November 11, 2008

50 years from now, people will look back at this illegal discrimination that still existed in America in 2008 and wonder, what were they thinking?



How could a country founded on "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and "all men are created equal" still so blatantly and so illegally discriminate against a class of people?

This isn't a moral issue. It's not what you personally think about gays. It's about the law. It's about the Constitution. It's about justice.

If you are against gay civil unions today, you will be ashamed of your position 50 years from now, if you're still alive. And if you aren't ashamed, your children will be.

82 comments:

Anonymous said...

Right on!

A semi-enlightened friend rails against "marriage" for gays, but supports civil unions. He claims that by allowing gay marriage, we are undercutting his religious beliefs & system because marriage is a religious ceremony and because gays want to destroy "the church". Civil unions, as non-religious, are OK though.

I suspect he has had a little too much Sunday kool-aid.

Anonymous said...

I am so taken with your tone and your politics. Sorry to gush, but your posts lately are thrilling to me. I am seeing a transformation of a person. Perhaps I didn't see it before but you are much more liberal than when I started reading HP years ago.

Here's a site where you can print out an IRS form challenging the Mormons' tax-exempt status. May not do anything but it's start. Protests are planned all over the country on November 15th. This is going to get big. Taking the fight to California and actually removing rights from a group that had attained them through the courts is appalling. That's not democracy, that's bullying of a small group by the majority. A majority that was misled by out-of-state interests and their $20 million dollars.

There's also a boycott of Utah and Mormon businesses. That includes Sundance, Park City, etc.

Before anyone cynically dismisses the effectiveness of such actions, ask Coors what the gay community did to their company and how they've been kissing gay ass ever since. There are other examples.

Revoke LDS Church 501(c)(3) status

Anonymous said...

Keith are you on drugs or something?

Do you also think that sheep shaggers, sister shaggers and pederasts (thats a polite word for people who f*ck little boys up the arse) will also be part of mainstream society and our revulsion towards them is just unenlightened illegal discrimination?

Keith, take your pseudo middle class liberal guilt trip and shove it.
So what, a blackman has been voted into a position of power, it isn't the 1st time and I doubt it will be the last.

Make the most of basking in his glory by slapping each other on the back, congratulating yourselves on how non racist you are, as you voted a darkie as president. The honeymoon period doesn't last long, ask the sainted Nelson Mandela all about 14 year old Stompie Muketsi Sepei.

Anonymous said...

Good Grief, Keith!

Take away gays and the modern Republican Party would splinter to pieces and collapse overnight, what with them having nothing that they could all agree to hate. With no GOP, where would we have any checks and balances against the Democratic majority?

Now that blacks are no longer in fashion, it's important to have some group to look down on. The gay population should be proud to step up to the plate and take one for Team America!

Think about it!

Their oppressed minority status is the only thing holding our fragile, partisan political system, and America, together.

“Go Queers!”

(Extreme sarcasm intended)

Anonymous said...

That guy is obviously gay so he can be ignored.

Owner Earnings said...

Per Bloomberg

This is what happens when you get downgraded like Genworth did


You get kicked out of the Fed programs.

So I wouldn't expect anyone to get downgraded anytime soon.

Owner Earnings At Blogspot

Anonymous said...

This isn't about discrimination or rights. It's a money grab, plain and simple. Homosexuals want insurance coverage for their higher than average health bills. They want other people to subsidize their self-indulgent lifestyles. It's more greed. What does a gay couple contribute to society that merits societal benefits?

The original impetus behind extending health insurance and other benefits to legal spouses was to protect wives/women, who otherwise would unfairly bear all the burden of the costs of childbearing and childrearing alone. It's not because anyone "loves" anyone else. All of society benefits when a woman takes years out of the workforce to create babies, yet her career is the one that is damaged by that selfless act. No chance of a homosexual couple procreating anything, so they can support themselves without social subsidy.

Incidentally, gay couples are the most financially secure of all domestic partnerships. They already benefit financially from their childless status and should be paying MORE to contribute to the rest of society. They need to stop taking and start giving, but that doesn't square with their self-absorption. They have no conception of what it is to be a procreative couple and the sacrifices and responsibilities it entails. But they think they're entitled to the same benefits? This is how children think.

I see the whole debate in sexist terms--as a slap in the face of females and our irreplaceable contribution to perpetuating the species. Hardly the same thing as buggery, now, is it? It's no wonder gay men want to take rights away from women. They are the biggest misogynists on earth. You don't think gay people discriminate and harbor prejudice against us breeders?

Mothers used to be revered in our society. Now, we're the equivalent of gay partners? Why bother investing in the next generation? Let's ALL live like we're the end of the world.

Kant's categorical imperative simply states that you can determine the immorality of an action by asking what would happen if you made a law that everyone must behave that way. If everyone were gay, where would that leave us?

Answer: End of the world.

Whatever you subsidize, you will have more of.

Mom

Anonymous said...

Keith, guess what? This is AMERICA. States have rights. The population of any given state can determine THEIR opinion on gay marriage, civil unions, etc. If a gay person wants to get married, there are several states they can do this in. NOBODY SAYS THEY MUST LIVE IN CALIFORNIA. They are making a personal choice to live where they want to. If a gay person wants to get married, several states will gladly accept them. Others will not. What's so wrong about that? Read the constitution please.

blogger said...

Guess what, when it comes to the United States Constitution on issues of equality under the law, states do not have rights.

This matter will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court and it will grant nationwide rights for gay couples and straight couples to legal civil unions. Equal protection under the law.

"Marriage" will then be a religious ceremony only, as it should have been all along. And each church can decide who it wants to marry as they have that freedom as private institutions.

Anonymous said...

How could a country founded on "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and "all men are created equal" still so blatantly and so illegally discriminate against a class of people?

This isn't a moral issue. It's not what you personally think about gays. It's about the law. It's about the Constitution. It's about justice.

If you are against gay civil unions today, you will be ashamed of your position 50 years from now, if you're still alive. And if you aren't ashamed, your children will be.


Wrong. Civil unions, marriage, whatever you want to call them are designed to provide a stable, safe institution for conceiving and raising children. Period.

It's not about personal fulfilment. It's not about feeling socially accepted. It's not a life long date.

I strongly sense this country is sick and tired of the founding fathers documents and existing laws being used to change bedrock institutions the founding fathers had absolutely no intention of changing. Like marriage, unions, whatever. But let's forget about the founders for now.

Creating and raising children is a lot of work. It's expensive too. A healthy society, that hopes to renew itself, gives married couples who intended to reproduce certain financial benefits to ease that burden. It's perfectly valid for a society to discriminate on where it puts it's financial resources.

And that's what this is really about. Financial benefits that comes with marriage. That's what the movement really wants.

But as we all should realize at this point, this society is very limited financially at this point. We don't have the resources to include the financial benefits to marriages, unions whatever that are not on average going to produce and raise children. We just can't afford it.

In 50 years, I'll be proud and proven correct. After all, after thousands of years it already been proven true.

Anonymous said...

There are really three aspects of gay rights/acceptance:
1) Equal treatment under the law concerning inheritances, medical decisions, child custody, employment discrimination, and so on.
2) Partner recognition under employer health plans, pensions, etc.
3) Moral acceptance

#1 is only fair. This is a nation of laws and gay should get the same treatment as anyone else. It doesn't matter if you call it marriage, civil unions, or something else.
#2 is really up to the employers. Recognition of gays as spouses for the purposes of benefit plans shouldn't be required by law. There is no law requiring benefits period, or coverage for hetero spouses or kids. It's up to companies to determine their own policies.
#3 is not something the government can legislate anyway.

Tom Grey said...

It's nearly certain that the vast majority of children will born from non-gay sex.

Gay sex for pleasure only is different, not equal, than straight sex for pleasure and children.

Marriage is not for the couple, it's for the children.

Gay civil unions should be the equal gay goal -- and gov't benefits for children should mostly go to the children, not the parents.

Anonymous said...

Mom

November 11, 2008 12:53 PM
-------------

I agree with many of your arguments but I think you are a little too extreme.

I think marriage and the social should be split, they are two completely different issues. This is a perfect example demonstrating how our pure and applied sciences have been evolving at a much faster pace than our social sciences. North America has never been strong on financing social sciences and the cracks are now in clear view.

The religious act of marriage merged "love" and finances. In the 50s and 60s, government created a social net also based on these terms.

But over the last few decades many things have changed and this social net needs a huge overhaul. First of all, it was based on a retirement age of 65, when at the time most were not expected to live much past that age. With today's life expectancy closer to 80, our system will soon be bankrupt. Yes it's true that this system was meant to protect women who bore children. But times have changed. Let's look at the number of divorces, women who now work, women who do not have children. This archaic system is having trouble accomodating for all these changes. Every few years, we put on a new band aid. And if we add the gays to this picture the collapse will be even quicker.

I think gays should be granted the right to marry but I also think the social net needs to be totally redesigned. For example, women (and men) who sacrificed their careers should get a special treatment over those who never bore children.

Anonymous said...

Once you open up the "equal protection under the law" argument I guess you're going to have to allow polygamists to marry too. If you remove the definition that marriage is between man and woman how can you say it must only be between 2 people?

The problem I have is the approach taken to this issue. There is common ground out there. Even in one of the most progressive states in the US, people are saying "You know what marriage isn't something we're ready to redefine".

Deciding this at the supreme court level is a huge mistake. You want an issue the Republicans can rally around: have the court overturn this against the will of the people. It will be Roe v. Wade all over again. Instead work to change partnership laws that are inclusive all types of domestic partnerships: for example a brother and sister who never married but have lived together as partners for years. Even parents and children may form needs for domestic partnerships.

Keith, if this blog is about finding common ground, why are you trying to drive a wedge through things? If you're an left-o, fine, but that's just going to add to the politics of the Bush/Rove era rather than solve problems

blogger said...

Readers know I'm a strict constitutionalist.

And my reading of the constitution is pretty clear on this matter.

If the state grants rights to two consenting adults to form a legal partnership with all the associated rights and privileges, then they cannot deny those rights and privileges because of someone's race or gender.

The only way to stop gays from forming legal partnerships equal to straights would be for a constitutional amendment.

I hope I cleared this up for you.

blogger said...

Here's the fourteenth, section 1, for those of you ignorant of your founding documents, or who hate it:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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

Anonymous said...

"Marriage" will then be a religious ceremony only, as it should have been all along. And each church can decide who it wants to marry as they have that freedom as private institutions."


I'm with you on getting gov't out of the marriage business. My sacramental marriage means something different than the courthouse marriage my sister had (not better/worse, just something else) they are NOT the same thing.

It sounds reasonable to let churches decide, but I think religious freedom vs. equal rights could wind up being a bit of a battle royale. Probably not too many churches that could get away with refusing to marry Cubans, amputees, etc.

Anonymous said...

"This is AMERICA. States have rights. The population of any given state can determine THEIR opinion on gay marriage, civil unions, etc."


WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Rest assured, these bans will be overturned, just as several states' anti-miscegenation laws were overturned in the Sixties.

The Constitution was not created to defend the rights of the majority.

Anonymous said...

I liked your blog a lot more when you talked about real issues, not disgusting animals.

blogger said...

It is surprising how many people are ignorant of the Constitution, and can't see the legal aspect of this issue as they're so clouded by their religious or moral beliefs.

It's disappointing to see ignorance all over America and the world. It's even more disappointing to see it here.

Anonymous said...

Here's the fourteenth, section 1, for those of you ignorant of your founding documents, or who hate it:

This is when you know you have Keith beat! Folks like Keith get passive agressive and get insulting (like labeling you ignorant or a hater) in a left handed mannor.

Notice how Keith ignores this key point: A society has a responsibility to set financial priorities. And the gay unions and marriage issue is, at the core, a financial one, for the gay community. They want benefits. Financial benefits. And this country can no longer afford to hand out more benefits. Period.

Those who argue for no gay marriage or unions, on a financial benefits basis, has defeated Keith's arguments. He simply has no logical response.

Also, in full disclosure for the blog, Keith should indicate wether he is gay, and wether his is looking to get married. Then we can understand wether he could potential profit from this change he proposes. That's only fair.

Anonymous said...

danm

I don't disagree with you.

Consider the following: Children pay social security for retirees. People who have no children are essentially taking from the system without having "paid in" by raising more workers to support them in their old age.

People used to want to have lots of children to support them in their old age. Once the government took over that role (with Social Security), people could think: Hell! I'll let OTHER people's children pay for my old age and spend all my OWN money on MYSELF during MY reproductive years.

Pretty socially responsible, huh!? This is why the whole SS system broke down in the first place. Moral hazard. The Baby Boomers, quite simply, didn't have enough children. Too self-indulgent.

I say, tax childless people DOUBLE or TRIPLE on their FICA to cover the fact that they are not contributing able-bodied citizens to the Social Security system!!!!! They're the ones who can afford it! They're not paying for food, clothing, shoes, health insurance, college tuition, endless bills and career damage involved in raising children. I'd like to eat out every night, too!

I can't believe this isn't part of the discussion!! I'm so tired of hearing from greedy gay people who want me to subsidize their health club memberships, trendy clothes and semi-annual vacations.

Grow up, babies. Grrrrrr.

Mom

Anonymous said...

My argument has nothing to do with whether the SC can rule in the area, my argument is that it shouldn't.

Allowing 9 people who have no accountability to anything deciding divisive issues in society, especially those that have been there since the beginning of the US and pretty much human civilization for that matter is NOT a good idea. These are how courts are accused of legislating from the bench. Then for many people pres. elections become about appointing the "right" people to the SC instead of focusing on how well or poorly that person governs.

blogger said...

100% straight, but that is irrelevant when it comes to a legal argument. I'm not black, but I'm for blacks having equal protection under the law as well. I'm not a woman, and I believe in women having equal protection under the law.

Denying gays the right to equal protection is not a financial issue. It is a legal issue.

If society would like to discriminate against a class of people, the only way will be to change the constitution. We may indeed head down that path now, as that would solve the legal issue.

However, it would make America a disgusting and morally reprehensible and indefensible country. And that's why it won't happen.

Anonymous said...

No one protests civil unions. Don't use the word marriage and force all churches to marry homosexuals. All churches to keep the word marriage and follow their beliefs and create civil unions that are equal to marriage.

Don't take away my freedom of religion and right to vote because you don't agree with me, those are civil rights!!

Anonymous said...

Wow, comments are at every point on the map here. That highlights what an interesting mix of blog readers you've built up over the years, K.

Well-intentioned sharp thinkers can and will disagree on this one. And I won't change any minds here, but here's where I'm at on this one:

Put me down as completely for civil unions, but against same-sex marriage. I think committed couples should have exactly the same legal rights regarding insurance, mortgage, hospital visitation, survivorship, etc. -- regardless of whether they are xx/xy, xx/xx, or xy/xy. I'm straight and married, and my marriage is in no way threatened by someone else's bond of commitment.

But, but. Marriage is both a legal institution AND a religious institution. Picking which parts of a given religious faith who want to believe in is intellectual slackness -- you're in or you're out. I'm in -- I'm a Christian. The rector of my church has blessed same-sex civil unions for years, and I'm all for it. But, crucially, that's NOT a marriage. It's the blessing of a civil union.

Calling it marriage crosses the line for me, it's sloppy and indulgent -- if you're gay, fine, if you want a ceremony sealing your monogamy, fine -- but you can't have an actual wedding. You've put yourself outside the bounds of that ceremony by your choices, since that ceremony has to be between one man and one woman. I feel this in my bones, as a certainty that's hard to articulate, but that I don't doubt. It's like this one: when you get married you don't get to date other people. You have deal with the consequences of your choice. To me, gay couples who want to get married (as opposed to those who want a civil union with all rights concomitant to marriage), aren't dealing with the consequences of their choices. It's slightly juvenile.

I'd be interested to see if any of you grok what I'm saying here.

Anonymous said...

mom,
i'm a single child-less professional woman. just so you know, i do pay significantly more in taxes than a single mother in my income bracket. there is already a very heavy bias in our system and in our tax structure in favor of people with children. i don't think singles should pay more. we consume much less than families do and pay more into the system.

Anonymous said...

Denying gays the right to equal protection is not a financial issue. It is a legal issue. .. the only way will be to change the constitution ... However, it would make America a disgusting and morally reprehensible and indefensible country. And that's why it won't happen.

No Keith, it's a financial issue.

The legality battleground is not the end game. The financial benefits are the primary motivations.

Proponents can prove me wrong if they want. They can post and say they willingly will accept NO financial benefits from a union / marriage. But I'm warning you, the sound of crickets chirping will be deafening.

Anonymous said...

Equal protection from what?

Anonymous said...

It's always about the money.

Follow the money.

Anonymous said...

Why isn't democracy enough? The people voted on this issue. Deal with it.

No, when the people vote "wrong," we have to have riots in the street. We have to force things OUR way. That's fascistic.

I don't like the way some votes go, either, but I have kids to raise and bills to pay. I don't have time for self-aggrandizing street tantrums. Behave yourselves, babies.

And what's with Olberman's weepiness? Over the top. No one is stopping anyone from being with anyone they want. Sheesh. Such attention-seeking drama,

Mom

Anonymous said...

i never read measure 8 or the court decision that enable gays to marry.

you are calling it civil unions. the media is calling it gay marriage.

two different things. one is legal and the other is a religious definition.

you can't legislate religion. i think the government should get out of issuing marriage licenses. from now on, they should be called civil union licenses. for everyone, gay or straight. it is simply a legal document that covers certain responsibilities and benefits conveyed to the two signing parties.

Anonymous said...

A semi-enlightened friend rails against "marriage" for gays, but supports civil unions. He claims that by allowing gay marriage, we are undercutting his religious beliefs & system because marriage is a religious ceremony and because gays want to destroy "the church". Civil unions, as non-religious, are OK though.

--------------------

he is partially correct. marriage is a religious definition. therefore the government should not be defining marriage by issuing marriage licenses. does your local city hall issue baptism certificates?

Anonymous said...

This matter will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court and it will grant nationwide rights for gay couples and straight couples to legal civil unions. Equal protection under the law.

------------------------------------

ah but Keith, I don't think this will solve the problem. gays are looking for more than just equality under the law, and lowering the other side down so that everyone is equal will not satisfy that need.

most mainstream religions will not marry gays or recognize gay marriage, therefore, gay civil unions will be viewed as something less than a civil union that is sanctified by the catholic church (insert other rigid religions).

i know several gays who are not happy with the thought of just "equal under the law". they are looking for society to view it as equal, which is something that cannot be legislated from the bench or from the legislature.

Anonymous said...

Marriage is not for the couple, it's for the children.
------------------------------

not sure if it is strictly for the children but once children arrive they are a HUGE part of it.

there are benefits to the couple even if there are children. knowing that there is someone who will be your advocate when you can no longer speak for yourself is one that I can think of.

Anonymous said...

I say, tax childless people DOUBLE or TRIPLE on their FICA to cover the fact that they are not contributing able-bodied citizens to the Social Security system!!!!! T
---------------------------------

interesting argument and i agree, that is part of the problem with social security. BUT that doesn't mean we should encourage a population explosion!

Anonymous said...

Keith said: “It is surprising how many people are ignorant of the Constitution, and can't see the legal aspect of this issue as they're so clouded by their religious or moral beliefs.”

It is surprising how many people are ignorant of the fact that the Constitution can be interpreted in a purely subjective manner if there is a specific agenda at issue. Do you really believe that the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment was to grant Corporate Personhood? No, it was not. But that is how subjective interpretation of the Constitution can be used to address a specific and selfish agenda that has had disastrous results in our country (IMO).

Anonymous said...

It's disappointing to see ignorance all over America and the world. It's even more disappointing to see it here.
------------------------------

Keith, it is simply bickering about the definition of a religious term, marriage. Gays will never be able to change the definition of it (and some won't be happy unless they do, but I say to them: tough, get over it). likewise, government shouldn't be defining marriage either, separation of church and state.

the government should not be issuing marriage licenses anymore than they should issue a Bris license. the government should issue a civil union license. do ALL religions call the union between a man and woman "marriage"? I don't know but i would guess they don't.

Anonymous said...

Well, Keith, if you want us to "grow" our way out of this financial mess, how about giving huge tax incentives to families with children?

Something like $10,000-$15,000K per year, which might actually be close to what a child actually costs?

It's the only way to keep the SS ponzi scheme going--add more people to the bottom. Those who don't add people can add more money instead.

Anonymous said...

"gays are looking for more than just equality under the law, and lowering the other side down so that everyone is equal will not satisfy that need."

Good point. They do want to lower heterosexuals down to their level.

Sex between a man and a woman has the potential to call forth human life. There are souls involved. Sex without any procreative potential is a base, self-indulgent physical act. It is purely because of the creative aspect of sex that it is supposed to be limited within the protective boundaries of a marriage, for the protection and nurture of any new life that could spring forth.

Gay sex is not even close to the same thing. It's Narcissistic (with a capital N), for one thing. Who else wants to have sex with their own reflection? No wonder they think marriage is all about sex.

Anonymous said...

"Big Moe said...
I am so taken with your tone and your politics. Sorry to gush, but your posts lately are thrilling to me. I am seeing a transformation of a person. Perhaps I didn't see it before but you are much more liberal than when I started reading HP years ago."

He is a classic left-winger who does not respond when challanged.
Had he shown these views years ago, instead of lying by saying he was a Reagan Republican, his little housing blog would have died much sooner than it did.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to disagree with you yet again, Keith. The states DO in fact have some measure of determining what rules and laws they have. The constitution grants them the ability to make laws. The people of that state can choose. Its no different than certain states electing not to honor MLK day or keeping a conferedate flag. Do I think gay marriage is ok? Of course, but only if the PEOPLE of that state want it. It makes no difference to me as a straight guy whether it ever passes or not. Gays can be married in certain states. They get to live there if they feel like it. They are entitled to all the same rights that married people get if they are in a state that ok's gay marriage.

brokersleaveyoubroke said...

"Marriage is not for the couple, it's for the children."

I am probably going to marry a woman who can no longer have children. According to that poster it should be illegal for us to get married. How about senior couples who want to get married? Should that be illegal? should they be denied benefits?
Should medical benefits be denied to a childless spouse or a spouse whose children are grown? Marriage may have been for the children at one time but it is no longer just for children. What prevents a straight couple from getting married just for the benefits. I know straight couples who stay married just for the benefits.
Also the arguement that the gay lifestyle is a matter of choice is nonsense. Ask yourself, are you attracted to people of the same sex? If you said NO then you did not have to make a choice about being straight. Why do you insist that a man who is attracted to another man should have to make a choice that you did not have to make?

Anonymous said...

Yeah let's ignore the will of the people.

30 states have had ballots to ban gay marriage.

Of those 30, a grand total of ZERO have voted for gay marriage.

30/30 yet liberals won't let it go.

Anonymous said...

If gays are going to be able to marry, then I want to be able to marry my sister...everyone cool with that?

How in this modern age can I not marry my sister, in 50 years people will look back and say, "gee what backwards people".

We're in love, how can you sad evil people deny love and happiness?

Anonymous said...

"I know straight couples who stay married just for the benefits."

That's the point. We want heterosexual couples to stay together because it's better for any children they might produce. That's why we subsidize marriage.

There is no social benefit in gays pretending to marry. That's why the majority of people vote against subsidizing their hedonistic lifestyle and calling it a "marriage," which it isn't.

Anonymous said...

Preach on, Keith!

When will straight people just get over the whole gay thing?

Seriously.

It is a non-starter as far as the law goes.

There is no doubt that gay couples will prevail in the California Supreme Court, overturning Prop 8, and then the nut-case-gay-hating-straight-only-marriage crowd will force this to the US Supreme Court, where the gay couples will prevail again.

A very simple yet very powerful aspect of our Constitution allows for equal protection under the law. And marriage, in our country, aside from the religous ceremony, is nothing more than hundreds and hundreds of laws enacted by the states and federal government.

This will be a big fight, lasting for years to come, but again, it is a done deal, even if the case is heard by the existing, conservative court.

The conservatives in this country already know that, and that is why they have pressed this to make it a state issue, not a federal issue.

Again, to my straight friends, get over it.

FlyingMonkeyWarrior said...

I do not care. The world economy is getting ready to implode here.

Anonymous said...

I don't like FAG
I don't like LES
I don't like DRAG-QUEEN

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Two homo-sapien with opposite sex sharing and living a combined life together to make children.

Stupid FAG LOVERS !. That's the drag of the Earth.

blogger said...

I don't think there's a big pent up demand out there (beyond the red states) for brothers and sisters to marry

But if that's what they want to do, then legally they should be allowed to get a civil union.

Equal protection.

Anonymous said...

You people are all very confused.

What disgusted me the most about Prop 8 is how it electrified so many people (especially fake conservative christians) to get off their ass and hit the streets protesting.

Where were these concerned christians and others when we were protesting the illegal war on Iraq and Afghanistan where over a million innocent lives have been destroyed?

Where was all the consternation over the war? Where was all the protest over the illegal "bailout" looting operation that is screwing every single American over?

Why are all these self-righteous and morally outraged individuals so concerned about how others live their lives and yet have no concern over how others are losing their lives over a completely immoral and illegal war?

Ultimately, in a free society the government has no business getting involved with marriage be it gay or "wholesome". That's what the Founders intended: limited government and individual liberty.

Anonymous said...

Yes, all the blacks that voted for Barack just because he is black - without regard to his political viewpoints - and not for Mccain because he is white - is a shame.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Keith's November 11, 2008 8:55 PM post:

Well, at least you're willing to take your stand to its logical conclusion. But I think you're just baiting us, to goad a reaction. Gosh, do bloggers do that?.....

So, geeski, I'm pro-civil union, anti-same-sex-marriage. Does that make me part of the "nut-case-gay-hating-straight-only-marriage crowd"? People are making comments on this thread, but they aren't Really Engaging the other viewpoints. Gosh, does that happen on blog threads?

Anonymous said...

Also the argument that the gay lifestyle is a matter of choice is nonsense.

----------------------------

My friends, that is a slippy slope to traverse!

it is a choice, some who are hetero choose to not participate in the hetero lifestyle.

Society sets up rules of behavior that encourage certain actions that help improve odds of survival for a society. forcing people to educate their children is one example.

Some argue that encouraging long term committed hetero relationships that CAN produce offspring is also in the best interests of survival for a society. they don't always produce offspring, or the offspring to make it to maturity, nothing is ever guaranteed.

Does encouraging homosexual relationships better the survival odds of a society? I don't see how but that is not sufficient to deny them the legal benefits that hetero couples enjoy.

Anonymous said...

Probably not too many churches that could get away with refusing to marry Cubans, amputees, etc.

--------------------------------

umm, church's can deny to marry anyone they want to, can't they? I am not catholic and I do not expect that a catholic church would marry me and a non-catholic partner.

Anonymous said...

Yes its just all about how cruel and mean we are but the California vote was defeated by African Americans not Irish Americans not Italian Americans not Native Americans but a large portion of African Americans so why is the Gay Community protesting in front of you guessed it white churches those evil no good white Catholics. Why is it when a measure is presented to the voters and the vote does not make some people happy they take to the streets and cry I think we should the %48 of voters against Obama take to the streets and demand justice where is the ACLU on this outrage and you put it up on your blog and try as usual to put this country down if it doesn't conform to the left ideology. Yes lets have every community in the country no lets make it the whole world mimic San Francisco wow what a place that would be just love everywhere.

Anonymous said...

I wont be ashamed. My children will be thanking me for stopping this insanity. The people of our state have decided that the shrieking gay community has overstepped their bounds and does not get to change the definition of marriage. Thank God.

Im wont even go into the comparison of gays rights to the rights of blacks in our country. Talk to a few black people and see how well that idea goes over. You'll notice that even though black communities overwhelming supported the ban on gay marriage (over 70%) you've yet to see a gay protest march through the center of Compton. Think there will be one on Nov 15th? No, I guarantee it. They pick the Mormons, easy target. What a bunch of cowards.

Societies only tolerate issues like this when times are good. Those times are obviously coming to an end as you so eloquently point out. Stand by for a lot more anger directed at the morally corrupt gay community. You think the gays are pissed? Wait and see who the 70% of this country that consider themselves religious blame for the hard times to come.

Ross said...

Loans reform and Gay Marriage Props.

All the religious nuts and gay/les activists should be out producing something to save our economy. No one is banning homosexuality or forcing you to go to a gay wedding and cut the cake with a dildo shaped knife. Am I alone here in just not caring?

I have an aunt who is a lesbian and she has been happily living with her life partner for quite a long time. She's more worried about her studio making a profit in an aging downtown distict of Minneapolis that she is about whether or not she can get a tax rebate for her childless household.

Anonymous said...

i don't believe gays should have civil unions or marriages. marriage is for a man and woman.

by allowing gay unions or marriage, we must then teach it to our children in school at the youngest ages. GLSEN (the educational advocacy group for gays) is pushing the gay agenda into kindergarten and early grade school. it truly is sickening to think a six or seven year old kid must be forced to learn about gays (anal sex, etc.) at this age and also be forced to accept it.

this is the true agenda of the gay lobby. it's to push gayness into all aspects of life, including our youngest children. that's just insane.

gays should be happy with what they have today. they are better off financially than the vast majority of the people in this country and in the world. clearly there is little discriminationa against them in the workplace because of their sexual orientation since their average income is way above the national median.

Anonymous said...

OK,

How about plural marriages?
Equal protection under the law. All parties consent.
How about brothers marrying sisters?
Equal protection under the law. All parties consent.
How about fathers marrying daughters?
Equal protection under the law.
All parties consent.
How about rednecks marrying their sheep.
Equal protection under the law.
How about sicko marrying a corpse who signed a release prior to death?
Equal protection under the law. All parties consent.

What? You think they are "sick"?How dare you discriminate against these pople who LOVE each other and just want to seal their bond of love and devotion? You hater.....

Take the genetic mutation factor out of the equation, cases where relatives are sterile or something, and your prejudice belies your simple logic. You become that which you despise.

The prejudice you hold to these scenarios is the same as the prejudice people have against same sex marriages. You are no more logical or enlightened, just a fool.

See, you are an amateur.

Yu been skooled again.

Anonymous said...

This is all political BS.

We allowed gay marriages here in Canada even though the majority of the population didn't want it - which eventually caused the ruling Liberal party to lose power.

As it turned out - most gays were against homesexual marriage as well and the numbers taking advantage of it are dismally small - mostly Americans coming over the border.

The idea of sexual liberation (as expressed in homosexualism) is having freedom in sex - being free to have sex with whoever or whatever you want whenever you want. Most homosexuals were abhorred that they would now be forced to take the same vows and live under the same constrictive requitrements of heterosexual society where they could only have sex with a single individual for the rest of their lives.

This quickly led to the break up of many homosexual couples.

Don't be fooled people. The pushing of the homosexual agenda is not pushed by homosexuals themselves as much as those who wish to eliminate the notions of a traditional family as well as anything else that is connected with the Christian heritage.

It got so bad in Toronto that they started talking about putting up the "holiday" tree. Mel Lastman - our jewish mayor at the time - told the city council to go stuff themselves and call it a Christmas tree like normal people.

The guy in the video... it was obvious he had no connection to homosexuals... because uf he did, he'd realize how stupid he sounds.

I would just ask him... why does he care so much? Why is he pushing an agenda which has no impact on his family or anyone he knows?

You might also want to keep in mind... Muslims can marry up to 4 wives by the Koran - and this is allowed in many arab countries. Since we are now allowing homosexual marriages, it's only a matter of time that immigrants with multiple wives be allowed full privileges as well.

The problem is that our laws are based on Roman law which had to deal with too many philandering Romans who had dozens of mistresses. The entire marriage laws were put in place in order to codify the inheritance laws. You needed to know who was married to who so that the kids could inherit what was left over. When people begin to have multiple partners... this goes out the window. What happens if the kid from the second wife is older than the kid from the first wife... while you're still maried to both?

How soon before we get three people married together?

Utter political BS!

Anonymous said...

100% straight, but that is irrelevant when it comes to a legal argument. I'm not black, but I'm for blacks having equal protection under the law as well. I'm not a woman, and I believe in women having equal protection under the law.

Denying gays the right to equal protection is not a financial issue. It is a legal issue.


You're born black or a woman. Gay is a sexual "orientation" which can change.

If you're going to clasify it anywhere - you might want to put them under religious beliefs... those can change too.

so... If I want to marry my pet goat... will my marriage be fully protected under the law? Should the government start working on supporting research into human-goat hybrids.

Hmmm... I think I'll have a son... and I'll call him Baphomet!

Anonymous said...

Marriages have been understood for centuries as unions between men and women. I don't like supreme courts or other government agencies recasting the meaning of words; it smells like 1984.

Gay couples have the right to make their relation a civil union in California; this was not part of the referendum.

Anonymous said...

A common mistake made by the left and the right is in assuming that the newly born generation will accept the older generation's philosophy with the same fervor that the older did in developing it.

It's easy to hate the Christian-right in America for their faithful blindness, but for some reason, not so easy to hate the fundamentalist Muslims for the same reason.

There is no guarantee at all that the next generation will hate the Christian-right as much as you do. There is no guarantee that the next generation will vote for a president because she is Asian rather than white.

The left's current position on abortion is what will be considered shameful in 50 years. Babies are born earlier and earlier these days. Within 50 years, a fetus born prematurely in its first trimester will grow to be a perfectly healthy human being.

And it won't have been conceived by two men - possibly only one man, but not two.

Anonymous said...

Hey Mom, I hope one of your kids turns out to be gay. I've enjoyed paying for their schooling with the taxes on my luxurious lifestyle! How about the concept that your children will USE as many resources as they put into the system.
Ross, you aunt might be worried when her life partner is in the hospital and she's not allowed any say in the matter.
This is not about money, it is about being respected instead of being called some of the derogatory terms I see in this thread.

Anonymous said...

What was He Thinking?

"I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama

Sept. 24, 2004, interview with WBBM-AM radio in Chicago.

Anonymous said...

I'm with you, Keith. So are most of the people I know under the age of 40. It's the older folks who are too set in their ways, maybe they've been brainwashed by religion or they lived sheltered lives and were shocked to learn about same-sex attraction.

It's just no big deal for the rest of us.

The financial argument is stupid. Lots of gay couples have children. Most tax breaks are for couples with dependents, anyhow.

The Constitution was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Marriage is a religious rite, and as such outlawing gay marriage is too much government interference into religion. Government will have to get out of the marriage business altogether. Grant civil union licenses and let churches perform marriages that have no legal weight.

Anonymous said...

I hate to follow an off topic thread, but I can't help myself.

Kids are not good for the economy because they will support social security. That's insane. All kids cost us in the form of schools, parks, recreation programs, safety precautions, special law enforcement services, protective services, the list goes on.

From there, they will join one of the following groups:

- Those evil childless singles you seem to be against
- Unproductive drags on society
- Parents who create more of these little monsters

Okay, so my argument is as ridiculous as the people saying that they are helping the economy by making children.

What happens if your children die at 18 before they start working and paying into social security?

Do you have to pay those "DOUBLE OR TRIPLE" back taxes plus interest on all of those tax breaks you got for having kids? Also, do you have to cough up all the public school funding that was spent on them now that they are not going to help support the old folks? If they used the public parks, do you have to pay by the hour?

People are people.

When you are a kid, you are mostly a drain on the economy. Through the middle of your life, you contribute more than your share. Toward the end, you might go either way. Every person is a productivity crap shoot. Some are productive, some are drains.

If you make a person, you don't change the odds, you just roll the dice one more time.

Anonymous said...

In 50 years, I hope we are wondering how we let the government's power to become so extreme that people needed the government to give them approval to get married.

And how many of you married guys think that gays in Arizona and California just dodged a major bullet whether they realize it or not?

;)

Anonymous said...

"umm, church's can deny to marry anyone they want to, can't they? I am not catholic and I do not expect that a catholic church would marry me and a non-catholic partner."

---------------

What if you are a gay Catholic? Then you're not being treated equally and we've got a serious legal rumble on our hands.

ApleAnee said...

Anonymous said...

You people are all very confused.

What disgusted me the most about Prop 8 is how it electrified so many people (especially fake conservative christians) to get off their ass and hit the streets protesting.

It is something that they can understand. Finance and economics requires study and some critical thinking. Is hard to take to the streets about something that totally mystifies most. Much easier to jump on the emotional bandwagon. Everybody loves a good down and dirty street fight.

As we amuse ourselves to death....

Anonymous said...

what is wrong with all of you?!? gay is not a choice. it is how you are born. even the Catholic church admits that. they would like you to stay celibate, but understand that choice has no part in the equation.


why are you all exerting so much energy here talking in circles when you could be making a change somewhere else? write you senator to make changes that politics should affect. social programs, taxes, war. the only judge of these issues is above and i think He has His hand on His forehead and is saying "doh. get me a beer jc!!!"

and gay being about sex. hmmmm can you see alaska from your house? come on.

keith, your readers are enlightened about all things financial, but don't seem to have much diversity in their lives. how many of you people that posted here even know a gay? go back to talking about the P/E...its always about the P/E.

that being said. God blesses and karma (His cousin) bitchslaps.

and...

your mom is gay.

Lost Cause said...

Damn fine analysis, Keith. I agree with you 100%, and there is no way that the rights of minority will ever be fairly decided by the majority. This will be decided in court, and gays will have equal rights. The majority does not rule in this country -- the law does.

Lost Cause said...

What if you are a gay Catholic?

Then you would be running the Church.

Anonymous said...

What is the point of legalizing that apples are not apples but pears? Once there is no distinction between them we can just call it fruit. It will be a sad day when we have only one tasteless hermaphrodite fruit. Shouldn't we rather breed the best apples and the best pears and call it appropriately?

Anonymous said...

The laws of the land ought to govern all citizens EQUALLY.

Race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation should not preclude anyone from rights granted all others. Including the right of marriage.

This preoccupation with someone's elses bedroom practices seems perverse to me.

Sex, like religion, is a private matter as long as it harms no one else.

With liberty and justice for ALL!

Samantha

Anonymous said...

What if you are a gay Catholic? Then you're not being treated equally and we've got a serious legal rumble on our hands.

If you're gay, then you're not Catholic.

You don't get to pick and choose what parts of the religion you want to believe in. Either you follow the religion as is dictated by the bishops or go start your own!

I'd love to go sleep with every cute girl I find. I'd love to divorce my wife. But hey... that will get me excommunicated from the Church.

Following a religion means that you need to make some sacrifices.

What do you think being a muslim means? If you are not going to believe in what muslims believe - why would you even call yourself one?

Anonymous said...

What disgusted me the most about Prop 8 is how it electrified so many people (especially fake conservative christians) to get off their ass and hit the streets protesting.

No one is going to live their lives to please you.

If everyone got off their asses to protest the war in Iraq, you'd be first cheering them on.

So the fact is - it's not that they got off their asses that bugs you - it's just them and their motives which you don't like.

Well too flippin bad! We live in a democracy so get use to it. There are plenty of other dictatorships on this planet that you could move it if you don't like it.

Anonymous said...

Race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation should not preclude anyone from rights granted all others. Including the right of marriage.

Why should we add sexual orientation to that list? Where is it even mentioned in the constitution?

Who knows... one day we might add robotic life forms to that list... but why?

We as a society get to decide what is protected and what isn't.

Why don't we make suicide bombers a protected right in the constitution too then?

This preoccupation with someone's elses bedroom practices seems perverse to me.

Then KEEP it in the bedroom and stop trying to force it down my throat! I don't force anyone to believe in my religion - and you can believe in bigfoot and the tooth fairy all you want. Why is the rest of society being forced to accept the wishes of 2% of the population... IF that much?

Anonymous said...

The majority does not rule in this country -- the law does.

What an absolutely moronic statement for someone living in a democracy.

You were being sarcastic right?

The majority MAKES the laws which is why they rule. This is why people went out to vote.

Anonymous said...

what is wrong with all of you?!? gay is not a choice. it is how you are born. even the Catholic church admits that. they would like you to stay celibate, but understand that choice has no part in the equation.

Actually, you have to stay celibate or they should excommunicate you. It's the same reason why you're not allowed to have sex outside of (heterosexual!) marriage.

Oh... and someone mentioned something about old people getting married. Just FYI - the Catholic Church will not marry anyone unless it is for the sole purpose of having and raising children.

So... if you are infertile/too old to have kids/etc, by Cannon law, the Church shouldn't be marrying you. Most priests however turn a blind eye these days - which merits them an excommunication as well.

Unfortunately the Church is not as tough as it was in the old days... which is why Henry the eighth decided to break away and start his own religion btw.

Today it's all this peace and ecumenism crap.

But that's ok... eventually the pendulum swings in the other direction.

Anonymous said...

Flying Monkey Warrior said:
I do not care. The world economy is getting ready to implode here.

YUP agreed. We also have the little problem called Iraq and Afghanistan to deal with.

Buy gold online - quickly, safely and at low prices