A Mormon friend of mine, from Utah, recently posted something on Facebook, arguing that the gay marriage push in Utah was a dangerous precedent on increasing Federal powers and taking away States’ Rights. Immediately, some gay friends and family of hers attacked her as homophobic. She is not homophobic.
The US Justice Department has indicated that they will recognize gay marriages in Utah that were performed before the current stay was granted, in spite of the Governor of Utah ruling the marriages invalid pending the court case outcome. This has now happened.
Here is my response to the people who were attacking my friend:
Okay, big ol’ scary dyke weighing in here. I agree with Krista on the legal aspects. States rights are incredibly important and the Constitution exists to limit the Federal Gov’t’s power.
Right now, we have a President who ignores the Constitution and no one seems to be holding him accountable. To pretend this isn’t happening, to cut him slack because he is black – that is overt racism. That is saying that he cannot be expected to know the law (even though his resume says he is a constitutional scholar) and that he has to be held to a lower standard of accountability, simply because he is black.
For me being gay wasn’t a choice, and it has been a choice for one of my friends. Either way, individual freedom from government interference is important and states’ rights to be self-determining are important. If you want to live in Utah and have marriage rights in Utah – that’s completely understandable – fight for it at the state level, the Federal gov’t should not be involved. Be prepared to have a tougher go in Utah than you would in Wisconsin.
The demographics of Utah are unique among the states. Forcing an issue that is powerfully at odds with the beliefs of millions of citizens of Utah, without actually having the debate, explaining the reasons why gay people need that right, and getting buy-in on how the two positions can co-exist, will and has only created hard feelings, and will cause those against gay marriage to entrench and defend their position.
The important issues from this post do not need to be sidetracked into that debate. I will gladly host that debate on my page, or Krista can start a thread for that discussion. I live in Canada and greatly enjoy having full equal rights here. I can speak to what actually happens in a society 10 years after gay marriage became legal (Ontario).
The big questions that we all need to be considering and finding solutions to are:
How do we go about prosecuting the President for illegally changing or refusing to enforce Federal laws? How do we mount a challenge that states’ rights are being trampled? How do we get a case to the Supreme Court and stop the NSA’s unconstitutional surveillance? Who here would donate to a legal fund geared toward these aims?
Same sex marriage has *never* been about marriage. This is the key point.
If forcing the illusion of same-s x marriage is wrong at the federal level in the US, so, too, is it wrong in Canada where activist judges and an apathetic House of Commons threw it upon the population.
I was opposed to Chretien calling a whipped vote on the subject. Whipped votes prevent individual MP’s from actually representing their constituents.
Great response Kyla. Somehow I don’t picture you as a ‘big ol’ scary dyke’.
“..where activist judges and an apathetic House of Commons threw it upon the population.
Let me revise that for ya:
“…where activist judges and an apathetic House of Commons threw it upon the UNCARING, SLEEPING, BRAINDEAD population.
OK….you can start a petition, gather monetary support and again petition the SOC if you feel that strongly about it, but let me forewarn you, you will fail in achieving you intended goal, public support isn’t on your side, so maybe you and those who will agree with you in here should just “get over it”. The issue is too insignificant to keep, wasting time and monies on when there are far more pressing issues at hand.
Dr Kyla…excellent post, and yes, Obumbles has over stepped his constitutionally granted authority long time ago and in many instances, one problem is that MOST ppl have no clue as to what is in the constitution. I do think that this issue is a state/provincial level, both legally and emotionally, and should be decided as such. As to actual gay “marriage” I feel that it is not important enough to fight over, tho I do support legal recognition of contractual recognition so that gay couple receive the same legal recognition and benifits as hetro (married) couple do. As the number of gays is relatively low this is a tempest in a tea pot, lets move on to the issue of jobs, economy, health care & such. It’s time politicians governed instead of catering to agendas and constantly campaigning.
Kyla, indeed. The US now mirrors Canada.
Jamie MacMaster, (sigh). Some of that is true.
If it’s not important to fight over, it’s not important to foist upon the people. There’s no getting over that.
Same sex marriage, like public school curricula are now political prizes that are obtained through brute force of partisan electoral victory (and in doing so, shred the Constitution further). Neither issue should have any relationship with the state. Marriage and all other civil relationships belong in the world of private contract law. This is the only way that organizations involved in the sanctification business and opposed to such unions are free to resist doing so. When the state dictates that thow shalt perform ceremonies against thy will, the state has reverted to tyranny. Since when do the workings of the Catholic Church fall under the rule of non-members? IOW, equal rights should never be confused with equality of state originating mandates, privileges and benefits. The later are the results of the corruption of democratic decline and should also be eliminated.
NME666 “MOST ppl have no clue as to what is in the constitution.”
It’s like every Indian thinks he knows what’s in treaties he’s never read.
“Here’s $ 5 per year, get over it” takes on epic proportions of human rights.
She is not homophobic.
The fact that this kind of declaration needs to be made is itself an indication that there is a problem with the nature of the public debate. Whenever such a statement is made, whether in defense of one’s self or another, it amounts to a boilerplate oath that ‘I am not evil’ as if simply dissenting from the current truth of the left is a de facto suggestion that the dissenter is defective of character.
I live in Canada and greatly enjoy having full equal rights here.
Despite assertions to the contrary, gays in the U.S. enjoy full Constitutional rights everywhere. What gays in the U.S. lack is the full implementation of the moral and policy preferences of gay activists. Gay activists in the U.S. usually equate political desires with “rights”. I realize that the word “rights” may have a fundamentally different meaning in other countries, but I resent the deliberately sloppy and manipulative use of the word in public discussions.
The demographics of Utah are unique among the states.
I have a Mormon friend who I strongly suspect has multiple wives (though obviously not all legally recognized) and who was actively involved in fighting the attempt by gay activists to redefine marriage in Texas. When I pointed out to him that the number of gays in the U.S. that want to redefine marriage is multiple times the number of Mormons who want to legalize polygamy, he became quite angry. We are still friends, but I think he understood my point which is that once marriage is redefined at the behest of one fringe group, the redefining will never end.
Marriage is not a right, it is an institution and like all institutions, it exists for practical reasons. The public debate never involves a discussion of the purpose of the institution and the effect on that purpose of making institutional changes. Instead the public “debate” is limited to vapid name calling and mindless puling about “fairness” and “equality”.
There is a slippery slope involved in the definition of marriage. Any group can claim that they are not being treated fairly and deserve equality. An institution that can mean anything ultimately means nothing. It is easy to imagine a near future in which one attends a party and is introduced to a stranger with a quip about the stranger being married after which ensues a game of twenty questions. “Who are you married to?” “How many people are you married to?” “How much time do you have left on your marriage contract?” “What are the sexes of the people to whom you are married?” “Are you married to any of your siblings?” “Are your parents part of your marriage?” “Do you have any spouses in other countries?” “Do you have any spouses that you haven’t met yet?” At that point, the institution will have been effectively destroyed, an outcome that several political ideologies actually seek.
How … enforce Federal laws? … states’ rights … trampled? How … NSA’s unconstitutional surveillance? Who here would donate to a legal fund geared toward these aims?
My parents receive about 15-30 envelopes in the mail per week from orgs fundraising for those very causes. There is no shortage of fundraisers. What is needed is a true opposition party in the U.S.
…you will fail in achieving you intended goal, public support isn’t on your side, so maybe you and those who will agree with you in here should just “get over it”… The issue is too insignificant to keep, wasting time and monies on when there are far more pressing issues at hand.
The easiest way to win a contest is to convince your opponent that there is no contest. The second easiest way to win a contest is to convince your opponent that though there is a contest, the results are not important. The third easiest way to win a contest is to acknowledge that there is a contest with results that matter, but that the results of the contest are inevitable so there is no point in fighting. All three of these techniques are used incessantly in politics by the political left.
NME666, you may not be a leftist, but you have employed both the second and third technique. I don’t know about Canada, but the results of the political fight over the definition of marriage in the U.S. is not at all pre-determined and in both countries, the results are tremendously important. The only public opinion polls that really signal public opinion are referendums and redefining marriage always fails when put to an actual vote in the U.S.
Dr. Kyla is right. If gays really want to have a redefinition of marriage accepted by the general populace, then gays need to engage in actual open discussion and persuasion. Instead gay activists rely on bullying, political and legal machination, deceit and the use of the education system to indoctrinate. That strategy may win short term victories, but it doesn’t change hearts and minds.
Yeah, I always doubt the veracity of someone who declares that an issue is unimportant while pushing vigorously and uncompromisingly for a policy change on that issue.
The Left methodology….if you won’t let us have what we want we’ll attack you and then the culture you believe in. We’re in a war folks and right now we’re losing.
“Instead gay activists rely on bullying, political and legal machination, deceit and the use of the education system to indoctrinate. That strategy may win short term victories, but it doesn’t change hearts and minds.”
This is where we are at. There is no debate anymore, and if anyone attempts to debate the issue of marriage, they are derided as homophobic and threatened in some way. The slow takeover over the last two decades has been classic.
Marriage to one partner for does not mean much anymore, and this debased it even more.
Sadistic Eristic, your post at 7:20 about future multiple meaningless marriage partners is not a stretch by any means.
We sure are losing, badly, almost everywhere. Stalin’s 5th column grandchildren are doing an excellent job of destroying our society.
sorry, butt when emotions over ride logic there is not a reasonable debate happening, and you just fell into that category. I am neither for or against same sex marriage, I’m against all the time, money and political capital spent on it. I have no problem with granting the legal benefits to these couples, and ambivalent to the emotional side of the debate, I just don’t give a sh*t. Too many religious ritewingers (and I’m a big C conservative)always what to legally regulate things that are personal issues, full stop!!!I’m against wasting money for or against such a insignificant issue, divorce and single parent families should be of far greater concern than gay marriage, as only about 2-3% of the population is gay, and not all of them want/will get married, but 73% of black kids in the USA are in single parent families and 75% of the prison pop. is from single parent families and there fore blacks are disproportionally represented in the prison population. So that is an issue of importance. Now try taking you emotional ranting(BS) and try convincing some one gullible enough choke it down, I’ll too dam n street wise to buy it.
The first trick to defeating gays is to have more children. Then we can out live this gay fallacy.
Amen.
True enough, I’m 5’2″ and don’t look all that scary to the general public. I used that opening line precisely because of what several people here have pointed out, even trying to have any sort of logical discussion on this issue gets people branded as homophobic. That is such bullshit.
Because I am gay, I can actually argue the points that the gay bullies don’t want discussed. In the same way that Allen West is considered a race traitor by the Blue Ribbon, name brand Negros (referenced in the YouTube video that I am going to link to), I get a lot of grief thrown at me for not towing the party line. Lesbians have boycotted my business because I was a contributor on The Hour with Strombo and supported Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzo9lCBYzA4
That video shows that the winds of change are blowing in the black community in Chicago. This was a town hall meeting organized by Al Sharpton. These people spoke up, passionately against Al Sharpton, to his face.
I know that I’m going off topic, but that video encourages me greatly.
The first trick to defeating gays is to have more children.
Gays are not the enemy. The grievances of gays are merely vehicles for those who seek to establish the ability of the govt to force the populace to accept whatever values are prescribed by the political class. Gays are also being used as tools by those who wish to destroy our culture in preparation for rebuilding society from the ground up.
The truth is that there are not enough gays to account for their outsized political and legal influence. There are greater powers at work behind the push to implement the gay agenda. Evidence for this is the foreshadowing efforts to continue to push the culture in ever more radical ways including the destigmatization of transexuality and even the destigmatization of pederasty.
Well said, both Kayla @ 9:00 PM and SE @ 9:16.
This has gone way beyond just letting gays being unmolested for who they are. There is a concerted effort to destroy “family”. The Bolsheviks in 1917 wanted to destroy the family because they want all people to have the state as their premier spouse, and today’s version of the “currently gentle” Bolshevik has the same endgame.
All I know is that on such a fundamental change in our society by granting the ability of gays/lesbians to marry (note I too do not call it a right), is that I, one of some 20 million eligible voters had no say. Zero. And frankly that pissed me off then, and it still pisses me off now. That a select group of less than 150 people were able to make that change and stick it to the population as a whole. And who benefited.? .5% of the population…??? WTF is that.?
I call that Absolute BULLSHIT. I call that Tyranny. I call that Dictaorshit
I am not homophobic…
I could give a shit what you do in your own home. BUT… my big beef with Chretien was that he used the word “MARRIED”. And by doing so, in effect, legislated their lifestyle as NORMAL.
Now that in itself wouldn’t have been an issue but for the gay activists who just can’t seem to leave things alone and need to keep pushing (no pun intended). Now our schools are filled with inclusionary propaganda as to what is “NORMAL”. Might be normal for them…but not for my children and 95% of the other children in this country either. But they on keep agitating – gay pride (deviants on display) is an excellent example of that.
Well fellows…one day you may wish you had not pushed so far and hard.
mother nature culling the herd
“I can speak to what actually happens in a society 10 years after gay marriage became legal (Ontario).”
Oh you mean like how rules are bent to let a gay cocaine-addicted Liberal cabinet minister and his psychologically disturbed gay-party drug abusing twink adopt children so they might experience one of their two “daddies” repeatedly go missing only to eventually be found dead by a railroad track by a dog?
Is that what you can speak to?
States’ rights is a valid concern here, but it’s not the whole story. Equality under the law is another legitimate issue in gay marriage. Partners in a traditional marriage in the USA have certain legal advantages that unmarried couples do not. Here are two of them:
•The high probability of some degree of inheritance for the surviving spouse (after the lawyers take their cut) if one spouse dies intestate.
•The right of one spouse to direct medical treatment for a spouse who is comatose, and who has not made a Living Will, and has not designated Durable Power of Attorney.
It is not fair to deny the legal advantages of marriage (and maybe a few disadvantages as well) to couples who are either both XX, or both XY.
@BillyHW
“Oh you mean like how rules are bent to let a gay cocaine-addicted Liberal cabinet minister ”
But Smitherman would have made such a better mayor than that rube, Rob Ford. The liberal elites know better than us and the gravy train would continue. Smitherman was just into “party drugs” and he “promised” to quit – and no he did not have anger management issues and wasn’t involved in billions of wasted tax dollars while a provincial minister, but his gayness was so PC and so right for our times. According to The Star and most other media outlets anyway – FWIW.
A bit contradictory there.
biological fact Adam and Steve can’t have a baby. Therefore the Adam and Steve branch of the family tree dies out. Down the road this generation of trendy militant gays will die out along with its trendy not to have a baby abortion on demand women’s libbers.
The best thing you can do for conservatism is to keep having children and don’t break ranks.
Ever seen a Women’s libber who got to old and ignored the biological clock? Nasty joyless souless creatures they are. Nothing to show for their lives. Eschew capitalism die poor, eschew the family die alone. They’re getting old now, time isn’t on their side.
The Bolsheviks in 1917 wanted to destroy the family because they want all people to have the state as their premier spouse, and today’s version of the “currently gentle” Bolshevik has the same endgame.
I wish more could see the truth of what you said.
Inheritance, medical decisions and visitation, burial and funeral decisions, and immigration of one partner, those things needed to be dealt with. When I grew up, you could be sent to prison for 30 years in my state for having sex. I know a lot of people who automatically lost custody and visitation with their kids when outed. The laws were actively harming gay people and families.
In North America, we don’t live in that world any more. In Canada, I have full equal rights to live as any other Canadian does. The gov’t does not seek to actively impede me going about my daily life. I appreciate that, because I know the other side.
I don’t know how Smitherman got approved to adopt kids. If he hadn’t been arrested for his drug use, it probably didn’t come up on the standard adoption background checks. I have no knowledge of what is needed to adopt in Ontario. I do know that we could trade stories on how straight people who weren’t fit parents were also allowed to adopt kids.
Most gay people are born to heterosexual parents in regular heterosexual relationships. If they weren’t we wouldn’t exist. Even in the countries where being gay is punishable by death, there are still gay people. Making life hard on gay people will not stop people from being gay.
No one has to like that I am gay. I have a great life.
Larry Fields said:
•The high probability of some degree of inheritance for the surviving spouse (after the lawyers take their cut) if one spouse dies intestate.
•The right of one spouse to direct medical treatment for a spouse who is comatose, and who has not made a Living Will, and has not designated Durable Power of Attorney.
in·tes·tate
adjective
1.(of a person) not having made a will: to die intestate.
Both issues can be dealt with by having a Will.
The cost of marriage is equal to or greater than writing a Will.
The reason homos get married is to grind the faces of religious people for whom marriage is sacred.
I saw an interview with the guys who started the SSM movement in the Nederlands last century and they openly admitted that this was their motivation.
Oz wrote:
“The reason homos get married is to grind the faces of religious people for whom marriage is sacred.
“I saw an interview with the guys who started the SSM movement in the Nederlands last century and they openly admitted that this was their motivation.”
I’ve gotta call BS on that one. It’s possible that a few Gays and Lesbians who desire to get married have that particular motivation. If you can present credible evidence that this is true for ALL — or even most Gays and Lesbians who are contemplating matrimony — I’ll take you seriously. But you won’t, because you can’t. You’re just blowing smoke. Consider yourself outed as the bigot that you are.