Reality Unwound

Why is it always the uber conservative bible thumpers that end up in these things?

Well, it’s not just uber conservatives, but whatever their political background, they usually all have one thing in common- they oppose civil marriage for gay couples. Is there no one on the right with the guts to finally call out the moral hypocrites in their party and then maybe concede that perhaps gay people wouldn’t exactly be the worst thing to happen to marriage? Here’s a great article from the (conservative) columnist David Brooks.http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/opinion/the-power-of-marriage.html

Posting it again b/c not sure if the whole thing went through before.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/opinion/the-power-of-marriage.html

It’s not always the uber conservative Bible Thumpers that end up on these things. The only reason it makes news is because Christians have said that some things are right and some things are wrong (infidelity). What makes the news is inconsistency. If everything is OK for everyone all the time and nothing is ever wrong, then what’s newsworthy about destroying a marriage and a family?

What relevance does gay marriage have on this issue? Why would homosexual unions have stopped or in any way changed this story? The problem is that Sanford lied to his wife & his constituents. That’s the problem.

I don’t have any problem with the voters from any state in the union choosing to deal with marriage in any way they wish. If the voters of a state want to allow same sex civil unions, then I will be the first one in line saying that the people have spoken. I don’t, however, feel that same sex union (or any other piece of legislation). If, however, the voters should vote not to allow same sex unions, then I think the will of the people should also be allowed to stand in that case.

I don’t see how it can be any other way. If the state wants to get involved in marriage (which I am not 100% sure it should), then the only way it can happen is by a vote. Proposition 8 in California, however strongly people disagree with it, was voted on and passed by the people. It will come up again, I am sure, and people will once again have the chance to choose. Is there a better way? Should this issue be handled differently than other issues?

I wish ironic condemnation made the news- Sanford condemning gay marriage because he believes it undermines the family as he undermines his own family by cheating on his wife. What’s worse is, if these folks got divorced and Sanford wanted to get married again, the state and federal government will gladly give him another opportunity to undermine the sanctity of marriage while keeping committed gay couples out of this legal institution. Ironic? Stupid? Discriminatory? I wish the news media would bring this up.

Relevence: People who want to deprive 1,138 federal benefits and protections as well as numerous state benefits simply because they have a personal belief against marriages between gay couples while partaking in all of these benefits himself AND cheating on his wife is most relevent.

Majority rule: When it comes to equal protection under the law, this is the worst way to protect peoples rights. For example, the military was desegregated before the majority thought it should be, and laws against interracial marriages were done away with while a large majority of Americans were strongly against interracial marriage. And if majority rule is really okay in this instance, what if the majority of California decided Christians shouldn’t be allowed to marry each other? Would you say that’s fair?
Why should anybody else get to govern my personal life? How are YOUR rights infringed if my girlfriend and I get married?

Cmon Kristen, I admire your diligence in beating the drum on your issue, but why cant we just enjoy this for what it is. Yet another of the better than you ultra family men who’s spent most of his instructing the rest of us on whats best for us to believe has been completely embarrassed in the most public way. Its just another fun moment where we can all just laugh at the jackass. Lets concentrate on that.

PS. The issue isn’t weather it infringes on anybody elses rights its weather the right exists for you. Same as the boy scouts set up rules to become an eagle scout, and it isn’t that a girl becoming one infringes on anyone elses rights it just a queation of weather or not she has the right to become one. Smae thing as marriage. The christians set up this thing called “marriage” and set up the rules for it and it has been greatly altered and used for different things over the centuries and the issue becomes weather you have a RIGHT to do thier thing that they created not weather your doing it violates anyone elses rights.

Actually, once the government got involved and decided to bestow all kinds of protections and benefits on marriage, it ceased to be an exclusively religious institution. I’m not trying to partake in anyone’s religious interpretation of marriage. I’m only interested in protecting my family and being treated equally under the law. And anytime someone advocates against the legal protections of my family while enjoying those protections for himself and hurting an institution he claims I am hurting, needs to be called out.

Social Security is the only one I can think of. Seems the issue would be equal treatment by government rather than the other route. If the government started giving favorable treatment to girl scouts and I’m not allowed to be a girl scout. I would fight against the inequitable treatment by the government rather than fighting for the girl scouts to let me in.

Social Security is one, and there are 1,137 more federal benefits and protections conferred upon marriage. I’m not totally following your girl scouts analogy. We are trying to get all of these benefits secured under the federal government, we’re trying to belong to some private organization like the girls scouts.

That is, we’re NOT trying to belong to some private organization like the girl scouts

It is (or should be) a private organization though. Marriage is a completely made up thing. I think our focus should be on stopping the government from bestowing favorable treatment to these religious institutions.
PS I get that someone made a list of all the things they could think of to make 1,137, but what is a significant one other than social security?

If you go to this site, you can read the list of all 1,138

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

You’re back! I thought we had lost you there for a minute.

I’m still here : )
Did you check out that site? It’s a lot to sift through, but these are the details that most people don’t consider when they’re forming their opinion about denying gay couples federal recognition of their marriages.