Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exodus 20:16
(paraphrased by InterstateQ!) Pastor Ric’s News & Views: Marriage Part 1
…what do you really believe about gay marriage? Let me just lay it out for you, my members. My views have not changed in 30 years. I’ve been accused of equating gay partnerships with incest and pedophilia. I believe no such thing. You’ve never heard me in 30 years talk like that.
I’ve in no way ever taught that homosexuality is the same as a forced relationship between an adult and child or between siblings. I’ve never taught that in 30 years. I understand why people think that because of a recent BeliefNet interview. In that interview I named several other relationships such as living together, a man with multiple wives, a brother and a sister relationship, adults with children or common-law relationships. I don’t think any of them should be called marriage. There should only be one definition: one man, one woman.
WARREN: The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?
WARREN: Oh, I do! For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion – this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews – historically, marriage is a man and a woman.
See, Rick, we have this thing called The Internet which allows us to look up what you said in the past. If you did not say these things then there might not be a controversy. Now you have the gall to attack us: AmericaBlog
Merry Christmas from Rick Warren! You’re all hateful, evil, and not even Christian!
Barack Obama’s good buddy Rick Warrenrecorded a video yesterday, talking about the outcry over his being chosen to given the invocation at Obama’s swearing in. And it’s a doozie. Warren’s big mouth, and apparent ego, is pretty much guaranteeing that this controversy will continue all the way up until the inauguration and beyond.
In the new video, Warren accuses gays of “hate speech,” of launching “hateful attacks” against him, and he then says that gay and lesbian Americans have “Christ-ophobia,” a clear effort to mock the term “homophobia.” He goes on to explain that gays are “afraid of any Christian,” suggesting that gay and lesbian Americans – gay and lesbian Obama voters – are not Christians. He then goes on to call gays criticizing him “evil.” All this from a man who compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia, and who explicitly bans “unrepentant gays” from his church membership.
Now we find out that you haven’t really had a change in heart of welcoming gays and lesbians but you’d rather clarify with more condemning language. What can Barack Obama do to mitigate this situation? Nothing at this point. Either he rescinds his invitation to Pastor Warren and faces the ire of the evangelical community or he keeps Warren and alienates his base supporters.
Well here we go again. Did we really just vote for “business as usual” in Washington or did we vote for change? I’m starting to think the former.
It was reported today over at Pam’s House Blend that Rick Warren, the mega-pastor at the mega-church who wrote the mega-best-selling book The Purpose Driven Life, has been asked by the Obama transition team to do the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration on January 20th, 2009.
This is the same Rick Warren who has, on numerous occasions defended the passage of Proposition 8 in California, and compared gays and lesbians to zoophiles, pedophiles and polygamists.
(listen around the 2:10 mark)
The last time the President-elect was confronted with this sort of situation it was almost forgivable because the person was rather obscure. In particular I’m talking about the Rev. Donnie McClurkin, an ex-gay pastor who would sing at Obama campaign rallies.
UPDATE: After this was posted at the DailyKos, I got a lot of responses and I realize that I made a lot of errors in my post. Error 1: The President cannot pardon the impeachment (although he might try, since the Constitution is his personal toilet paper). Error 2: Just because the Chief Justice presides over the trial in the Senate he cannot dismiss the trial. Error 3: Forgot to mention the importance of trying anyways regardless that there would probably not be enough votes in the Senate to carry out either conviciton.
Again sorry for my errors.
After the news of the commutation of “Scooter” Libby’s sentence by Mr. Bush, there has been a renewed call for impeachment among those in the liberal mainstream. And we’re not talking just the fringe of our side of the fence. We’re talking about those all the way to the middle and even some on the “right.” While commuting Libby’s sentence is not an impeachable offense there are many more for which BushCheneyCo. are probably responsible for.
This is where I’d have to break from my friends but only in the viability of an impeachment and the hopefully consequential conviction of either Cheney or Bush. While impeachment would be music to my ears, I fear that with all of the entrenched cronyism in the current administration, absolutely nothing would be accomplished.
Scenario number 1 and the one most discussed right now as a “two pronged approached,” Impeach the Vice President:
Vice President Cheney is Impeached. While this seems like a good strategy to prevent him from becoming president should Bush be impeached, Mr. Bush still has the presidential power of granting pardons. The house would vote for impeachment which is the equivalent of charging the person of a crime and Mr. Bush would pardon him and wipe the slate clean. Cheney could not be charged again for the same crimes and would remain the veep.
Scenario number 2: Impeach the President
George W. Bush is impeached towards the end of his second term. While the president can’t pardon himself, he’s already played the best hand any administration could have. In fact, the Republicans have allowed and helped the administration “stack the deck” just for this reason. Two words: Supreme Court. Mr. Bush has successfully appointed two of his cronies in the SCOTUS, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Alito. In the event of the president’s impeachment, the Chief Justice presides over the trial as the senate president, a position normally taken by the Vice President but due to the possible succession of the president by the veep it would be a conflict of interest. The Chief Justice could call an end to the trial before it even began or came to a vote to get the two thirds required vote to convict. The President would return to his normal duties and pretty much chastise those who brought charges against him and sadly business would return to what is considered normal under this tyrannical administration.
Like I said before, while I’m all for impeachment I don’t think it’s possible to get any desired conclusion with this administration.
Ross, subbing for Andrew Sullivan, just doesn’t seem to get why the “partial-birth abortion ban” and SCOTUS’ affirming stance is such a problem.
I guess I don’t think of laws banning prostitution, or even laws banning drugs, primarily as public health regulations – I think of them as morals legislation, outlawing practices that the majority considers sufficiently offensive to human dignity to deserve an outright ban. And in this context, I don’t see why killing one’s unborn offspring, even if the offspring isn’t a legal person and the crime therefore isn’t the same as murder, shouldn’t be something that the state has an interest in regulating on moral grounds. (We have laws against animal cruelty, for instance, even though animals aren’t legal “persons.”)
This, incidentally, is why so many conservatives hated on Lawrence v. Texas – not because it did away with sodomy laws, but because Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion seemed to hint that any and all morals legislation was effectively unconstitutional. That was the substance of Scalia’s dissent, which warned that laws against everything from prostitution to obscenity would be threatened by the decision. For now, though, that threat hasn’t been fulfilled – and as long as morals legislation in general is still safe from Supreme Court override, there’s no reason a state or Congress shoudn’t be able to restrict abortion (in a post-Roe world, that is) even without claiming legal personhood for the fetus.
No that’s not what it’s about. Most on our side of the fence of this issue see the human element that is at stake here. There are many circumstances at which a woman might want to or need to have a private relationship with her doctor and discuss such a “late term abortion”, as it’s more aptly called. This law makes no exception for the health of the woman. Circumstances where the fetus has a terminal illness and is likely going to die anyways either in the womb or shortly after the womb. Also circumstances where carrying the baby to full term could endanger the life of the mother or cause such permanent damage to the woman that she will never have the ability to have children again in her lifetime.
Abortion is never an easy decision for a woman to make! In most cases it is a mother’s decision to determine what is best for her and her child unborn or not. The government has no business making decisions like this for her. Conservatives want smaller government but at the same time want to regulate what happens inside of a woman’s body and in her own bedroom. RU486, or “Plan B” as it’s called is just one of many examples of this.
When it comes to public health issues the government has an interest in maintaining the lives of all currently born and future generations of its citizens which is why mandated HPV vaccinations are so important. Just like we were able to erradicate small pox and polio to almost complete non-existence, we should work to do the same with other diseases, especially ones that have been shown to cause cervical cancer.
In general most conservatives only see what is “moral” in their Leave it to Beaver fantasies of American life. What is reality and what is practical takes a back seat to fantasyland visions of 1950’s television sitcoms. The SCOTUS decision is just a step in the direction towards such a fantasyland, one where women find it necessary to get “back alley abortions” or travel to neigboring countries with the fear of jail to terminate an unwanted pregnancy to avoid the anguish of carrying to term her rapists baby. Ahh yes, the good ‘ole days.
Yes on this particularly murky rainy day in Washington DC, the Swamps of the Freepi seem murkier, slimier, and ultimately more dangerous as the nasty claws and teeth gnash and gnarl at their prey.
There’s no other way around it: When you accuse someone of perpetrating “ethnic cleansing” in any way, shape or form, you are accusing them of genocide.
Genocide. Let that word work its way around your mind for an moment. Genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. Think about that. And then watch the most grotesque public statement made by any elected official in the United States in the last 100 years.
No, I’m not kidding or reaching for the hyperbole. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) in the video below accuses the Bush administration of perpetrating “ethnic cleansing by hurricane” in Louisana after Katrina, in order to make Louisiana more Republican. The video and audio quality aren’t good, but the words are there. Listen a couple of times if you have to.
Kevinbegood (a regular patron of Pam’s House Blend) made a very important comment to a post that needs to be seen by all.
It is tyranny – plain and simple.
And we’ve been much too careful for the last two years about calling this situation exactly what it is – tyranny. This heterosupremacist attitude that only married people should be entitled to have control over their lives and relationships is not only against the framework of our own freedom of association, but is obscene in the methods being used to maintain supremacist control over our lives.
There are times when we have to step up to the plate and not be afraid to call these people what they are – and bigots is just the polite form. They are every bit as tyrannical as the very king and Parliament this nation fought to gain independence from – and they are just as determined to maintain some ridiculous sense of special rights for themselves just because some American “Christian” ayatolluh’s business is completely dependent on propagating a caste system.
When Leonard Pitt’s column ran in our local newspaper this morning (and what a shock that our local rightwing rag would even print it) there had to be at least one christo-fascist commenter whining about how we “choose” to be “unnatural”. Typically, I sent an online comment right back, challenging him to talk about how he projects sexuality in terms of his own experience – meaning apparently he chose the more “correct” one. You can’t choose anything unless you have the notion that you can be something else – it’s time to make these supremacists whining this crap to start spilling their tales of conscious selection.
As for third class status, Wisconsin can forget my support. When the people of an entire state are so stupid and so willing to sell out a basic human right to determine my own damned burial arrangements or let a partner make a simple hospital visitation, there isn’t much of a way to put lipstick over the bruises.
But I do blame our own community for much of this defeat. I know we have an uphill battle, but until we are willing to tell our stories – and tell them loudly – and insist our local media give us the right to say something about our OWN experiences, this situation ain’t gonna change too soon. And I’ve read those experiences even here on the Blend – those comments in a thread the other day which talked about how families accepted or rejected our relationships are exactly the kinds of stories that need to be told to everyone.
We shouldn’t have to continue attempting to overcompensate for being gay by trying to be better principled human beings than those lowlife trash who pass themselves off as “religious” people with a “moral” foundation. The only damned foundation these people have is to give themselves as much of a step up in life as possible at the expense of as many other people as possible.
There has never been a real “debate” over marriage, period. Straight people are too insecure to actually examine statutes dealing with such matters as life, property, health and death – and they most certainly don’t wish to discuss their abhorrent behavior when they strip a gay relative’s home of every possession and toss a partner out into the street because the good Lord told them being “gay” was a sin. But it is high time this discussion was handled – not just for gay Americans, but for every single person in this country.
Families are (and have never been) ideal structures where everyone gets along famously, no one abuses anyone or beats their children, and no one abuses their spouse and destroys any love that should naturally be there. And we all know the fundies are at the heart of the perpetration of those dysfunctional homes – there are too many stories of children and spouses abused and neglected by one member of a family joining some nutcase church and hauling home the nose of a meddling minister (or worse, his peepee) into that home environment.
It isn’t rocket science for any American to relate on his or her own experience and understand that there are millions and millions of people in this country who just don’t have the ideal 1950’s television sitcom life. And it sure as hell ain’t rocket science to figure out that in every damned family in this country, a funeral is nothing but the backdrop for the heavy-handed greed ensuing over anything of mortal and monetary value. We’ve all seen it – and so has every single official “family” member. The laws in their present form do not protect the people they are created to serve. And when those who have been awarded the only right to form relationships based on an image (and regularly break their vows without legal/social penalty)are also given absolute control over the lives of all other members in a family, then the “family” associations are promoting nothing but tyranny.
Well now – I’ve just been on a ranting spree lately…hahaha. I might just cross-post this rant on Democratic Underground…
While the nation was distracted by the more vocally controversial “Detainee Treatment Act,” the legislation was passed on September 26, 2006 in the House of Representatives and has been sent to the Senate. The following is an exerpt from the bill:
`(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section are limited to injunctive and declaratory relief where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion, including, but not limited to, a violation resulting from–
`(1) a veterans’ memorial’s containing religious words or imagery
`(2) a public building’s containing religious words or imagery
`(3) the presence of religious words or imagery in the official seals of the several States and the political subdivisions thereof; or
`(4) the chartering of Boy Scout units by components of States and political subdivisions, and the Boy Scouts’ using public buildings of States and political subdivisions.’.
(b) Attorney’s Fees- Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: `However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen hundred and seventy nine.’
Erwin Chemerinsky did an excellent op-ed piece on this in the Washington Post in which he calls out what the bill does. Simply put it removes the ability of attorneys to collect their fees if the plaintiff is the winner of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a law based on if he feels his religious freedom is violated. Specifically lawsuits that challenge the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments being placed on federal property, or prayer in public schools.
Despite the effectiveness of this statute, conservatives in the House of Representatives have now passed an insidious bill to try and limit enforcement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by denying attorneys fees to lawyers who successfully challenge government actions as violating this key constitutional provision. For instance, a lawyer who successfully challenged unconstitutional prayers in schools or unconstitutional symbols on religious property or impermissible aid to religious groups would — under the bill — not be entitled to recover attorneys’ fees. The bill, if enacted, would treat suits to enforce the Establishment Clause different from litigation to enforce all of the other provisions of the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes.
Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional. Since they cannot change the law of the Establishment Clause by statute, they have turned their attention to trying to prevent its enforcement by eliminating the possibility for recovery of attorneys’ fees.
Those who successfully prove the government has violated their constitutional rights would, under the bill, be required to pay their own legal fees. Few people can afford to do so. Without the possibility of attorneys’ fees, individuals who suffer unconstitutional religious persecution often will be unable to sue. The bill applies even to cases involving illegal religious coercion of public school children or blatant discrimination against particular religions.
This is an abomination to the Constitution! These are our rights and freedoms being stripped from us and worded in such a way that it’s own constitutionality can’t be challenged.
Please call, write, and urge your Senators of what this bill would do. Let them know that subverting our Constitutional rights and removing the barrier between Church and State is unacceptable! Be courteous and kind in your remarks but let them know that our rights arent to be taken away from us and that the “wall” between Church and State must not be torn down. Religion has no place in politics and politics have no place in religion. Stand up for what’s right!
It seems to me that since there is no oversight in our government and there has been one party rule for the last 6 years things have only gotten worse on the civil and religious rights front. We need to let Congress and the President know we won’t take this any more.
Vote Democratic in the November 7th elections! Put balance back into our government. Hold the Administration accountable for its actions.
I love debating. It’s no secret. I also want to become a lawyer (accepting donations for tuition now). And I always love a challenge.
The opportunity presented itsself when I came across a conservative blogger’s site and specifically a nonsensically numbered post about his feelings against gay marriage. In his ignorant post he tried to say that gays were demanding “special” rights and not equal rights. But this is not what caught my eye. He proposed a challenge with his assertation that our country was founded on “Godly principles.”
“Despite the bogus claims of some on the Left, the United States was founded on Godly principles. True, the Founders didn’t want a government run by a particular religion, but it wanted a nation whose Lord is God. Check the facades of the buildings in D.C. Check the currency. Check the founding document!”
So, naturally, I checked. The following is my response that I tried to post to his site. Whether or not it shows up, is up to the blogger but hopefully I won’t be censored.
“Check the founding document!”I checked….It mentions “Lord” in the date. As in “Year of our Lord” which in short form roughly translates to AD (Anno Domini). Otherwise, there is no mention of “God” “Deity” “Creator” “Flying Spaghetti Monster” anywhere.
It has this nifty little mention of religion though at one point that says….”Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Which if I understand that correctly the government can’t promote one religion over another, whether that be Atheism, Christianity, Judeism, Muslim, or Snorkism. They also can’t stifle my private practice of Snork worshiping. Pesky little amendment huh?
Oh there is one document, but It’s not really a “founding” document and has no real legal authority, though it does set the stage for our wonderful governmnet and society. It’s called the “Declaration of Independence.” (Did I use the scare quotes right?) Even this document is ambiguous with it’s diety terminology. Terms like “Nature’s God” and “their Creator.”
No, I just can’t seem to find any concrete “Godly” declarations in the founding documents. Oh and that money thing? You do know when “In God We Trust” was added to the currency right? Or when “Under God” was added to the pledge? Well just for grins we’ll say it was added oh around the 1950’s. Almost two centuries afterthe Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified, and in the face of that pesky First Amendment by acts of Congress. Oddly, Congress was not the architect of these additions. People weren’t even petitioning for it. In fact it was the CIA who, in an attempt to “bitch slap” the communists by saying our form of economy/government was better because it was not “Godless.” So, in an attempt at feigning patriotism and faith the Congress decided to ignore the First Amendment and write laws declaring that Americans’ trust was in God. They modified The Pledge. By the way did you know The Pledge was written by a foreign girl who came to the country, modified by a Baptist minister to add “of the United States of America,” and not “Under God.” It was then written into law that it was our national pledge. “Under God” was added later at about the same time “In God We Trust” was started appearing on our currency.
The buildings in DC, you know…the ones you mentioned in your post? Well let’s explore the history of those buildings. While DC was created only a couple of decades after the government was created, those building with God all over them were erected many years afterwards. Lets take a favorite one (the one where laws are deemed “Constitutional” or “UnConstitutional.” Though the Supreme Court has for the most part been in DC through out our great country’s history the building has not. In fact, until 1935 the Justices of the Supreme Court had to share space with Congress, mostly in the basement, with a few lower courts including an orphan court. Occaisionally they were “let upstairs” and were able to use chambers that were abandoned by the House or Senate. Needless to say that was a long 157 years. The corner stone was laid on October 13, 1932, and completed in 1935.
Amusingly, on the facade of the building Moses is depicted holding the Ten Commandments, what’s visible (written in Hebrew) are the ends of the commandments, (minus “Thou shalt not”) steal, kill, and commit adultry. Almost encouraging these offenses. Though Moses is depicted, Muhammed and Buddah are as well, but as great law givers. Not as statements of religion. By the way, I also might add that not all of the Ten Commandments are law. As the very first four would be deemed unconstitutional. Only four of the commandments are actually law, six through nine if you weren’t sure.
Did you know the vast majority of Christians violate the second commandment? “Thou shalt not make graven images…” is broken all the time with depictions of Jesus, Angels, and many others.
Hopefully I’ve knocked down enough strawmen for you to re-educate yourself on our Nation’s “Godly” history.
The Highest Court in New York has determined today that Gays and Lesbians do not have a constitutional right to marriage under current law. They have determined that it is up to the legislature to enact such laws. However, there have been laws introduced in NY legislature since 1971 to allow equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians but for 35 years these have never made it out of committee which shows that the knuckle draggers are also dragging their feet on this matter of equality.
Many New Yorkers are saddened by this as well as many conservatives are happy about this ruling. This was a ruling of 4-2 against gay marriage with one judge recusing himself.
It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation. The Court’s duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy.
I am confident that future generations will look back on today’s decision as an unfortunate misstep.
Which goes to show that at least someone was thinking.
While I don’t normally find myself agreeing with or liking any of the religious “right” groups, I must agree with the AFA’s stance on the censorship of Brittany McComb’s speech. Her right to free speech and freedom of religion were both violated by school officials and the ACLU. The schools have decided to err too far on the side of “separation of church and state” and forgotten that it is the student’s rights to pray if they want to, or to form student religious organizations. They’ve also forgotten that the student’s rights to free speech is what is important in today’s society.
Schools are sending the message that only secular speech and thinking is allowed in public settings when we all know this simply isn’t true. As a private citizen anyone is allowed to think and talk with religious overtones. She was merely thanking her God for helping her get to where she was in life. She was not speaking on behalf of the school and therefore should have been allowed to say her speech in full and unedited.
Now if only the fundamentalists at the AFA could get it through their thick boulbus skulls to actually practice what they preach and leave others’ alone when they make speeches regarding acceptance of the GLBT community. While I think it’s deplorable what the school and the ACLU have done to this student it is absolutely reprehensible what the AFA and other pro-family organizations do to gay youth who want to start a Gay/Straight Alliance at their school or promote Anti-Bullying laws.
One day the AFA will get it right.
Brittany McComb was one of the valedictorians at Foothill High School recently. She graduated with a 4.7 GPA. She earned the right to address the other graduates at Foothill, located in Henderson, Nevada.
She gave a copy of her graduating speech to the school administrators. It contained some Biblical references and even mentioned (one time) the name “Christ”. The school administrators censored some of the Biblical references. They also censored the single reference to Christ.
Then the school officials handed the speech over to the ACLU for approval and/or more censoring. After getting the OK from the ACLU, Brittany’s speech (minus the censored references to the Bible and Christ) was approved. Brittany was warned that if she deviated from the ACLU approved language, her mike would be cut off.
Then came the moment for the big decision. She would not bow down, she decided. She would go with her original version. She stepped to the mike and began her speech. But just before she could utter the name “Christ”, her mike went dead. School officials silenced her. The crowd of 400 jeered for several minutes, angry at the action of the school officials. The ACLU was happy. They had silenced another Christian.
“I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech. God’s the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior,” Brittany said.
Because she refused to bow down to the ACLU’s idol of gold, she did not get her wish. She was censored.
This young heroine deserves praise and a thank you from those who believe in free speech.
Mauritius, a small island in the Indian Ocean, is the newest site where gays and lesbians are demanding protection from hate crimes. Even though their constitution does not discriminate they are asking the government to put in clauses that specify what groups are protected.
“Homosexuality is neither legal nor illegal, so if a victim of sexual discrimination complains to the police, they have no legal reference,” he said. “That is why we are insisting that the Equal Opportunity Bill has provisions on discrimination based on sex, race or religion.
“There should be no second-class citizens in this country. It is time discrimination ended in this country.”
Although Mauritian law does not explicitly outlaw homosexuality, gay people here complain of rampant social discrimination despite provisions in the Constitution designed to prevent such bias.
Caught in a legal void the Gay and Lesbian Mauritians must now seek for some sort of protection.
In an unrelated story, Gay Martians, located between Earth and the Asteroid Belt have begun a quest seeking intelligent life outside of their own planet. Determining that their nearest life supporting neighbor was void of any intelligence, Martians have begun looking beyond the Solar System.
Marvin, an accomplished Martian scientist had this to say, “We have looked and looked all over the planet Earth and were surprised to find that there seems to be no intelligent life. We have been monitoring radio and other signals for years now and not once have we heard anything intelligible. Most seems filled with hate and malcontempt.”
“We are quite sure that with a little more time there might be something intelligent to develop but for now we’ll focus our efforts elswhere.”
In a related story, Marvin, is still pondering what he did with the U238 Modulator that was lost when he brought back an Earth Specimen a few months ago.
AFA is up in arms over a scene in CBS show ‘Without A Trace’ where two female cast members embrace in a ‘passionate’ kiss. The kiss is only about 3 or 4 seconds long but of course any sort of homo action is considered offensive by the overly sensitive AFA.
Take a look kissgirl.wmv (Warning: This may be offensive to female homophobes. Men might find it erotic)
I’m a gay man, and I beleive that we do not have a choice as to who we are attracted to. I beleive, however, we have a choice as to how we want to live: honestly or dishonestly. We can deny our attractions and force ourselves into a living lie and conforming to a societal opinion, or we can be honest with ourselves and follow our hearts to their desires and live happily. That is the only choice that I can personally see we have. The only thing that prevents people from being happy in their honesty are people that want to deny them their personal truths.
As far as marriage goes, it is older than Judaeo-Christian beleifs, however in different cultures and different traditions throughout time, same-sex marriages were performed. So we cannot simply say “this is how it always has been” because it’s not. The definition of marriage varies in many states. Some states have what is called a common law marriage where two people that have lived toegether for a certain amount of time are considered married by the state. And, if these people happen to be heterosexual they are recognized by every state as being married. There was no ceremony, there was no formal recognition through the church. There is a reason that a same-sex couple can’t enjoy this? I don’t think so. The definition of marriage was changed when the government started giving legal status to marriage. Therefore under the current constitiution which allows people to freely exercise religion but does not define what religion or beleif to follow, the definition of marriage under law is secular by nature. If a gay couple wants to marry they should be allowed to go to a justice of the peace and have their marriage performed. If the church does not want to recognize the union of love before God it is thier decision not to. Plain and simple.
You are right, benifits don’t = love, but the union of two souls or two persons who truly care about eachother do equal love. The right and desire to seal this bond is only human and only natural. For America to truly live up to what it stands for “One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” (left out “under God” because that was added in the 1950’s by act of congress, not by Constitution, and does not represent all Citizens as does the Constitution) we need to not relegate any persons to ’second class’ citizenship as we did in the 50’s.
Need we remember that in the 50’s interracial marriage was not recognized in all states, it took a lawsuit in Virginia to change the “definition” of marriage from what the Bible preaches? If we are to rely on biblical principles and practices we are only going to become divided.
Allowing homosexuals the right to marry can’t possibly weaken families or heterosexual marriages. What weakens families or marriages is DIVORCE. I agree that children should have a mother and a father for an ideal childhood. However, we all know this is not practical or possible. There are single parents and communal parenting that happens, as well as parenting by same sex couples. These children function the same as any other and most, do not become homosexual later in life, however they are entirely open to the idea and non judgemental which is actually benificial. Same sex relationships are not procreative, but that doesn’t mean parenting is out of the question. With the amount of children waiting for adoption and the amount of heterosexual couples wanting to adopt we cannot afford to deny these children even the option of two parents of the same sex. It is counterproductive to any sense of normalcy that children could possibly have to grow up in orphanages or foster care.
The benifits of marriage are not only limited to financial and legal points. There are spiritual bonds of unity and love that are ’sealed’ by the union of two persons. People argue that gay couples are more promiscuous than heterosexual couples, this may be true to a point, but from my experience it is because marriage is not an option. If marriage were a reality people would be legally and spiritually bound to eachother and less likely to cheat or bring in a third person. This is a very controversial area because the argument by gay marriage opponents that gay marriage would open the door to polygamy and polyamory. This may be true as well but the Bible does not actually condemn this type of relationship. The Bible actually does not speak favorably nor negatively of this type of relationship so it cannot be discounted as invalid. These types of relationships are just as valid as any other and probably should be allowed as well. However, it is not being pushed by homosexuals, polygamists or polyamorists and in most cases of homosexuals it is frowned upon so this argument by the ‘right’ is not valid at this point, it may be in the future but it is a bridge to be crossed later on.
In short, you have a choice to live a lie or honestly, but not who you’re attracted to. Marriage has NOT always been defined as the holy union of a man and a woman. It is older than Judeo-Christian beleifs. The definition of marriage has changed in our own past against biblical teachings to benefit society and make individuals equal regardless of the color of their skin. Legal marriage is different than religious marriage in that legal status should apply equally to all citizens regardless of beleifs to extend financial and legal benefits as defined by the Constitution, where religious marriage can be limited by the church. Same-sex marriage could actually strengthen the bonds of marriage and family. And while the ideal situation to raise children will always be in a stable female/male relationship, to deny children any parents is much more dangerous than allowing same-sex couples to adopt.
With laws in South Dakota, Mississippi and Alabama passing to ban abortions except in cases where the mother’s life is threatened, anti-abortion groups (also anti-gay) get into position to force the abortion debate back to the Supreme Court bench. And they may get what they want. Since the appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito the scales on the supreme court have tipped slightly in the favor of the religious right wing groups. here is a statement from the AFA website
“…Focus on the Family Action is commending the South Dakota Legislature and Governor Mike Rounds for approving a state ban on abortion. South Dakota’s controversial new law enacts a total ban on abortion except in rare cases when the life of the mother is in danger. Yesterday, FOTF Action senior analyst for bioethics Carrie Gordon Earll released a statement in response to Rounds’ signing of the abortion ban, saying her group applauds the courage of the South Dakota lawmakers and governor in “acting to protect women and their preborn children.” With this new law, Earll notes, “South Dakotans proudly challenge the U.S. Supreme Court’s political protection of abortion and stranglehold on state policies to restrict it.” The FOTF Action spokeswoman also points out that South Dakota is “only the tip of the iceberg among states actively working to pass such sweeping pro-life legislation.” Several other states are considering abortion bans similar to South Dakota’s, including Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Also, the Mississippi House of Representatives passed a bill banning abortion by a 94-25 margin on March 2; however, since the outright ban proposed was altered to include exceptions for rape and incest, the Senate must approve the changes. However, the legislation is expected to pass the Senate with ease, and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has affirmed that, if a ban that includes exceptions for rape and incest does reach his desk, “I suspect I’ll sign it.” “
Now while I agree that abortions are bad, I think women should have more choices, especially in cases where there was rape, or incest invovled. I also beleive that the mother should have a choice when she knows that her child will have problems and won’t be able to function either on her own. I do not beleive that abortions should be freely exercised as they can have dire consequences on the mother, and since it is still a hot debate as to when we can consider the fetus in the womb a life.
Currently the new laws in South Dakota, and Alabama completely ban abortion unless the mother’s life is at risk.
My own statement on abortions that could go either way is, children should not have to suffer for the mistakes or actions of the adults around them.
The Highest Court in New York has determined today that Gays and Lesbians do not have a constitutional right to marriage under current law. They have determined that it is up to the legislature to enact such laws. However, there have been laws introduced in NY legislature since 1971 to allow equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians but for 35 years these have never made it out of committee which shows that the knuckle draggers are also dragging their feet on this matter of 
It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation. The Court’s duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy.
AFA is up in arms over a scene in CBS show ‘Without A Trace’ where two female cast members embrace in a ‘passionate’ kiss. The kiss is only about 3 or 4 seconds long but of course any sort of homo action is considered offensive by the overly sensitive AFA. 