a man and man be open to procreating naturally? Can a woman and a woman be open to procreating naturally? Both answers are no. The primary purpose for marriage is to procreate and create more children. That is the way it has understood to be since the beginning of time.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Very good post Pamela. Democrats and Republicans seem to take positions that are contrary to the rest of their platforms on this issue (and maybe abortion too). Shouldn't it be the conservative stance that says the government shouldn't tell two consenting adults that they can't marry each other? And liberals are generally a-ok with government control and rules over everything from wearing a seat belt to how much banks can pay their employees but are outraged at the idea of any laws limiting gay marriage. The inconsistency has always bothered me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Teresa: Can a man and man be open to procreating naturally? Can a woman and a woman be open to procreating naturally? Both answers are no. The primary purpose for marriage is to procreate and create more children. That is the way it has understood to be since the beginning of time.

    Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with procreating. I have a brother and my husband has a brother and a sister all of whom are married and none have any intentions of having children.

    If marriage was supposed to be about “procreation” please explain why we have so many unwed women popping out babies?

    To answer your question, though, no, men & men and women & women can’t procreate naturally but we don’t have to worry about becoming extinct now-a-days with sperm banks, invetro, surrogate mothers, etc.

    If a gay couple can have all of the same rights by way of civil unions (without a piece a paper stating marriage) why is that piece of paper needed so much?

    Because they want to be treated EQUALLY and “marriage” is the operative term here so anything less is UNEQUAL.

    Why do liberals have to stir up the waters or rock the boat on this issue when it has been accepted for so long that marriage is supposed to be bewtween a man and a woman?

    The reason this issue has “come up” is because gays aren’t happy living in darkness anymore. They’re coming out of the “closet” not to “stir things up”, but because they finally realize they have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pamela, I am glad you framed gay rights in terms of: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

    What got lost in the debate these past few years: Government has an fundamental obligation to uphold the basic rights of citizens. Under the Equal Protection provisions of the Constitution, there cannot be privileged and non-privileged classes of citizenship.

    Furthermore, one cannot count on the whims and caprices of the electorate to guarantee human rights. The Prop 8 referendum in California proved that. If we left the issue of human rights up to citizens, we'd still have slavery in some states.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If it was really about human rights and not about gays infringing on Christian beliefs than gay couples would accept civil unions as being proper and acceptable.

    If it was really just about riding to Walmart, blacks would accept being in the back of the bus as proper and acceptable too, wouldn't they?

    Except it's not just about being in the back of the bus. It's about equality, real equality, not just some token thing made up to appease people or to let them feel like they're not bigoted and prejudiced.

    In the same way, gay folks want to get married. I find it really difficult to understand how two men getting married can 'threaten' marriage, or how their marriage can 'undermine American values' (what values?) or cause 'instability in society'.

    You mentioned this:

    Liberals are the ones that impose their views and intolerance on others.

    Intolerance for what? Intolerance for prejudice and bigotry? Intolerance for legislating a substantial fraction of the population into a nebulous gray-zone, where 'marriage' and 'family' are disallowed because of who they choose to love? You betcha. I have no tolerance for this smallmindedness.

    And as far as churches go: churches have every right to approve and deny marriages according to their own beliefs. My husband and I are of different faiths, and we were refused by the Catholic Church because we would not comply with their requirements for marriage. That's their issue. Every religion has its own tenets. Extending equality of marriage to gay couples doesn't affect churches.. why would it? And why would any gay couple want to be married in a church that was anti-homosexual to begin with?

    The intolerance isn't coming from the left, and it's not coming from the gay community. And I applaud Cindy McCain for standing up for equality.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Why do liberals have to stir up the waters or rock the boat on this issue when it has been accepted for so long that marriage is supposed to be bewtween a man and a woman?

    Just because something is the status quo doesn't make it right.

    Liberals 'stirred the water' and 'rocked the boat' about it being wrong for people to own other people as slaves, even though it'd been done for as long as anyone could remember and loads and loads of 'scientific' books had been written 'proving' that other races were inferior to whites.

    Liberals 'stirred the water' and 'rocked the boat' about it being wrong to keep women from voting, although no one could possibly imagine that women had enough functioning brain cells to do more than spit out babies and bake bread, and thousands of doctors had spent hundreds of years assuring men that they really didn't.

    Liberals 'stirred the water' and 'rocked the boat' to get protections for workers, even though 3 and 4 year old children had ALWAYS had jobs, and even though people ALWAYS worked 16 hours a day, 6 and 7 days a week, and no employer could imagine them being less than unutterably grateful for being allowed the opportunity to do so.

    Just because something's always been done one way doesn't mean that it's right.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm sorry but Cindy McCain is the least of our troubles and our problems.
    I as a life long Democrat have changed my opinion of Barack Obama and I can honestly say that I am ashamed of myself for voting for him.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I admit, I feel uneasy raising my son in a world where 2 people of the same sex could be married, but I also feel it is wrong to deny people the benefits of marriage because they are not attracted to the opposite sex- it's not a decision they made, it's just how they are and they cannot help it. Why are some people "against" things which are none of their business? Obviously though, if it hits your pocket, it is your business

    As for the comment by Satyavati devi dasi whatever that name means.... Is it always about Blacks and the back of the Bus with you Liberals? Not only isn't this an argument, it isn't even true. This isn’t about you accepting or agreeing or liking or believing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Your trying to paint me as someone who is for the status quo and that is patently false. If I was, then I would NOT be civil unions but I AM FOR CIVIL UNIONS FOR GAY COUPLES.

    Comparing having a piece of paper to being refused a civil right (blacksforced to sit at the back of the bus) is absurd when if gay couples would accept civil unions as a way to get ALL they are asking for with regards to human rights they would achieve those human rights. Civil unions would give gay couples the SAME EXACT rights as heterosexual couples.

    Plus, if you really think that a piece of paper is going to make you happy, in addition to achieving the same rights as heterosexual couples that is very sad and I feel sorry for you.

    Yes, marriage's primary purpose was/is to procreate. The reason there are so many teenagers and single women with pregnancies is because of LIBERALISM and its attack on GOD and GOD BEING IN OUR SOCIETY and a lack of promoting good values. Just becuase something exists doesn't make it right. But, then again, liberals don't believe in setting standards of morality, they believe in moral relativism and excuse anybody for pretty much any act except when it comes to conservatives. Liberals are hypocrites in the worst way and the most intolerant human beings.

    I am for gay couples having rights, in fact the very same rights as heterosexual couples, but without it being called marriage and infringing on Christianity as liberals have been doing for the past 60-70 years.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jaybro: First, be polite and leave immature comments about a person’s name out of the debate.

    This isn’t about you accepting or agreeing or liking or believing.

    I don’t have to agree or believe or even like it, but I do accept it because we like in a society where we have homosexuals and I refuse to treat them like second class citizens because of their sexual orientation. They have the right to be treated just like heterosexuals regardless of what anyone THINKS.

    A thought creates an emotion, CHANGE the thought and you change the emotion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Easy there, Pamela… I think what Jaybro is trying to say is that this movement isn’t about acceptance. He’s correct when he says that liberals always throw race into the mix no matter what the subject is about.. but of course this is your blog and you have the right to your opinion.
    As do I and Jaybro.
    I am so tired of the liberals led by (?) always dropping the race controversy into everything including same-sex marriages.
    It's like everyone is a racist except them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The "real radical, fringe extremists" in the Democrat party and most of the liberal media have been calling Conservative/Christian names like-extremist, radical, fringe,ad-nauseum for years and none of the Democrats hold the media accountable. They have the attitude that they can say or do anything that they want to advance their own radical agenda. Thus, you have the MSNBC network, full of nut cases like Ed Schultz, who was just qouted as saying, "I would vote 10 times to keep these *******s out of Kennedys' seat." Sounds like calm, rational thought to me, doesn';t it??. Since when is it radical to think marriage was between a Man and a Woman??. That is warped thinking as the extreme thought is that marriage is for a same-sex couple. The Liberals have tried to twist this Country into Backwardsville

    I love watching the left freak out. A group supporting traditional marriage backs Brown and all the Marxists on the left lose their pea-sized minds, all the while ignoring the gigantic list of acts of corruption their boy-god-king commits virtually every day. Good riddance to the left, they suck, and re to see them marginalized once again.

    On MSNBC tonight their special was suppose to be on Haiti but he broke away for other information and interviewed an individual talking about what Limbaugh and others had said about the Haiti work and the individual he was interviewing said, "these radicalized right wing extremist....." speaking about the conservative talk show host and as he called them the teabaggers. Yes conservatives have always been demeaned by the media but to be now called "radicalized" equates them with the likes of the Christmas bomber, the Ft. Hood person and other terrorist. I believe this has taken commentary and being a pundit to the extreme can you at least take a stand against this or investigate why this type of talk can be tolerated when remember Pelosi was scared by the tone of the conservatives talk. To call a conservative "radicalized" in my opinion has never been done before except now it is on the eve of the Kennedy seat election and they are resorting to scare tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I am a republican and I have to side with Scott Brown in this one. I oppose same-sex marriage but I think that this is a state matter. Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage which allows for people who are willing to live in Massachusetts to marrying no matter their sex. Allowing this to be a state issue gives candidates in their own states to show how they feel on the topic and also the voters in the state.
    As for this blog and it’s comments... I don't recall the comments sections being so liberal minded in the past, but I admit that I don't read it as often as I guess I should, it’s a good one and I like the fact that the libs get slammed down when they start talking about the rightwingers being racists. The blogs that delete these things are less interesting. And these comments are just fine, making the blog interesting. When a commenter such as this "Saty" person starts in whith he holier than thou blacks in the back of the bus crap, it’s up to someone with a brain to challenge her. As they did here and I liked that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Brown's election in the most liberal state in the country, will prove that Obama's and the Democrat's agenda to turn our country into another Socialist Welfare state, ain't gona fly. It'll also foreshadow things to come in the midterms, and a bloodbath for the incompetent Obama and the Democrats, as they'll lose big time. If it can happen in Jersey, it can happen in Mass.
    Coakley LIED when she said that Brown was against all abortions for rape victems, yet none of the left wing media (msnbc, CNN, CBS, ect.), left wing blogs (huffing AndPuffingtonPost, dailykos, ect.), well known Mass. liberals (Kerry, Frank) or well known left wing posters here said word one about it, yet all of them regularly accuse the republicans of lying. It just goes to show the left cares nothing for the truth and lies are acceptable if they come from democrats.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. Team Obama keeps telling lesbian and gay Americans like me to be patient. If we just wait a little longer, administration officials whisper to us lovingly (and out of earshot of the media), after the White House finishes with healthcare reform and getting the troops out of Iraq, your time will come. In the meantime, cheer up -- we put a gay band in the inaugural parade!

    Everyone loves a parade, but we don't like being betrayed. And while gay and lesbian Americans were initially willing to cut our new president some slack, the president's now-clear reticence to follow through on even one of his many campaign promises to the gay community has put the Democratic Party on the precipice of an ugly and very public divorce with this once-solid constituency.
    Many of us were willing to cut our new president some slack. Not anymore.
    Vote anti-incumbent in November 2010. Throw them all out of office. Our government doesn't work for us.
    Is it possible that our Democrat leadership in the White House and in Congress can get any more arrogant? No, that is not possible, as their hubris allows them to thumb their nose at the overwhelming opposition by the majority of Americans who abhor their lunatic lunges towards socialism, because they truly believe they are smarter and more 'well born' than the rest of the Great Unwashed in Fly Over country.

    We're all just too dag nab dumb to understand how great this country will be with the government running every aspect of our lives. To our elite Democrat leaders, we simply can't manage our affairs 'correctly' without their help. And, like little kids who whine about taking their cod liver oil, Mommy Pelosi will just ignore our caterwauling and jam this stuff down our throat because she truly believes she knows what's best for us.

    When Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Mars) was asked about the constitutionality of requiring Americans to buy anything, such as health insurance, she looked at the questioner and simply said, 'are you kidding?', and promptly dismissed the question. At a recent press conference, Pelosi was asked about Obama's many and repeated promises to publicly air congressional debates about health care reform legislation on C-Span, and she arrogantly dismissed the question with a laugh, stating 'there's lots of things said on the campaign trail...'

    In other words, 'let them eat cake.'

    ReplyDelete
  24. The back-of-the-bus analogy is actually quite valid. Telling gays to accept civil unions rather than marriage is telling them to accept a separate status which is supposed to be equal in its practical effect (just as the bus still gets you where you're going regardless of which part of it you're sitting in), but, in fact, stigmatizes their relationships as being of lower status, just as relegating blacks to the back of the bus was intended to stigmatize them as inferior.

    Procreation may be the reason for marriage for many people, but this is not true of everyone. More to the point, inability to procreate is not considered grounds for denying the right to marry in other cases. An opposite-genders couple which cannot reproduce due to age, surgical sterilization, or whatever other reason, would still be able to legally marry, so this is not a legitimate basis for denying the same right to same-gender couples.

    ReplyDelete
  25. That is not telling them to accept a seperate status- They would in fact have the same exact rights as heterosexual couples. The back of the bus analogy is not quite valid since that is in fact denying a person a human or civil right whereas if a gay couple would have the same exact rights as heterosexual couples if they participated in civil unions.

    Your right,the inability to procreate is not considered grounds for denying marriage. It is the fact that gay couples can NEVER be open to the act of procreation through natural means that makes gay couples deficient of the necessity of openness of procreation to fulfull the requirement for marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I wholeheartedly second exactly what Teresa said...

    Great comment and very well written Teresa.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm not sure I see a reason that some actually actively disliked her before, but I've read some that have.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A point of clarification. Often we use analogies and examples to defend a certain viewpoint. Sometimes these analogies serve our purpose; sometimes they fall short of the intended mark. I believe the legal concept under discussion is “separate but equal.”

    In 1954, the SCOTUS issued a landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which states that laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students were inherently unequal, that de jour segregation violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    Similarly, the terms “civil union” and “marriage” do not confer equality because these imply two legal distinctions that separate citizens into unequal classes. Since there can only be one class of citizenship as recognized under the Constitution, there can only be one class of legal rights and recognition applicable to both; otherwise “civil union” and “marriage” become mutually exclusive and discriminatory.

    One more point. It seems Satyavati devi dasi is using a “back of the bus” analogy to defend a viewpoint. It is a method of advancing a viewpoint, not a personal attack upon any reader. In no way is the use of analogy accusing anyone of engaging in hate speech, although there are readers in this forum who think otherwise, examples:

    Liberals are the ones that impose their views and intolerance on others.

    "Why do liberals have to stir up the waters or rock the boat on this issue …"

    With respect to these statements, if you remove the word “liberal” and substitute for Black, Jew, Irish, Italian, or any other group, then what you really have is shameless stereotyping. This is rude, uncivil, disrespectful, and unacceptable.

    Use of the Freudian defense mechanism known as "projection" (that accuses other persons of behaviors that you yourself are committing) is not a proper form of civil discourse.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think that some of the objection to "gay marriage" is semantic; For those who believe that marriage is a religious rite--and I am among them--the idea of legalizing something to which many churches object is a problem.

    I agree, but take it even further. I believe that the state has no business legislating the religious rite of marriage in any way, including by restricting who may and may not marry. Church doctrine should not be dictated by the state.

    Because there are legal ramifications involved in the pairing of two consenting adults, we Americans do permit our government representatives to craft laws pertaining to all civil unions, whether a sacred marriage or a secular, legal ceremony.

    The religious rite of "marriage" has no business being codified in federal, state, or local secular law. God and one's church has every right to define marriage as They see fit, but it is not incumbent on the US government to accept that definition as being the final word.

    Legally, all those who are "married" are (or should be) civilly united, and nothing more. Religiously, one's church must remain free to recognize as marriage--or refuse as against church doctrine--all legal civil unions.

    Legal discrimination against gay people will end when all forms of the word "marriage" are replaced with forms of the noun "civil union" in every federal/state/local law. I'm all for saving marriage and the religious definitions of it. But that doesn't mean that I believe the any church's definition of sacred marriage has any place in secular US law. (Of course, the government can and should continue to recognize the sacred rite of marriage as one way to enter into a legal civil union... Like I said, I believe in marriage.)

    The ability to bear children isn't a persuasive argument, even religiously. (It has no bearing, legally.) Churches regularly marry people who are unable or unwilling to bring children into the world. If the ability to have children was a prerequisite to the sacrament of marriage, opposite sex couples that could not would be as unwelcome to marry as same sex couples, and those opposite couples who chose not to have children would be ostracized by the church and it's followers for not doing so after a reasonable period of time.

    Child-bearing can be a part of marriage, but the ability to do so isn't a requirement, either verbally or in practice, in any church I know--and certainly not in enough churches to even pretend that this is the reason gay folks cannot legally civilly unite (or if you prefer, "marry.") There's far more to it than that...

    ReplyDelete
  30. I don't think anyone wants to re-define religious marriage or require churches to perform marriages they object to. The various religions have their criteria for what they consider valid marriages and that will continue to be the case. What we want is for civil marriage (that is, marriage in the eyes of the state) to be accessible to same-gender couples. Whether the various religions recognize gay civil marriages as valid doesn't matter; we're concerned with the civil law.

    Repsac3 seems to be proposing that the concept of civil marriage be abolished and replaced with civil unions for everyone, but that's not going to happen. The concept of civil, as distinct from religious, marriage will remain, and there should not be discrimination in access to it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. It seems that I need to clarify myself, as only Octo got the point.

    My argument wasn't about 'bringing race into the mix'.

    It was about comparing one civil rights violation, which was at one time legally and socially acceptable, to another civil rights violation, which is currently legally and socially acceptable.

    In the same way that it was once legal and socially accepted to deny certain civil rights to persons based on the colour of their skin, it is currently legal and socially accepted to deny persons the right to marry based on their sexual orientation.

    The fact that something is legal and socially acceptable does not make it right.

    I had also brought up other comparisons, such as women being denied the right to vote, but no one seemed to notice this one for all the screaming that I was 'bringing race into the mix'.

    The comparison of one civil rights violation to another does not in any way name any person here as racist. If particular people find that comparing these civil rights hits a nerve then perhaps they maybe need to look at that for themselves.

    I fail to understand how two people who wish to get married are in any way 'attacking Christianity'. I fail to understand how two people, in love, can in any way have an affect on an institution two millenia old, or in any way affect the faith of any person who holds Christian beliefs.

    Shaw brought up a good point previously in this discussion by mentioning that all couples who wish to marry must obtain a license to do so from the state. The license has nothing to do with any church or religious institution; therefore there should be no legal impediment to anyone past the age of consent to obtain a license to marry.

    Whether a particular church chooses to marry a particular couple is a decision solely up to the church involved and cannot possibly in any way be legislated. All churches are free to enact marriages according to their beliefs. If a church chooses to marry a same sex couple, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine too. There is no 'infringement' of 'the rights of Christians' in the matter, as the individual church can decide who they will and will not marry.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Teresa said - gay couples can NEVER be open to the act of procreation through natural means that makes gay couples deficient of the necessity of openness of procreation to fulfull the requirement for marriage.

    With all due respect, should heterosexual couples who can't have children through natural means be denied the right to marry?
    Or people too old to make babies?
    Or people who elect not to have children?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Wow, Aisha, I was looking for something about gay marriage in your comment but I didn't find it. So I'll just comment on where you said this:

    so guys like you can collect your government check

    I'm not really sure who you mean by this but I can assure you it's not me, as I put in my 40+ every week. I'm an RN and I've been working at least one full-time job for the past 25 years. I assure you that my tax liabilities are paid in full, and that the only checks I collect every month are the ones I've worked for.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Repsac3 seems to be proposing that the concept of civil marriage be abolished and replaced with civil unions for everyone, but that's not going to happen. The concept of civil, as distinct from religious, marriage will remain, and there should not be discrimination in access to it.

    No, we're pretty much saying the same thing, Infidel...

    I'm just ceding the word marriage back to the religions from which it came. As I said in my earlier comment, much of the objection to "gay marriage" rests on the intertwining of sacred and secular connotations of the word marriage; a religious sacred rite whose name never should've been used to define a union between two people for the purpose of establishing secular, religion-neutral law.

    In short, Civil Marriage=Civil Union (except that the word "marriage" doesn't trip up the civil, secular concept with the religious connotations associated with it.)

    ReplyDelete
  35. HEY ANONYMOUS AND FAKE NAME PEOPLE, THE TOPIC IS GAY MARRIAGE, NOT OBAMA! AND GET OFF SATYAVATI'S BACK! I WILL NOT TOLERATE IT! HAVEN'T YOU NOTICED YOUR STUPID COMMENTS ARE DELETED? AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO BE DELETED. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE AND SPEW YOUR BS BECAUSE IT'S NOT WELCOME HERE!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Wow, this Debate Has Really Turned into a Hot Potato. I am rooting for the USA, which means I am rooting for freedom, free-market capitalism, and prosperity. Obama stands for none of these, so I hope he fails also. Satyavati devi dasi you and your liberal buddies DID hope Bush would fail. You hoped the “surge” would fail in Iraq, which meant you hoped our troops would die. You are correct that Barry is President. And so far, he is doing a lousy job. If you’d like to work together to oppose his dumb-ass ideas, I’m right there with you. If you want me to work with you to support Obama's policies I know to be harmful, then I’ll respectfully decline.
    Sorry Pamela but I just can't let this go... It's like a skit from SNL..
    But out of for courtesy to Pam. I realize that the topic here is Gay Marriage so I'll get to that now..
    Same-sex marriage opponents have done everything they can to make sure that civil unions and domestic partnerships have no state or federal recognition. They've passed constitutional amendments making any designation other than marriage impossible. So, with same-sex marriage already legal in several states and no federal framework for recognizing gay couples in any other way, it's too late to say, "OK, let's call it a civil union."

    Freedom means allowing others to live in ways that we may not choose to. How strange that the people who preach "limited government" and "religious liberty" are always the first to demand that government impose their moral codes on everyone else.
    Remember, Change happens gradually. Today's generation of young people are far more accepting than the last.If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't have one.
    When it comes to Obama's view on same sex marriage, he need not worry about it as he won't be president in 2012 to make any difference.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Great post Pam! And you beat me to it. I had saved the photo of Cindy McCain as well as one my niece in California posed for for the campaign "NO H8."

    I'm going to post on it anyway and link to you so everyone can see that at last here is an issue we liberals and conservatives can agree on: Equal Rights for all Americans!

    6 feet in heels? Super model!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Pam - Another insightful and reasoned post.

    My position is simple on this. Live and let live.

    I just want the extreme gay rights crowd to keep out of my face with their overzealous extremism.

    They too offend.

    ReplyDelete
  39. shifyeyedstrngr doesn't agree with me when I say we can all agree on equal rights for all Americans?

    It really is a sad day in this country when one is so poisoned in one's heart against another political point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Leslie,
    Leslie said, "With all due respect, should heterosexual couples who can't have children through natural means be denied the right to marry?
    Or people too old to make babies?
    Or people who elect not to have children?"

    All of the aforementioned EXCEPT GAY COUPLES have an openness to have children in a natural way or did at one point in time, or the possibility for it is left open in the future as well but that can never happen for gay couples. Two gay men or two gay women can NEVER have an openness to procreate naturally.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Two gay men or two gay women can NEVER have an openness to procreate naturally.

    The question, Teresa, is what difference that should make to anyone interested in equal rights under secular law?

    The potential (or potential potential) for bearing children naturally isn't a requirement of marriage in any faith of which I'm aware. If it is in your faith, you're welcome to it, but even so, you're not welcome to demand that my faith (or anyone else's, including those with none) follow your faith's precepts.

    ReplyDelete
  42. All of the aforementioned EXCEPT GAY COUPLES have an openness to have children in a natural way or did at one point in time, or the possibility for it is left open in the future

    What about heterosexual couples where one partner is congenitally sterile? Never was able to have kids, never will be?

    Anyway, what difference does it make? Gay or straight you're talking about people who can't or won't reproduce. Why does some tortuous point about how they could have had kids when they were younger justify allowing people to marry in one case, but prohibiting it in the other?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Shaw: I deleted the comments by shiftyeyedstrngr because there was no reason for him/her to be impolite. I won't tolerate these trolls and their nastiness. Not to mention the off-topic comments. One day they will “get it” and realize they are NOT welcome here and move on.

    I'm looking forward to "your" post on this issue as it's important to discuss it as PEOPLE not partisans because it pertains to something very important in our society.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Two gay men or two gay men never ever had the possibility of openness to procreating naturally. That's the difference.

    The potential isn't a disqualification for marriage, but the openness issue and the fact that there is not even the remotest possibility that a gay couple could ever be open to procreating naturally is grounds for disqualification. Yes, there is a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Teresa wrote:

    The potential isn't a disqualification for marriage, but the openness issue and the fact that there is not even the remotest possibility that a gay couple could ever be open to procreating naturally is grounds for disqualification.

    This may be disqualification based on some religious faith, but it has no bearing on secular law.

    The law, and not the beliefs of a particular religious group, are what matter in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  46. In terms of 'disqualifying' someone as a marriage candidate:

    various religions can, and do, set strict requirements on persons who wish to be married within that religion.

    For example, the Catholic Church may refuse an interfaith couple in which the non-Catholic partner refuses to agree that all children born of the marriage be raised Catholic, or in which the partners do not comply with the Church's religious prerequisites.

    If a couple who were refused by the Catholic church were married in an non-Catholic ceremony, the Catholic church would not recognize the marriage, would consider the couple to be fornicating, and would deem all children born of the marriage illegitamate. In the event that the couple should divorce, the Catholic partner would be welcome to remarry in the Catholic church, as they were never considered to be married in the first place.

    I know the above is true because it happened to myself and my husband.

    Thus, any religious group can place any 'qualifications' it wishes on a couple to recognize their marriage as valid. The law does not make these distinctions.

    And therefore, while the Catholic church considers us to be fornicators living in sin, our marriage is legal and valid according to the laws of our country.

    One group's religious tenets cannot be applied to nonbelievers with the force of law.

    ReplyDelete
  47. One can look from one end to the other of the Constitution, and find nothing even close to an imperative to ban gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Nurseaisha said: And by the way, IO see that you deleted my other posts

    This is copied from my blogging policy:

    I will NOT tolerate any attacks or insults of any kind.

    I would like for my readers to stay on topic. If I feel your comment doesn’t contribute to the topic at hand, I reserve the right to delete your comment without notice.



    You know exactly WHY your comments are being deleted. They are OFF TOPIC and you also insulted another commenter.

    Nurseaisha said: I stumbled on this blog and probably won’t be back…

    Please make that a promise.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Teresa wrote: "The potential isn't a disqualification for marriage, but the openness issue and the fact that there is not even the remotest possibility that a gay couple could ever be open to procreating naturally is grounds for disqualification. Yes, there is a difference."

    1) Can you find this difference in the Constitution?

    2) I've personally known childless couples. Childless by choice. But even if it were biological, the point would be the same. By your standard, these couples are unnatural and should be disqualified.

    How exactly do you go to define this? If not being able to have children disqualifies a couple from being married, what do you do do when the young child of a married couple dies, and they choose to have no more? "Sorry, you're gonna have to divorce".

    ReplyDelete
  50. Not Left Just Right: Freedom means allowing others to live in ways that we may not choose to.

    That’s what’s so great about Freedom! A person can do what he/she wants as long as it doesn’t infringe on the freedom of another! If a gay person gets married that doesn’t infringe on me or my marriage. It’s not going to affect me at all.

    How strange that the people who preach "limited government" and "religious liberty" are always the first to demand that government impose their moral codes on everyone else.

    I believe it’s us Conservatives who preach “limited government” and I DO believe that, therefore this should be a “state” issue not a “federal” one. I don’t think that it’s imposing any moral codes on anyone by allowing homosexuals the right to marry. Would you be able to tell me how, if gays can marry, it would affect you?

    ReplyDelete
  51. The only problem I can see with making this a 'state' issue is that people could cross a state line and find their marriage invalid.

    The way to get around this would be to require that any legal marriage be recognized in all 50 states regardless of whether the state allows same sex marriages to take place there.

    This way, if two people got married in a state where same sex marriage was allowed, they wouldn't have to worry about moving to another state and somehow losing their legal status in the process.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Satyavati: True, I didn’t think of that. There has to be a way around it without getting the feds involved. You know how much I want to avoid THEM! :)

    ReplyDelete
  53. Pam,I commend you for trying to highlight the concept that gay marriage is a human rights issue and NOT a political one.
    Unfortunately, there are those that cannot debate this without resorting to vilifying others and promoting imaginary "librul" mayhem.
    Kudos to the McCain women for their compassionate and intelligent decision and for having the courage to stand up in a very public way.
    Meghan is sometimes a little over the top for me but I respect her for the strength of her convictions. And Cindy McCain always struck me as a gracious and classy lady. No doubt some of that compassion comes from her own struggles.
    Every marriage is a civil union requiring a license from the state in which you are married. You can then opt to have a religious ceremony or civil one to "seal the deal."
    I have always advocated for gay marriage AND exemption of all religions from participating if this violates their doctrine.
    Separation of church and state is an American institution not subject to political party lines.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Infiden753 said "As a liberal I applaud Cindy McCain for being a non-bigoted conservative, the kind of person we need more of."

    How sad that the only way you can debate the issue is to engage in name calling. This attitude is all to prevalent on the left, and is one of the reasons I'm against gay marriage; it's proponents behave badly, and that's putting it mildly.

    I doubt that Cindy McCain will be vilified or attacked much. I don't even think most conservatives or Republicans are surprised by this anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "... one of the reasons I'm against gay marriage; it's proponents behave badly, and that's putting it mildly.

    Tom, a thing is right, or it isn't. The behavior of some who're in favor of giving everyone an equal opportunity to partake of the legal benefits of civil marriage shouldn't affect how you feel about the issue itself, anymore than the behavior of some sports fans should change how you feel about the team itself.

    Further--and without intentionally putting Pam on the spot, here (she's welcome to speak to this, but it surely isn't required)--I invite you to post early on the next two or three posts Pam puts up, and be sure to click the "e-mail follow-up comments" link, so you see how many comments Pam moderates away for being abusive or off-topic--and who they come from. Name calling & other bad behavior isn't strictly a "left" thing... and judging by the three posts since Christmas here on this conservative's blog, it doesn't even seem to be primarily a "left" thing. (If you go back one post and read the last few day's comments, there's still a whole lotta partisan bigotry--mostly aimed at liberals--even without the stuff that got moderated away.) I'm not saying that what happens here is indicative of nasty ass troll everywhere--indeed, I don't believe it is--but, given the partisan affiliation of many of the nastiest folks who call folks names & otherwise behave badly here, this is an ironic place to say that nasty behavior is all too prevalent on "the left."

    That said, I agree that Infidel's comment was a backhanded compliment that lumped conservatives into one big ball of homophobic bigotry. I don't believe that... My attitude is closer to yours...

    I'm pleased when I see conservatives speak up in support of equal rights, but I'm no longer surprised. Whether it's outright vocal support, or just a live and let live attitude (Who cares? We have bigger fish to fry...), fewer and fewer people are opposing the right of gay people to partake of all the legal and social benefits afforded straight folks by virtue of their saying, "I do."

    It's not yet to the point where I'm surprised to see conservatives who are still willing to oppose that right either, but I think that day will come, too.

    ReplyDelete
  56. We have all probably received our tax forms in the mail recently. One of the first questions asked is if you are married, or single. Why? Because if you are married you get special tax benefits single people do not.
    That is supposed to be in the interest that married (procreating) couples rank higher in the social need of the State to strengthen itself.
    You will get a tax deduction per child. You will get a lower tax rate than a single person. You will be allowed tax deductions for items, that single people will not be allowed.
    The definition of marriage has a State definition, that includes, two people of the opposite sex.
    I don't remember the Constitution mentioning marriage at all, straight, or gay. Why should it, it is a religious institution, not a government concern.
    The government does concern itself when laws that differ from State to State, are found to be overwhelmingly unfair to individual rights.
    If gay marriage is legal in one State, but illegal in another State; the federal court determines if that is a equal justice issue.
    There certainly is discrimination between "civil unions" and "marriages" in current law.
    It's time all government State, or Federal get out of the marriage business. Let the churches decide their description of their kind of acceptable marriage, and let the governments have no definition of marriage, and no benefits for, or against marriage.

    I find it funny (in a hypocritical way) that Republicans would find objection to Ms. McCain's tame "twitter pic", yet have no objections to Mr. Brown's naked pic in a national magazine. It only tells me that those objections are politically motivated, not morally motivated as the Republicans claim.

    ReplyDelete
  57. It's time all government State, or Federal get out of the marriage business. Let the churches decide their description of their kind of acceptable marriage, and let the governments have no definition of marriage, and no benefits for, or against marriage.

    The problem that comes immediately to the forefront here is illustrated by the recent case of the church somewhere out west that was 'marrying' minor-age (young teen) girls to adult men and practicing polygamy. The church leader was, predictably, and thankfully, convicted of multiple counts of trafficking minors across state lines for sexual purposes and various other charges of the same nature.

    There have to be some basic legal constraints; defining marriage as a consensual contract between two persons past the age of consent, and ensuring that a legally performed marriage is valid and recognized in all 50 states should be enough to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Infidel said: "As a liberal I applaud Cindy McCain for being a non-bigoted conservative, the kind of person we need more of."

    Now, can we hope for non-bigoted liberals?

    The Democrats' largest and most loyal voting bloc, African-Americans, pushed California's "Prop. 8" (anti-gay-marriage) over the top with a 2-1 margin. The current Democratic president campaigned on opposition to gay marriage, and the Dems' current grand elder statesman, Bill Clinton, is the guy who signed the anti-gay-marriage "Defense of Marriage Act".

    The left would do well to focus on the big problem in their own ranks before blaming it all on some monolith of "conservative/republican bigotry."

    ReplyDelete
  59. dmarks: That's the trouble with sweeping generalizations about groups of people. They seldom offer much in the way of truth.

    The fact is, there are no monoliths, left or right, and pretty much anytime a sentence contains the words "(all) conservatives are..." (or "liberals are," or "jews are," or "black people are," or "white people are," or "women are," or... well, I think you get the point), what follows is probably not going to have a whole lotta truth to it.

    While I think Prop8 and DOMA are laws that are based on bigotry, I don't believe that everyone who voted for one or both of 'em are bigots. Believing that the God or church you worship said same sex marriage is sinful, and thus believing that yourself, doesn't make you a bigot, either (though again, the effect often is bigoted beliefs and actions).

    Speaking for myself, the biggest problem with the legal opposition to gay marriage isn't bigotry, but the idea that a majority of citizens can or should be able to hold a vote on whether to extend rights to a minority of citizens. (I'm of the belief that we're all endowed by our creator with... yadda, yadda, yadda... and that one of the jobs we've given (& in fact, demanded of) our government is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, but maybe that's just me.)

    As far as bigotry goes, one day, the whole idea of denying gay folks the right to marry will be as unacceptable as denying interracial couples the right to marry, or denying any non-felonious adult (women, black people, ...) the right to vote. (And by the by, I'm opposed to denying the felonious citizens among us the right to vote, too. If they're important enough to count in the census, they're important enough have a say in how their government allots the funding that their numbers entitle the state and local government to. No one gives up their citizenship just by committing a crime. But again, maybe that's just me.)

    ReplyDelete
  60. Rep: On the felons thing and the census. Illegal aliens and even legal resident aliens (visiting students) are in the Census too. So, should they vote?

    As for generalizations and monoliths, yes you do have to be careful. However, such a significant majority of African-Americans votes Democratic that I feel I'm justified in counting that group as a loyal Dem voting block. Knowing that the exceptions are generally from 10% down to 3%.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Pam,

    The "Anonymous" troll @ 8:08 am posted this at my blog this morning.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anonymous: With my delete button, I kill the comments of trolls like YOU. No matter if you post in the afternoon, evening or while I’m having my perfect restful sleep in the wee hours of the morning.

    You slaughter the perfect comment section with your tormenting off-topic rants which NO ONE gives a rat’s rumps about so spew your BS somewhere else. Trolls are like hideous monsters that should be confined to “Troll Camps” where they can’t butcher the English language or harass sane Bloggers anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  63. My point wasn't that the census gives people the right to vote--of course it doesn't--but that citizens shouldn't lose their right to vote (and that if a given state government believes otherwise, they shouldn't simultaneously reap the benefits that come from counting citizens whose right to vote they have removed.) I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear...

    Generalization-wise, the sweeping generalization was more about expressing the opinion that all the folks who voted for DOMA and/or Prop 8 bigots, regardless of race or political persuasion. Documented facts--like the percentage of black folks who vote a certain way--isn't really a generalization.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Felons make the choice. No one forces anyone to do these heinous acts. It's well known that if you commit a felony, you lose your right to vote. So by doing this, they are throwing their votes away.

    Maybe they should think twice before doing a felony?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Tom: I used the word “scandalous” for Meghan’s twitter pic, because that was the “common” word that popped up while I was doing my research. But you are absolutely right! She showed some “cleavage”, whoopee! If Brown can pose “nude” why can’t Meghan show some cleavage? Now, I wouldn’t, as of today, pose nude or show that much cleavage, but hey, to each his/her own, as far as I’m concerned!

    ReplyDelete
  66. Respac: I agree that not everyone who voted for Prop 8 and DOMA are bigots. Maybe misinformed? Because STILL no one can give me one LOGICAL reason why gays shouldn’t marry. Also no one can tell me HOW, if gays marry, it will affect someone else’s life.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Of course being a minor is a totally different question.
    I don't have a big problem with the State setting an age which defines the difference between child and adult. I do think that age should be consistent throughout the whole country. Whatever that age, that person should then be given the rights of all adults. Whether that be for alcohol, tobacco, owning land, marriage, signing contracts, etc.
    As far as polygamy and other sects practices, my concern would be if coercion is involved.
    The laws regarding the treatment of human beings should be enough. If abuse is involved, we have laws to deal with that.
    If adults want to willingly enter into relationships, that is their business.
    I've heard of all sorts of open and wacko relationships that I would never consider putting up with, but that's me.

    ReplyDelete
  68. CS wrote: "Whether it’s a Methodist church being forced to allow same-sex ceremonies in its facility (in NJ) or a photographer being forced to take pictures at a same-sex wedding or any number of similar sorts of cases, religious conservatives rightly think that the move toward public political affirmation of homosexual relationships will be accompanied by coercive attempts to require that they (or their children) affirm the goodness of those relationships as well. I’m not a supporter of gay marriage, but I don’t think it would be as socially and politically divisive as it might otherwise be if the live-and-let-live truly went both ways."

    The ruling in the NJ Methodist Church case was this:

    "...the [lesbian] couple [involved] filed a complaint with New Jersey's Division of Civil Rights, alleging the Methodists unlawfully discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. Attorney Lawrence Lustberg represents them.

    "Our law against discrimination does not allow [the group] to use those personal preferences, no matter how deeply held, and no matter — even if they're religiously based — as a grounds to discriminate," Lustberg says. "Religion shouldn't be about violating the law."

    The Methodist organization responded that it was their property, and the First Amendment protects their right to practice their faith without government intrusion. But Lustberg countered that the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man. That argument carried the day. The state revoked the organization's tax exemption for the pavilion area. Hoffman figures they will lose $20,000."


    Source

    In the case of the NM photographer, the state found that the photographer broke the law:

    Under the state's Human Rights Act, it is discriminatory (and illegal) for "any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction in offering or refusing to offer its services" on the bases of race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation and several other factors.

    Elane Photography appealed the HRC ruling to the state court. The court concluded that Elane Photography was a "public accommodation" (a business offering services to the public) and that its owners had readily admitted to discriminatory policies. The court also rejected Elane Photography's defenses one after another.


    Source

    As to your concern that people will be forced to affirm the goodness of homosexual relationships, I wonder where your fear is coming from. I know many same-sex couples who are fine, law-abiding, religious people raising well-mannered, bright children. And you, I am sure, as well as I, know of hetero marriages that are destructive and poisonous for their children. It part of the human condition and has nothing to do with a couple's sexual orientation.

    So I don't believe there is merit in your concern in that respect.

    We have had homosexuals in our human family since man walked the earth. It is time to stop demonizing our fellow human beings over something that is natural to them. It is time to reject ignorance and hate and accept our gay brothers and sisters with love as equals.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Confucius: I wasn't trying to "back up a position". I noticed that Shaw's 1st link didn't work so I performed a simple search and copied a few links.

    However, now that I’m aware that your comment was actually “flippy”, I need to tell you that this is a forum for polite debates and if you can’t contain your flippant comments you’ll have to move along.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Confy said: "Obama will say anything to appease his base, even before he thinks through the implications."

    Funny thing is, I've heard so many people in his base (the strong left, hard left, whatever you want to call it) complaining bitterly about many things from his not closing Gitmo to "unending war" in Afghanistan to his refusal to push for single-payer.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Confucius: You haven't seen all the nasty and off-topic comments made by the Right, because I’ve deleted them.

    As far as your flippant comment goes, it was this:

    Shaw Kenawe said... So on and so forth,

    and then she gives her Source.
    Shaw Kenawe, I think you better come up with a MUCH better Source than that.
    Sorry but I think that "Sours" is a bunch of malarkey.


    At first, like I said, I thought you were referring to the link that didn’t work so I posted a couple of other links. You didn’t like THOSE either and then wrote, You can always find a link to back up any position if your want to. I wasn’t backing up a position as I was just TRYING to be helpful.

    If you’re going to READ something phantom into EVERYTHING I do, including whom I delete and whom I don’t when you know absolutely NOTHING about me or MY blog’s history then please go somewhere else. I really don’t need that type of aggravation. I’ve really had it with CONSERVATIVES telling ME what to do and JUDGING ME on whom I delete, speak to, blog with, etc.

    This matter is NOW closed for further discussion.

    Stay on topic with polite discourse or please don’t revisit my blog. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Pamela says: Sometimes the best response is NO response.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Pam, although I've been reading and not commenting about the past few posts between Confucius and yourself, I thought that you were more than a bit harsh on him and his views. I think you are going a bit over board on your censoring other opinions. The reader are interested in all opinions as well reading you voicing your opinion.
    If he acted like a troll, it would be another story, but I didn't think that he was.
    Just my 2 cents.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I've been away all day, so I didn't see any of Confucius' comments.

    I assume he was criticizing my "Sources." From what I can gather he said anyone can find a source to back up what one says.

    Confucius, those sources didn't back me up at all. All those sources did was REPORT on the two incidents you referred to in your original post. (Which apparently you deleted.) There was no editorializing in them. The first one was from NPR reporting on the Methodist church incident, and the second was a report on the NM photographer.

    Neither of them "backed me up." They were both news reports.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Shaw: It appears Confucius took his ball and bat and went home. I do have copies of all his comments but won’t bother posting them because I don’t wish to stir things up again. It’s obvious people still aren’t reading my policy or they are but aren’t taking it or me seriously. I warned everyone that I wasn’t going to be lenient anymore…guess they didn’t think I was sincere about that either…sooner or later they’ll learn or be deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Felons make the choice.

    Felons make the choice to commit a felony; the governments of certain states (in the name of their citizens) choose to take away the voting rights of those citizens who commit felonies. Some of 'em don't even give them back after the felon has served his sentence. To my way of thinkin', both the felons and those governments are doing something they shouldn't.

    It's just my opinion, and you're is free to disagree with it. I just don't believe that any government should have the right to take away a citizen's electoral voice. Your citizenship is your birthright... You can give it away, but no one should be able to take it from you.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Pam, re ...misinformed

    Yeah, I don't know what to say... I mean, I get that there are many religions who believe that homosexuality (& thus gay marriage) is wrong and/or sinful, and while I think that that fosters a bias against people who commit this "sin," I still understand that they think the act is wrong.

    In the end, I wish that this wrong act was treated more like other activities that go against church doctrine; No one's making laws prohibiting divorce, or fining those who take the Lord's name in vain (not even here on this sinful blog). People can tolerate and accept those who eat bottom-feeders/ham/meat on Friday, even though they know it's wrong.

    I just wish those who believe homosexuality is a sin would be as tolerant of gay "sinners" as they are the sinners who divorce, or take the Lord's name in vain. Disapprove; pray that the sinners renounce their sinful ways and come home to Jesus; preach & prosthelytize, even; but don't try to make a sinful act into an unlawful one.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Oh, so you are one of those big government proponents who want the government to tell people who they can and can't marry?

    Do you think they should still let fat people have sex?? I mean, gross...maybe they should ban that too...Along with people over 60...yuck. What goes on in your bedroom should be between you, the government and Sean Hannity and no one else!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...