Need help arguing against a gay marriage ban

[JazmenFlowers]

Originally Posted by dissention

A big mouth helps.

lol...

...and we'll leave it at that

[RavenOfRhiannon]

Here is a letter I wrote in 2004 that was published in my local paper:

The other day at the Alliance Hospital, 225 concerned citizens prayed together. That day 1,370 people were murdered in the United States, 86,400 women suffered from acts of domestic violence, 47 people died as a result of alcohol related incidents, and 225 people ‘concerned citizens’ prayed together.
These concerned citizens did not pray for the murder victim’s families. These concerned citizens did not pray for the abused women. These concerned citizens did not pray for the families of the drunken driving victims.
They gathered to pray for the United States Senate to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. This made the front page of the Odessa American; not the victims, not the abused women, not the children who lost parents to drunken drivers.
This is Christian Charity at its worst. Do we really need to spend time and energy denying taxpaying U.S. citizens the rights they deserve?
We keep hearing about the sanctity of marriage being threatened by same-sex couples from the pulpit, the TV and the radio.
Does not Britney Spears’ 55-hour marriage fly in the face of this sanctity? Why are we not organizing prayer for her? What about Jennifer Lopez’ third marriage? How many teenage girls are pregnant and married by 17, divorced by 18?
I don’t understand why two people wanting to make a lifelong commitment and enjoy the more that 1,100 federal benefits this entails more of an affront to marriage than the above mentioned escapades.
I understand churches that teach homosexuality is a sin not wanting to sanctify these unions. They don’t have to. No church is required by law to host or perform a heterosexual marriage; they should not have to do the same for a homosexual one. Catholic Churches to not recognize divorce, but it is recognized by the federal government.
Gay marriage is not about an affront to religion, Christian or otherwise. It is about two people wanting to commit to each other and be able to count on the government to grant the same 1,100 rights that entails.
It is a civil action. The Constitution has historically served to expand liberty and equality by abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote, among other rights. This amendment would mark the first time that a specific group of Americans, namely same-sex couples and their children (yes, many same-sex couples have children) would be singled out and denied rights and discriminated against in the U.S. Constitution. This amendment is nothing more than legislative gay bashing.
Instead of pulling the country together to fight terrorism, and meet our common challenges, our compassionate conservative president has decided to divide our country with a bitter political battle that will drag our Constitution through the mud.
It is interesting that President Bush again called for the amendment during the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. The president said he was deeply disturbed by the ‘activist judges’ in Massachusetts.
On March 12, 1956, 81 members of congress signed a resolution condemning Brown as a ‘clear abuse of judicial power,’ and as part of an alleged ‘trend in the federal judiciary to legislate in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the people.’
Sound Familiar?
Does the 14th Amendment not guarantee equal protection under the law? This is what we are asking for; equal protection. I don’t want to be a second class citizen.
This country was founded upon the separation of church and state. Proponents of same-sex marriage are not asking the church to condone anything they do not want to. We just have to realize that marriage in the church and the marriage license are two different things.
There is a solution for this: change the wording of the marriage license. All licenses should be called civil union licenses. Solely, the church in religious services can use the word marriage. It would grant same-sex couples all the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, and the church could breathe easier.
When you look at all the other problems facing the world, why round up 225 people to pray on this when there are better uses of prayer.

Hope that helps!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by RavenOfRhiannon

Here is a letter I wrote in 2004 that was published in my local paper:

The other day at the Alliance Hospital, 225 concerned citizens prayed together. That day 1,370 people were murdered in the United States, 86,400 women suffered from acts of domestic violence, 47 people died as a result of alcohol related incidents, and 225 people ‘concerned citizens’ prayed together.
These concerned citizens did not pray for the murder victim’s families. These concerned citizens did not pray for the abused women. These concerned citizens did not pray for the families of the drunken driving victims.
They gathered to pray for the United States Senate to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. This made the front page of the Odessa American; not the victims, not the abused women, not the children who lost parents to drunken drivers.
This is Christian Charity at its worst. Do we really need to spend time and energy denying taxpaying U.S. citizens the rights they deserve?
We keep hearing about the sanctity of marriage being threatened by same-sex couples from the pulpit, the TV and the radio.
Does not Britney Spears’ 55-hour marriage fly in the face of this sanctity? Why are we not organizing prayer for her? What about Jennifer Lopez’ third marriage? How many teenage girls are pregnant and married by 17, divorced by 18?
I don’t understand why two people wanting to make a lifelong commitment and enjoy the more that 1,100 federal benefits this entails more of an affront to marriage than the above mentioned escapades.
I understand churches that teach homosexuality is a sin not wanting to sanctify these unions. They don’t have to. No church is required by law to host or perform a heterosexual marriage; they should not have to do the same for a homosexual one. Catholic Churches to not recognize divorce, but it is recognized by the federal government.
Gay marriage is not about an affront to religion, Christian or otherwise. It is about two people wanting to commit to each other and be able to count on the government to grant the same 1,100 rights that entails.
It is a civil action. The Constitution has historically served to expand liberty and equality by abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote, among other rights. This amendment would mark the first time that a specific group of Americans, namely same-sex couples and their children (yes, many same-sex couples have children) would be singled out and denied rights and discriminated against in the U.S. Constitution. This amendment is nothing more than legislative gay bashing.
Instead of pulling the country together to fight terrorism, and meet our common challenges, our compassionate conservative president has decided to divide our country with a bitter political battle that will drag our Constitution through the mud.
It is interesting that President Bush again called for the amendment during the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. The president said he was deeply disturbed by the ‘activist judges’ in Massachusetts.
On March 12, 1956, 81 members of congress signed a resolution condemning Brown as a ‘clear abuse of judicial power,’ and as part of an alleged ‘trend in the federal judiciary to legislate in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the people.’
Sound Familiar?
Does the 14th Amendment not guarantee equal protection under the law? This is what we are asking for; equal protection. I don’t want to be a second class citizen.
This country was founded upon the separation of church and state. Proponents of same-sex marriage are not asking the church to condone anything they do not want to. We just have to realize that marriage in the church and the marriage license are two different things.
There is a solution for this: change the wording of the marriage license. All licenses should be called civil union licenses. Solely, the church in religious services can use the word marriage. It would grant same-sex couples all the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, and the church could breathe easier.
When you look at all the other problems facing the world, why round up 225 people to pray on this when there are better uses of prayer.

Hope that helps!

WOW! Well said Randy.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by markolas

Well, H. W. Bush appointed Souter, and Ford appointed Stevens, and they're two of the most liberal justices...so you can't always go by that.

This is true, but done you think that would NEVER happen under this administration. Not with that pitbull Rove around anyway.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

This is true, but done you think that would NEVER happen under this administration. Not with that pitbull Rove around anyway.

I'm not sure what Rove has to do with it. These two justices that Shrub has appointed are fascists. In this case, they aren't going to turn out to be liberals or moderates, and you better hope to hell Stevens lives another 3 years.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by markolas

I'm not sure what Rove has to do with it. These two justices that Shrub has appointed are fascists. In this case, they aren't going to turn out to be liberals or moderates, and you better hope to hell Stevens lives another 3 years.

Well there is always that rat poison!

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by markolas

I'm not sure what Rove has to do with it. These two justices that Shrub has appointed are fascists. In this case, they aren't going to turn out to be liberals or moderates, and you better hope to hell Stevens lives another 3 years.

That could be. I always thought Rove was the real psychotic wacko of that administration though.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Well there is always that rat poison!

Yeah, yeah, Yeah. You and your lover Ann....

[markolas]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Well there is always that rat poison!

You better hope to hell he lives, too. After all, you're a filthy queer just like the rest of us, no matter how many Ann Coulter books you buy.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by markolas

You better hope to hell he lives, too. After all, you're a filthy queer just like the rest of us, no matter how many Ann Coulter books you buy.

I'm neat. Some of the time anyway....

[markolas]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

That could be. I always thought Rove was the real psychotic wacko of that administration though.

I think there's enough to go around.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by markolas

I think there's enough to go around.

This is true. Seen one, you seen em all.

[SomeKindaMother]

Originally Posted by dissention

That's nice. Your point?



We're talking about the stout little witch that praised Gandhi after he suspended civil liberties in India in the mid-seventies. The same witch that took millions upon millons of dollars from people via donations and never once built a single hospital in India, instead her and the Vatican funneled it to missionary work in Africa, while telling the people who donated the money that it was going to build health care facilities in India. I can go on and on if you'd like me to.



She sure did.

This is a woman who lived her life in poverty, as I’m sure you know. Poverty…by choice. The *only* thing she wanted to do was care for God’s most needy people. You don’t have to believe in God to recognize that sort of dedication. You think she was an accountant? A businesswoman? An activist? No, she never claimed to be. She didn’t even want publicity for herself and took absolutely no credit for any good deed she ever did. I don’t know a thing about money given nor do I care. It doesn’t take one thing away from the good she did. You can think she should have stood up for or against whatever you want. That wasn’t what she felt her purpose was. She just wanted to help individual suffering. If you didn’t do the same, live the same, understand the inner dynamics of what was going on, then you really have little idea of what you’re talking about with your small portion of a distorted story you’ve heard/read.

I don’t intend to get into a debate with you. I have no doubt you are fully capable of tearing me, Mother Theresa, and God all to bits. You don’t revere her, fine. But the fact that you could use such vile descriptions of a person who dedicated her life to the service of others is almost beyond my comprehension. You’ve condemned her for not doing enough? Please.

Kelly

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by SomeKindaMother

This is a woman who lived her life in poverty, as I’m sure you know. Poverty…by choice. The *only* thing she wanted to do was care for God’s most needy people. You don’t have to believe in God to recognize that sort of dedication. You think she was an accountant? A businesswoman? An activist? No, she never claimed to be. She didn’t even want publicity for herself and took absolutely no credit for any good deed she ever did. I don’t know a thing about money given nor do I care. It doesn’t take one thing away from the good she did. You can think she should have stood up for or against whatever you want. That wasn’t what she felt her purpose was. She just wanted to help individual suffering. If you didn’t do the same, live the same, understand the inner dynamics of what was going on, then you really have little idea of what you’re talking about with your small portion of a distorted story you’ve heard/read.

I don’t intend to get into a debate with you. I have no doubt you are fully capable of tearing me, Mother Theresa, and God all to bits. You don’t revere her, fine. But the fact that you could use such vile descriptions of a person who dedicated her life to the service of others is almost beyond my comprehension. You’ve condemned her for not doing enough? Please.

Kelly

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

I'm not sure what Rove has to do with it. These two justices that Shrub has appointed are fascists. In this case, they aren't going to turn out to be liberals or moderates, and you better hope to hell Stevens lives another 3 years.

Well, Alito in his first vote voted to stay an execution, which is hardly a conservative position. In fact, he broke rank with Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, which hopefully is a good sign.