Previous 21 - 30 Next
Stan, keep your irrelevant religious arguments out of this debate. This is CIVIL marriage that is at issue here, having nothing to do with your church's view or practice of marriage.
That's just a shorthand way of saying you want to deny them basic rights that you enjoy. It's hard to make a case that you "love" someone when you try your damnedest to deny them every conceivable privilege that you enjoy yourself. It's none of your business what anyone else does in bed, and you can't assume that two people who want to marry -- either homosexuals or heterosexuals -- have a sexual relationship. So don't pretend that it's only about the sex. Gays are hated just as much even if they are virgins.
Except that God didn't write the Constitution, and there are no federal definitions of "sin," only crime. If men and women had sex only to create babies, there would be no such thing as birth control. You sound like someone who voted for Rick Santorum.
Hmmm, I don't see where I said she's not allowed to have an opinion.
Yes, there WERE grounds for the Supreme Court to strike down those laws -- the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, which requires states to honor the laws of every other state. They do it with drivers licenses, adoptions, and every other marriage except gay marriage. For the states to rush into passing such laws was a big blunder, because it did open up the issue for federal courts to consider.
A famous quotation by Thomas Jefferson is carved into the Jefferson Memorial: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and constitutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times." Jefferson obviously recognized that laws may change when we acquire new knowledge -- and our knowledge of sexuality has grown enormously since the days of the founders.
It's not the ability to make sound judgments that necessarily lessens with age. It's the inability to change when you're proven wrong. THAT is Phyllis's problem.
The better question, Johnny, is why you would encourage him to marry a WOMAN. There is too much of that already because people remain closeted. Ask Mrs. Larry Craig, Mrs Ted Haggard or even Liza Minnelli whether it's a good idea for gay men to marry women.
We just achieved a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. And to assume that any Republican who doesn't hate gays is a RINO is patent nonsense. People in both parties are all over the lot in their opinions on gay issues, and Republicans like the Cheneys support gay marriage because they have a personal stake in it. With a gay son, so do I, even though I've been a lifelong Republican since I wore an "I Like Ike" button to school in the 7th grade.
Granny, instead of addressing the real issue that gays who can't marry are denied hundreds of state and federal benefits, you are making a shallow, purely semantic argument over the definition of a word. If marital status had never been written into our laws we would not be having this argument, because committed gay couples were calling themselves married long before they could make it legal. Have you ever considered the fact that you can claim a Social Security Survivor benefit if you become a widow, but someone who can't marry cannot do the same? Did you follow the case of U.S. v. Windsor that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act? The lesbian widow in that case had to pay $300,000 in death taxes that would have been zero if she had been married to a man instead of a woman. The Supreme Court said that was unfair, as almost any thinking person would agree with. Some people suggest that gay couples can achieve equality through civil unions or legal documents. They can't -- the SSA, the military and other government agencies recognize only "marriage," not civil unions, and no amount of paperwork will substitute for marriage. Even just to get the family membership at the gym or avoid the second-driver charge on a car rental, you have to be married. So, what does it do to your definition or your church's definition of marriage? Absolutely nothing. It would be selfish of us to enjoy the benefits of marriage while trying to deny them to other committed couples.
Phyllis Schlafly has a gay son she has always been embarrassed to talk about. Although her son John has not hidden his sexuality, Schlafly was incensed that he was “outed” by a gay magazine. “It just shows how hateful these people are,” she said, as if it were spiteful to write about what her son had already acknowledged. What is really odd is that John Schlafly supports his mother’s views and works for her Eagle Forum organization. Although he confirms that he’s homosexual, he has described his mother’s critics as “a band of screechy gay activists and Washington-based pressure groups who get all the attention.”
Previous 21 - 30 Next