Unions v. Marriage

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Scarily, the manager of my building (condo) looks just like her and acts just as smug. I hate her too and she knows it

[strandinthewind]

Rev. Frost is a local well known minister and many of my friends' minister. Here is his well thought out and well reasoned opt ed on this issue.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o...a/25frost.html

Here is my friend's hysterical response:

I will cut it out of the paper and save it when I get home. In the meantime, please give Rev. Frost a huge hug and kiss for me! When I meet the gay man or lesbian woman who can "undermine and devalue the sacredness of marriage" as ruthlessly and cavalierly as my womanizing, lying ex-husband, I will see if I can arrange a commitment ceremony for him/her in the Episcopal Cathedral of St. Phillip, where the aforementioned ex sanctified the sacredness of his (third) marriage with the full blessings of church and state.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Rev. Frost is a local well known minister and many of my friends' minister. Here is his well thought out and well reasoned opt ed on this issue.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o...a/25frost.html

Here is my friend's hysterical response:

I will cut it out of the paper and save it when I get home. In the meantime, please give Rev. Frost a huge hug and kiss for me! When I meet the gay man or lesbian woman who can "undermine and devalue the sacredness of marriage" as ruthlessly and cavalierly as my womanizing, lying ex-husband, I will see if I can arrange a commitment ceremony for him/her in the Episcopal Cathedral of St. Phillip, where the aforementioned ex sanctified the sacredness of his (third) marriage with the full blessings of church and state.

I'm sorry, but the man doesn't have a well-thought out thin gin his brain. All he can do is give religious reasons and religion has nothing to do with it. He proved himself to be a real, dare I say it, ----sucker last night. I'm not religious, but if I was, I'd be embarassed to have that man preaching the word of God. He is the one who is having a helping hand in ruining society.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention


I'm sorry, but the man doesn't have a well-thought out thin gin his brain. All he can do is give religious reasons and religion has nothing to do with it. He proved himself to be a real, dare I say it, ----sucker last night. I'm not religious, but if I was, I'd be embarassed to have that man preaching the word of God. He is the one who is having a helping hand in ruining society.

I think you are confusing the guy on Larry King and Rev. Frost who is for same sex marriage in this opt ed article.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by dissention
There was some ASSHOLE on larry King last night and I just wanted to jump through my TV and kill him. He was some pastor and, if anyone else saw it, you probably felt the same way. The same thing about that Congresswoman form Colorado.

I was disappointed because I only caught the re-airing at 3am, and I had several questions and comments I would have loved to have called in and posed to Pastor MacArthur and Representative Musgrave.
Of course, it's probably best that I couldn't, because my blood was boiling, over what they were saying.

And I just looooooved Musgrave's asinine questioning of Gavin Newsom in regards to polygomy.
She was backed into a corner, and all of her arguments were intelligently shot down and countered, so all she could come up with was that tired old polygomy argument.

Yes, lady... not only do we want the right to marry someone of our own gender, but we also want to make sure that we can marry DOZENS of 'em!!!
In fact, we won't stop until we've turned the entire world into one giant den of iniquity!
Mwah-Ha-Ha-Ha!!!



At any rate, I realized too late that I should never watch a debate over gay marriage at 3 in the morning, because then I couldn't sleep the rest of the night!

[strandinthewind]

I still maintain that the far religious right is correct in that polygamy will be next. I also think the proponents of same sex marriage are wisely doing everything they can to avoid that question. I mean I think inequity still exists as long as anyone is unable to have the govt. sanction their idea of marriage when it recognizes other groups and gives them benefits. I think that is why there should be no govt. sanction of marriage in any way shape or form. According to the far religious right, that would really have no effect on anyone's rights because any committed relationship can get the same rights through the use of legal contracts, etc. But, the far religious right will never go for that because they know that they are lying when they say the same rights are easily achieved, if achievable at all, through other legal means.

But, no one will ever buy my argument, so I say govt. sanctioned same sex marriage is the way to go and the hell with the polygamists!!!!

[estranged4life]

being that I live in the $%^&@#$%# center of the Bible Belt, The religious right want to make adultery their next target!!!

Brian "the burning Shrub told Moses to join the NRA as their president" j.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I think you are confusing the guy on Larry King and Rev. Frost who is for same sex marriage in this opt ed article.

Oh.

My mistake. What was the name of the guy on Larry King then?!

[strandinthewind]

LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, the president comes out hard against same-sex marriage, and emotions are rising as the debate heats us. With us tonight, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom. He brought this issue center stage earlier this month when he ordered the city and county to issue same-sex marriage licenses; nationally syndicated Christian broadcaster Pastor John MacArthur of California's Grace Community Church; Chad Allen, the actor and producer who starred in TV hits like "My Two Dads" and "Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman," became an activist after he was outed by tabloids in 1996; and Representative Marilyn Musgrave, Republican of Colorado. The White House says the president approves of the broad principles in the federal marriage amendment. That's an amendment she introduced in the House. They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

____________________________________________-

Here is a copy of the transript

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/24/lkl.00.html

[strandinthewind]

Here is the portion of the transcript where the ketchup shows her bias against gay people. She smugly says "I actually have no opinion on that." I mean really. Does she really believe that and expect anyone to believe that. Also, notice how she never answers the "here we go again with sep. but equal" part. She refuses to say Dr. King did a good thing by breaking the law. I hate few people, but I probably hate her.

ketchup ketchup ketchup
________________________________________________

KING: Congresswoman Musgrave, what do you have against Chad Allen expressing that love with is partner in marriage?

REP. MARILYN MUSGRAVE (R-CO), INTRODUCED FED. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: I actually have no opinion on that. What I do have an opinion on is whether or not in this country we will allow activist judges to redefine marriage. You know, Chad needs to be aware that the deliberative process, the legislative process has been available all along for people to change laws. But they've not chosen to go that way, but rather to go through the judicial branch, activist judges, to get their way. And the American people should not be forced...

KING: I see. But...

MUSGRAVE: ... to recognize gay marriage by federal judges or state judges.

KING: But Congresswoman, hasn't it been true in the past -- there's only two ways to change a law, legislatively or breaking it and then having a judge deciding or a constitutional Supreme Court deciding? Martin Luther King broke many laws on the way to justice. So what is open to someone other than to challenge a law, if the legislature doesn't change it, than to challenge it legally?

MUSGRAVE: Well, what is open to them is the legislative deliberative process. If we're ever to change the definition of marriage in this country, it should be done by the American people and their elected representatives. And they've had every opportunity to go that route but have chosen not to do that because the American people overwhelmingly support the traditional definition of marriage...

KING: But states...

MUSGRAVE: ... a union between one man and one woman.

KING: States in the South historically supported a separation of color in the South, and Martin Luther King challenged that. Many states held to it. A black couldn't marry a white in the Southern states. This is 20 years ago that couldn't happen.

MUSGRAVE: What we're talking about...

KING: The legislature didn't change it.

MUSGRAVE: ... here, Larry, is the definition of marriage, changing the definition of marriage. And again, if that's to be done, it should be done by the American people and their elected representatives.

KING: OK. Mayor, what's wrong with that? What's wrong with letting the people decide?

NEWSOM: Yes, Larry, I feel, I must say, when I'm listening to the congresswoman -- and I say this with respect -- that if we wait for popularity in the polls and the people, we still would be talking about interracial marriages in this country. The year I was born, finally, it was some activist judges in Loving versus the State of Virginia that finally recognized that 16 states were being discriminatory in not affording the rights of blacks to marry whites, whites to marry Asians, et cetera. The point is, there's certain principles you stand on and those principles of non-discrimination.

I've got to say, as well, I think we're affirming family. And I would challenge anyone that doesn't think that gay couples are an extention of the fabric of family to come to City Hall and see young kids, to see mothers and fathers with their sons and daughters that are engaging in bonds and extending themselves to loving relationships and affirming marriage. And as I said, Larry, I got married two years ago. I have certain rights and privileges that, until we took action here in San Francisco, were denied literally millions of people across this country. That is fundamentally flawed, and I would argue that's not American.

KING: Let me get a break, and we'll come back...

MUSGRAVE: It might be interesting...

KING: I'll have Marilyn respond...

MUSGRAVE: OK.

[estranged4life]

From what I see about this lady I think the appropriate word would be "Sprunt" (As George Carlin once said: "A feminine spray...Hey, The name says it all.")

Brian "I may have been misunderstood"-"Misunderstood" by Dream Theater" j.

[CarneVaca]

Strand, the slippery slope is never a good argument. It's faulty because it is based on conjecture, not facts.

Be that as it may, if people want polygamy, give polygamy to the people. Me, I can't see having to juggle multiple spouses!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by estranged4life
From what I see about this lady I think the appropriate word would be "Sprunt" (As George Carlin once said: "A feminine spray...Hey, The name says it all.")

Brian "I may have been misunderstood"-"Misunderstood" by Dream Theater" j.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Strand, the slippery slope is never a good argument. It's faulty because it is based on conjecture, not facts.

Be that as it may, if people want polygamy, give polygamy to the people. Me, I can't see having to juggle multiple spouses!!

Lord - can you imagine having more than one spouse

I think the slippery slope is a silly argument in most cases. But, I do think if we want to fair to all people, it applies here and it is factual noy conjecture. The polygamist are already suing to be recognized. That is why I say the state has no business in marriage.

[CarneVaca]

But it does, Strand. I had to get a marriage license.