RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: TSG (That’s So Gay): One- Two- Three Strikes… You’re Out! - RightNation.US

Jump to content

-----
TSG (That’s So Gay): One- Two- Three Strikes… You’re Out!

Iowa, Vermont, DC (et al)


In a textbook example of federalism, Iowa has become the umpteenth state to judicially rule that qualified same-gender civil marriage is constitutionally guaranteed. Such rulings are now so routine that this one seemingly “came out of nowhere”, catching anti-gay antagonists by surprise. Of course they quickly trotted out their “judicial activism” show-pony, having no better arguments.

This was quickly followed by the duly-elected and representative legislature of Vermont passing pro-family gay marriage legislation; and unlike California (which passed such legislation but could not override a Governator veto); and in a dramatic turn of events, the Governor of Vermont’s veto was swatted away by the legislative representatives of the citizenry, thereby ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all VT families. The AGB (Anti-Gay Brigade) was so shell-shocked that it took hours for them to react.

The District Council of Washington DC’s decision to recognize same-gender marriages was just the icing on the cake.

One- Two- Three Strikes… You’re Out! :D

I can fully understand why some folks may not be comfortable with gay marriage… it’s a change… and change can be discomforting.

What I can’t understand is why they turn to such obvious wackadoos to try and make their case.

C’mon… have some self-respect… eschew the ignorance-mongers…



… if you need lies and bombast to make your point… then you haven’t got a very good point to begin with.
0
  Like

4 Comments On This Entry

Although I do not support gay marriage, I do support the right of each state to define marriage how they see fit. That being said, perhaps it would be better to get all government out of the marriage business to begin with???

BTW, my opposition to gay marriage had nothing to do with fear of change. It is solely based on moral, social, and familial issues. Change in and of itself is not the factor.
0

Guest_cobalt-blue_*, on Apr 8 2009, 02:13 AM, said:

Madge,

You know I firmly support the concept of the government recognizing ALL marriages as civil unions and leaving it up to each church to determine what they consider a marriage. However, I really seem to be missing what ever your point is here. Maybe I'm just tired. Please re-iterate for me.

Danny

Maybe we’re both tired. I was just trying to have some fun with it… a sort of celebration of spring kinda thing (hence the baseball reference)… but probably could have done a better job of it. The point is that there were 3 significant victories in a row that seemed to catch the AGB flatfooted, sort of like Casey At The Bat.

Hey, they can’t all be winners.

;)
0

DodgerKing, on Apr 8 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

Although I do not support gay marriage, I do support the right of each state to define marriage how they see fit. That being said, perhaps it would be better to get all government out of the marriage business to begin with???

BTW, my opposition to gay marriage had nothing to do with fear of change. It is solely based on moral, social, and familial issues. Change in and of itself is not the factor.

Well, like I said, I was trying to have fun with it. ;)


Out in California, there is a proposal*** to change civil marriage to a more generic type of government-recognized and –solemnized relationship (“civil unions” or something similar), thereby leaving the term “marriage” as a descriptor of a “sanctified” relationship. That seems okay on its face, but then “marriage” really would be decimated: Churches could “marry” anyone they want… anything they want… since they’d be acting on their own Faith and NOT on behalf of the state.

More than a decade ago, I was engaged in an online “gay marriage” debate with a fellow that was using faith-based arguments. Out of the blue I asked him if he thought marrying a 7yo girl would be okay. He responded: ”If G-d blessed that union, it would be okay”. As you might imagine, I soon disengaged and stopped talking to him.

This is an extreme example and is not representative of any mainstream tenets that I know of; I’m just using it to demonstrate the kind of things that could happen if “marriage” is disconnected from the state’s purview. I’m not sure that the AGB would go for it.


***- If I remember correctly, the proposal has been okayed by the AG and is now in the signature-gathering stage.
0

Eskimo Curlew, on Apr 8 2009, 02:20 AM, said:

The voters in vermont should send themn all packing back to SAN FRANFREAKSHOW with the rest of the imoral crowd of freaks

We’ll have to wait to see who gets sent “packing”… the legislators? The Governor? Anyone? Here in MA, after the SJC decision, none of the legislators that voted against an anti-gay proposal lost their seats in the subsequent election. Since Vermonters have had civil unions for about a decade now, they know firsthand that qualified and state-recognized same-gender relationships are no danger to anyone.




Guest, on Apr 8 2009, 08:41 AM, said:

You really don't grasp why there is a push for gay marriage.

If there's gay marriage, then there's gay divorce.

It has nothing to do with gay love. It's all about gay MONEY.

For the record my attitude towards all marriage can be summed up by the quote attributed to Mae West, "Marriage is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution."

Charlie the Lurker

That’s an interesting perspective… all the gay folks “really” want to do is keep divorce lawyers in business. If that is so then it’s a fool’s errand… divorce lawyers already have PLENTY of business!
0
Page 1 of 1