RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

New York Says No, New Jersey Says Probably Not, and Rick Warren SHOULD Have Said No

One more state has joined the growing list of states that will not permit same sex marriage: New York. Yes, New York which has the largest population of LGB people in the country in NY City. This headline says it all: New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage Bill.

I admit, this one really shocked me, even more than Maine. What else surprised me was that it wasn’t even that close a vote:

The State Senate defeated a bill on Wednesday that would legalize same-sex marriage, after an emotional debate that touched on civil rights, family and history. The vote means that the bill, pushed by Gov. David A. Paterson, is effectively dead for the year and dashes the optimism of gay rights advocates, who have had setbacks recently in several key states.

The bill was defeated by a decisive margin of 38 to 24. The Democrats, who have a bare, one-seat majority, did not have enough votes to pass the bill without some Republican support, but not a single Republican senator voted for the measure. Still, several key Democrats who were considered swing votes also opposed the bill.

Mr. Paterson made an unusual trip to the Senate floor minutes after the last vote was cast, saying, “These victories come and so do the losses, but you keep on trying.”


True, there are wins and losses, and yes, we just have to keep on trying. But there are some agencies against which we are fighting that will be difficult to overcome:

The state’s Roman Catholic bishops, who had actively lobbied against the bill, said they were pleased by the vote.

“While the Catholic Church rejects unjust discrimination against homosexual men and women, there is no question that marriage by its nature is the union of one man and one woman,” Richard E. Barnes, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said in a statement. “Advocates for same-sex marriage have attempted to portray their cause as inevitable. However, it has become clear that Americans continue to understand marriage the way it has always been understood, and New York is not different in that regard. This is a victory for the basic building block of our society.”

Not quite sure how I can read that as anything other than being unjust, but that’s just me Still, this was not the overriding factor:

In the end, it was not an issue that broke down along racial lines, or even religious and agnostic divisions. In fact, nine of the Senate’s 11 black members voted in support of same-sex marriage.

“When I walk through these doors, my Bible stays out,” said Senator Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat who compared the law preventing same-sex marriage with laws that kept blacks and whites from marrying. “I believe there are certain moments here where we can benchmark our lives by the votes we took.”

The debate was as personal as any to take place in the Senate chamber in years. Senators spoke of their experiences as Jews and Baptists, as blacks and women. They spoke of spending long nights contemplating their votes and the deceased gay friends and relatives who inspired their decision.

Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson, a Democrat who represents parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, spoke publicly for the first time about her gay brother, who was shunned by her family and moved to France.

“He had disappeared from our lives. And my father worried, but he could not ask him to come home,” she said, fighting back tears. Ms. Hassell-Thompson said she searched for her brother and eventually found him and asked him to come home. But he told her he was hesitant because he felt his family did not want to see him. “I said, ‘But your sister does.’ ”

Hold on, I need a moment…

Okay. Unfortunately, not everyone felt similarly:


State Senator Rubén Díaz Sr.
of the Bronx made an impassioned argument against same-sex marriage, describing his continued opposition as reflecting the broad consensus that marriage should be limited to a union between a man and woman. “Not only the evangelicals, not only the Jews, not only the Muslims, not only the Catholics, but also the people oppose it,” he said.

Senate Republicans had said before the vote that they believed their members could provide a few votes for the bill.

“There may be a few, that’s very possible,” said Senator Thomas W. Libous of Binghamton, the deputy Republican leader. “Everybody’s feeling is get it on the floor and let’s vote it up or down. It’s been talked about enough. Let’s get it done. I think it’s going to be very close.”

Ms. Krueger said before the debate began that she was optimistic the bill would pass, but added, “It depends on whether Republican votes are delivered.”

But, as it turned out, not close at all.

New York has now joined a growing club:

Had the legislation passed, New York would have become the sixth state where marriage between same-sex couples is legal or will soon be permitted. But now that it has failed, New York becomes the latest state where gay rights advocates have made considerable progress only to see their hopes dashed.

Last month Maine became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a referendum. The Maine State Legislature had voted to legalize same-sex unions earlier this year, but opponents of gay rights gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

Last year, California voters repealed same-sex marriage after the State Supreme Court said that gay couples had the right to marry.

Unlike in Maine, however, New York does not have a referendum process that allows voters to overturn an act of the Legislature.

The State Assembly had already approved the legislation, and Gov. David A. Paterson had said he would immediately sign the bill if it made it to his desk.

Shortly after midnight on Wednesday, the Assembly voted 88 to 51 to allow same-sex marriage. Though the Assembly has already passed the bill twice, a quirk in New York’s legislative code required the Assembly to pass the bill again before the governor can sign it.

As the vote approached advocates on both sides of the debate were pushing ahead with a last-minute effort to shore up support.

“We’re working it as hard as we can,” said Senator Eric T. Schneiderman, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and who supports same-sex marriage. “It feels very good right now. It feels like its going to happen. But this is an issue where some people don’t want to declare themselves until the last minute. And I think, believe it or not, I think there are one or two people who are really still torn.”

Demonstrators on both sides of the issue were relatively scarce in the Capitol on Wednesday. A small group of Orthodox Jews gathered outside the Senate chamber, one of them holding a sign that read “Gay Union/A Rebellion Against the Almighty.”

Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Monsey, N.Y., said he traveled to Albany to remind the Senate “that the world belongs to the Almighty, and they have to reckon with his rules and his law.”

As John L. Sampson, the Senate Democratic leader, walked into his office on Wednesday morning, he flashed a thumbs-up to same-sex marriage supporters standing a few feet from the protesters. But Mr. Sampson acknowledged he did not know how the vote would turn out.

“I’ve got my work cut out for me,” he said.

So do a lot of us, apparently.

And it doesn’t stop there: A Surprisingly Dark Day For Gay Rights In New Jersey. Just next door to New York, the LGB community is engaged in a battle that they may not have expected:

Support for gay marriage in Trenton is draining away like water from a tub as nervous legislators scurry towards safer political ground.

“I can’t say I’m confident now,” says Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen), a lead sponsor. “I think we still have a pretty good chance. But people are getting nervous and weak-kneed.”

Bad as that sounds, know that Weinberg is spinning this as best she can. Several other senators, supporters and opponents, say the movement is all but dead.

“They’ve lost the momentum,” says Sen. Kip Bateman, a Somerset Republican who considered supporting the measure until last week. “I don’t think it’s going to happen.”

So mark this as a black day for the cause of gay rights in New Jersey. Marriage equality was supposed to be the big prize, the final measure of respect, a sign that gay families were indeed equal under the law.

Instead, gay couples and their children are getting another ugly reminder that their families are regarded as second-class, as something less than the families next door.

Gay activists are bitter about what they see as betrayal. Democrats, especially Gov. Jon Corzine, told them over and over to wait for this moment.

And now they are getting tepid support, or none at all.

“Many of us in the progressive movement just want to throw up,” says Steve Goldstein of Garden State Equality, the state’s leading gay rights group. “Democrats put out one hand out to ask for money, and with the other they stab you in the back.” (Emphasis mine.)

This is a refrain that is becoming more and more common from the LBG community. Many within the community are waking up to the realization, one shared by many women, that the DNC could care less about them, simply paying lip service and nothing more. Obama picking a homophobic, anti-choice chair for the DNC pretty much says it all.

Back to Trenton:

So what changed in the last month? Why did supporters get so nervous?

For one, Corzine’s big loss has Democrats rattled. Republican Chris Christie united his party, and did well in Democratic strongholds like Middlesex County. He didn’t emphasize the gay marriage issue, but when asked, he promised a veto.

Democrats were rattled again when voters in Maine rejected gay marriage in a referendum, the 31st state to do so.

Perhaps most important, the Roman Catholic Church in New Jersey threw its muscle into the fight. Bishops and priests spoke against it from the pulpit, and more than 150,000 parishioners signed petitions in opposition.

Several legislators said they were impressed by that show of strength, given that Catholics make up more than 40 percent of the state’s population.

“Any time you see that kind of passion, you have to pay attention,” said Sen. Jennifer Beck, a Republican from Monmouth County. “You’re elected to be the voice of the people who voted for you.”

Finally, there were discouraging noises from Sen. Steve Sweeney, a South Jersey Democrat who will take over as Senate president in January, replacing Sen. Richard Codey (D-Essex).

Sweeney suggested that the legislature should leave this issue aside for now, and focus instead on the economic crisis. It was pure political nonsense, because the legislature is not even considering major economic bills.

But the signal was sent.

Indeed, and it is one that seems to be appearing all too often these days. And the result is all too predictable:

So the senators began to peel off. Codey found himself counting heads to reach 21, the magic number to win passage. He couldn’t get it from Democrats, so he reached out to Republicans.

“Codey called me,” Bateman says. “I’m told they (Democrats) have 14 or 15 votes on this. I told him they have one or two (Republicans) at most.”

At tense moments like this, most politicians behave like herd animals. They are careful not to stray far from the pack. And if one of them gets rattled, everyone runs.

What we have on our hands today in Trenton is a bunch of scared herd animals. And it’s not a pretty thing to watch.

Only 2 percent of voters said this is the most important issue to them. And these skittish Democrats are almost all in gerrymandered districts that were drawn to ensure they win by large margins.

Ask senators privately what would happen if they all voted their consciences, and you get the same answer over and over: It would pass with votes to spare.

But our leaders, these puny men and women, are too scared to stand up and be counted.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could drum up a voter backlash against that?

Oh, I think a backlash is coming on a bigger scale, but for now, the message is all too clear: Members of the LGB community are not equal.

And then there is someone who SHOULD have said no, and that would be noted Homophobe, Pastor Rick Warren, he of Obama’s Inauguration fame. Pastor Warren is getting notice for what he would NOT do:

Rick Warren Refuses To Condemn Proposed Ugandan Law Executing Gay People

That would be President Obama’s friend Rick Warren. Rick Warren who says he even ate dinner with a gay couple once. Rick Warren who says he doesn’t hate gay people. Funny, then, that Rick Warren refused to condemn Uganda’s proposed legislation to executive people for being gay and HIV positive. From Newsweek via Box Turtle:

But Warren won’t go so far as to condemn the legislation itself. A request for a broader reaction to the proposed Ugandan anti-homosexual laws generated this response: “The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations.” On Meet the Press this morning, he reiterated this neutral stance in a different context: “As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides.” Warren did say he believed that abortion was “a holocaust.” He knows as well as anyone that in a case of great wrong, taking sides is an important thing to do.

Oh, I’d go one further. Rick Warren has taken sides before. He did it with Prop 8. On the side of the haters. But now he won’t do it when they’re talking about executing gay people? Why, because it’s a foreign country and Rick doesn’t get involved in foreign politics, only our own? Yes, I remember well when Jesus told us all to be good Christians only in our own backyard.

I don’t remember that passage and I have read the Christian Scriptures a number of times. Oh, wait – that’s because it isn’t in there. And, I don’t remember Obama speaking out about that practice, either. Birds of a feather he and Warren.

It’s hard to even know what to say at this point. It really is. It is just hard to live in a country in which so many people are willing to discriminate against you. I totally understand why the brother of the NY State senator moved to France. I, too, hope to end up living somewhere in which people see me as fully human, and where my almost 14 yr relationship is deemed as worthy under the law as other of my fellow citizens. A place in which I am not just treated as equal, but seen as equal. Heaven knows, that would be some change I could believe in…

  • http://www.r4-ds.pl r4i

    I can frankly say from away staying of NY or NJ, My favorite is NY…because my sweet sister staying there. I have watched so many photos of her and with city. Looks very nice and I also want to visit it now.

  • mary

    The CATHOLIC BISHOPS, of course, and naturally, voted NO TO GAY MARRIAGE!

    Why should they not for Heaven’s name!

    Only SEXUAL UNIONS BETWEEN BOYS AND BISHOPS ARE PERMITTED!

    Wonder how these penis heads who have no clue as to female anatomy ever get to have a voice from our First Covert Gay Prez!

  • Scout

    Wow, that quote from Warren is shocking (and depressing). You can bet B0 won’t say anything about the proposed Ugandan law. We are below second class citizens, we are despised and expendable, and I doubt he cares one bit.

  • HT

    I’m relatively new – I’ve posted once in awhile over the past two years, but I have no idean why my post would have gone to spaM. Did I offend? Tis a conundrum.

    • Peggy Sue

      HT: The Spam Monster is in high gear right now. I’ve had countless posts gobbled and later retrieved.

      Don’t take it personally. The spam filter certainly doesn’t.

      • HT

        Whew, thanks Peggy Sue, I thought I had offended by only saying that we have had Gay Marriage for the past 5 years, and yes we had the same pushback from the religious and other communities. It hasn’t resulted in a breakdown in man/woman marriage (that was self imploding at close to 5o% before same sex marriage became law).
        Gay marriage is a carrot to distract people from more important topics – unemployment, health care, social security. My personal opinion – it needs to be enshrined in law, so the populace can focus on more important topics that are, truly more pertinent to their life. (I.E. how many same Sex couples have caused people to lose their jobs? And how many same sex couples forced your president to bail out his corporate donors? – just asking) BTW, we’ve had same sex marriage these last 5 years. It was fought against for sure, but passed. In those 5 years, the earth did not tilt on it’s axis, marriage/divorce statistic remained the same and the sun remained the center of this part of the universe.

        • HT

          BTW, when I indicate “more important topics” I mean that same sex marriage should be a given. I recognize that it’s important, but it should not be because it should be a given. It’s all about Equal rights.
          I don’t suggest that organized religion should be forced to perform the marriages – that’s their problem if they choose not to do so.
          Equal Rights. That’s the tickets, and the religions that don’t recognize that – may that subside into the quagmire that swallowed Macedonia and Rome.

          • VinceP

            Hi HT. Since you refer to it but never name it (or I might have missed it), can I ask you what country you’re writing about?

  • HT

    I hesitate to weigh in on this matter, as where I live, outside of the U.S., same-sex marriage is legal.
    When it first was suggested, there were lots of religious groups mobilizing to stop it, saying the same things the religious groups are spewing down there. Fact of the matter is it passed, as law, and has been for a few years.
    Marriage breakdown of heteros has not ensued. Government intrusion into peoples’ lives has not ensued. Breakdown in society or morals has not ensued. I worry that with our current govenment, that there may be a future movement to overturn the law, however, the general acceptance (outside of fanatical religious circles) has grown and consolidated, so I feel relatively sure that same sex marriage is here to stay – as is divorce – it’s becoming mainstream as well.
    My point – same sex marriage is nothing to fear. It affects no one, except the two people who decide to enter into the contract. There is a provision in our law that allows religions to refuse to give a religious ceremony – so be it, however, all the civil ceremonies are bound by the law. Frankly, I’ve had many gay friends over the years, and I am so very glad they have the same opportunities that I had. I just hope they are better at making relationships work that I was.
    I don’t understand what all the fooferah is about this issue? Perhaps because, in 1967, our PM said “”The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.” wrt homosexuality. (he did not mean the forced sexual practices of rape, incest et al. We had a man who lead back then, and as a result, since 2005 we have legalized same sex marriage – and our society has not changed significantly – where it has, it’s been to the benefit of all. Such a plethora of talented people finally stepping into their own skin and contributing their skills and talents to the betterment of all. What’s to lose? Anyway, sorry for droning on.
    I read here sporadically (used to be a regular lurker, but it got too much like the WWE).
    Rev Amy, I really appreciate your contribution. I don’t agree with you on the Palin issue (except when you excoriate sexism), however, I can understand. What exactly is the difference between Obama and Palin other than the vagina and penis?

  • Silence Dogood

    Fascinating how so many people who chime in on most issues around here don’t chime in on marriage equity. I think they feel it doesn’t affect them or they are paranoid someone will think they are gay? Just wonderin’.

    If the price of liberty is some knucklehead thinking I am gay, I take that as a complement.

  • Cathy in Ks.

    It is truly sad that same sex marriage has become such a political hot button. In this 21st Century we have much work to do yet to ensure fair and equal treatment under the law. And I do think it matters that one’s marriage is recognized under the law. There are many benefits not just legally but socially that come with this recognition.
    Personally if the issue were over abortion, I could understand that. For example, the Catholic Church’s official stance is that human life begins at the moment of conception. Many may disagree with this opinion, but if one believes the official stance of the Catholic Church about when human life begins, then any abortion would be murder of an unborn child.
    However with the official recognition of same sex marriage under the law, there is no history that I am aware of, at least with the teachings of Christ or in church history to oppose such a law. I think many religious people who oppose same sex marriage on the grounds that it is not what God wants are really reflecting their own discomfort and fears about the issue. Roman Catholic priests (if they want to remain officially a priest) are still not allowed to marry. It appears that a small or maybe not so small portion of Roman Catholic priests may in fact be “gay”. There are probably some Catholics who don’t have a problem with this as long as they confine their relationships to two consenting adults and not children. Unfortunately conservative Catholics and the hierarchy within the Catholic Church fears these kind of revelations. Hence the opposition to same sex marriages.

    • Silence Dogood

      Opposition is for many reasons.

      Bottom line: chalk it up to human growing pains.

      If they had blogs in the mid-1960s, people would have been fighting over the ban on interracial marriage, making many of the same arguments pro and con we see today. Thank god reason won in the end.

      Below is a comment from this thread by VinceP. I’ve changed any mention of “gay marriage” or similar terms and replaced them with “interracial marriage” or similar terms. I’ve also changed where he claims to be gay, and changed it to “black.”

      Claiming to be black might be a good tactic to bolster the argument back then against interracial couples freedom to marry, if one was blogging — whether or not in reality they were black. (UBM of this blog comes to mind, who knows if he really was black or not?)

      The Troglodyte cave-dwelling VincePs of yor are still alive and well today. Here is his comment, altered as described above:

      It’s not about “equality”.

      I’m black and am utterly opposed to “interracial marriage”

      I hold to the opinion that there has to be a standard in society and that this standard must be , in the aggregate, the model that the society teaches its youth to aspire to.

      (Notice I say , “in the aggregate”, nothing I’m talking about should be construed as coerision)

      Interracial Marriage is a vector that the Left is using as a wrecking ball to establish a moral framework whereby the youth will have absolutely no family model to aspire to.

      This will lead to a demographic , cultural and economic collapse. (See Europe if you want a preview)

      I believe that we modern people have absolutely no idea the damage we’re doing to our futures by the recent innovations of birth control, abortion, and the abolishment of the expectation of marriage and procreation.

      I think its narcissistic for blacks to insist that the entire society destroy the meaning of something that is already endangered because one wants to feel the validation of the State.

      My God.. I want the State to have nothing to do with my relationships.. especialy since they do not involve children.

      I beleive that there is much benefit to the sexual and familiar restrictions that stemmed from the Biblical religions. (in terms of one managing themselves.. i am not speaking about enacting any sort of civil law based on it ..i am not aspiring to being subjected to the strict Torah law that not even the Jews obligated themselves to mete out the punishments proscribed therein)

      If you force interracial marriage onto this society, when it so clearly rejects it, you are only guaranteeing more hostility to your life choices, not more acceptance.

      If you want Interracial Marriage, then you’re going to have to earn it.. one conversation at a time.

      And calling people names (And I’m not accusing the author of doing so) is not that conversation.

      The VincePs of yesteryear and today both feel they have a compelling argument, akin to Chicken Little: Ask anyone who lives in Massachusetts if society has broken down because interracial couples and same sex couples could marry. I assure you this has not occurred.

      I should not call him names, but I am pissed off and think he is an a$$hole. It irks me when people use religion as an argument to deny the freedoms of other human beings. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, and not a nation of man-made religious philosophy morphed via back door arguments into law.

      Thank god we have the SCOTUS, who by their nature will have to reject the mob rule who are against same sex marriage.

      • PJ

        Well done Silence Dogood! Like they say, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

        Thanks for exposing this guy. Wouldn’t that be something if he actually was black? Maybe then he’d “get it.” Probably not.

        • VinceP

          What’s been exposed? What a strange formulation.

          I express my opinion , putting value more in societal demographic security and growth.

          I believe those principles supersede whatever emotional need an individual has to live a life where he could force everyone to not disagree with him.

          The Left has done a great job in Europe turning critical , society-changing policy debates into a Thought Police where no one could say the obvious for fear of being called a “racist”

          Now their entire survivability as a Civilization is threatened.

          All because Leftists were able to cower people from speaking by using the “Oh you’re a hater” accusation they have mastered so well.

          What’s been exposed in your small mind? That I dont adhere to absurd political correct mumbled thinking?

          Guilty as charged and i’m not even black.

  • Silence Dogood

    It used to be illegal in several states for interracial couples to marry, or so-called anti-miscegenation laws. The world did not end when SCOTUS fixed this injustice in Loving v. Virginia (1967).

    I’m sure many of the same arguments used then against marriage equity based on “race” are being used now vis-à-vis same sex marriage. Chicken little was wrong then, and he’s wrong now.

  • Silence Dogood

    Rev. Amy, this worked out well tonight. ;)

    I swear, I might give up my position on the First Amendment and fight for mandatory licensing of all bloggers! FuFu would have their license yanked for tonight’s performance! ;)

    But liberty demands otherwise. We have to live with things that are uncomfortable, distasteful even obscene to some of us in order for everyone to be truly free.

    Case in point: Same sex marriage. The mob hates it. But they don’t have to like it. But they should respect liberty and allow it, for some day, something they hold near and dear to their hearts could become something the mob doesn’t like…

    Liberty is painful at times. Case in point: FuFu. :D

    • VinceP

      So you think involving the Government into every aspect of your relationship with another person in a situation where the Govt currently does not have involvement is a change that increases Liberty?

      • Silence Dogood

        I’ll wait for SCOTUS to weigh in and settle this once and for all. In the mean time, at least there are places same sex couples can go to get married if they wish to.

  • Obamastolemycoutry

    I’m so sorry RRRA, I know how important the issue is, especially to you. My thoughts are that certain issues, gay rights and abortion, are a couple that come to mind will probably never be changed from what they are now, but always be used as a dangling carrot to get votes. I saw both used in 2008 on both sides. If gay marriage were to become the law of the land, they wouldn’t be able to use it anymore to win people over, unless you were to have the right and then the threat of losing it as I saw people do with abortion last year. I am so sick of that issue that I don’t really care about it much anymore if you can believe it. I also was very angry at the people who called me a gay hater because I was voting for McCain/Palin. I was told that they would take away all gay rights, even though I saw Biden and Palin in their debate both say that both camps held exactly the same opinion on it and I argued that McCain/Palin had actually stood up for gay rights more than the other losers, I lost a very good friend of mine who is gay. He told me that I was given boobs instead of a brain and that is why I would vote for the devil Palin. That is why I know that those issues aren’t changing anytime soon because they bring up such strong emotions in people and each party knows how to manipulate everyone who holds a strong opinion either way. My former friend attacked me as a woman. I have never attacked him for being gay and I never would. It is very sad to me indeed because I would want him to have the same freedoms and happiness as I do.

    • http://rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

      I am sorry your former friend treated you that way. There is no excuse for that, especially targeting you because you are a woman.

      Here’s the thing, and I have written this before: Sarah Palin signed a bill into law that would give LGB state employees in AK the same rights as everyone else, because it was the constitutional thing to do. John McCain has literally stood up to defend gay politicians who came out of the closet.

      I’ll take that over Obama’s hobnobbing with people like Rick Warren, Donnie McClurkin, and James Mees any day of the week. It’s abt walking the walk, something Obama has NO experience doing.

      And I think you raise a good point, too – abt the sticks used by the parties. Sad, but true…

    • Silence Dogood

      Abortion and marriage equity are issues used by some as wedges to divide us. Divide and conquer for ego/power and profit.

      I’ve seen this happen: a group will start with a mission to combat some hot-button issue the founders hold near and dear to their hearts…

      (I’ve also seen people PRETEND — knowing they can earn a buck…)

      In waltzes in the power and cash flow generated by the allure of the hot-button issue to their constituency…

      (It’s easy to raise funds, waving pictures of aborted fetuses.)

      The founders become obsessed with their own “success” and will compromise their integrity to maintain power.

      The last election we saw this, as woman’s groups tossed Hillary under the bus. That’s just one example.

      Something to ponder! :)

  • Silence Dogood

    Rev. Amy, you know how I feel about this issue, and the impact it has on our children — all children, hetero and LGBTQ.

    Hugs. :)

    • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

      Indeed, SD – you have been very supportive, and a strong voice for equality. I thank you for that. (I recall your recent comments abt our LGB youth – excellent!).

      • Silence Dogood

        It warms my heart to help. :D

        *Warm fuzzies*

  • Eastan McNeal

    That is a lot of earned criticism from the folks you quote above, Amy.

    Spend all your time waiting
    For that second chance
    For a break that would make it okay
    There’s always one reason
    To feel not good enough
    And it’s hard at the end of the day
    I need some distraction
    Oh beautiful release
    Memory seeps from my veins
    Let me be empty
    And weightless and maybe
    I’ll find some peace tonight

    I think the above lyrics can be interpreted as a suggestion to give up and fly into the arms of an angel or, if Sarah Mc does not mind my translation, a call to all to find a “beautiful release.”

    Take heart in advancements in your good causes, be aware of and keep a vigil for your position’s positions in these debates and think about this.

    In Icelandic the word heimspeki means philosophy (or literally home/world wisdom) hmm. HOME WISDOM. Homophobic = Fear of wisdom? Well.. I know that is quite a leap. But I also know that truth, wisdom and the desire for equal freedom always eventually wins out, in the end, for those who deem their love worthy of love in return for the love they give.

    For the angels on earth, like you Amy, that is all that matters.

    • Eastan McNeal
    • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

      You are too kind, Eastan. Thank you.

      And yes, that is a perfect song (love Sarah!). That’s the beauty of music, isn’t it, the interpretation may be different for different people. Given how very cool Sarah is on this issue, I bet she’d be happy with your interpretation! :-)

  • Freedom Fighter

    It’s hard to even know what to say at this point. It really is. It is just hard to live in a country in which so many people are willing to discriminate against you.

    I am not sure where you see the discrimination. I mean, if you don’t get to collect welfare, is that discrimination too?

    • Eastan McNeal

      You do not serve in Congress. Therefore you do not have a voice in any public policy debate.

      • Freedom Fighter

        And neither do you or Rev. Amy. What is your point?

        • Silence Dogood

          Are you for real Ms./Mr. F.F. Oxymoron?

          Or are you an artificial intelligence experiment gone awry?

  • VinceP

    It’s not about “equality”.

    I’m gay and am utterly opposed to “gay marriage”

    I hold to the opinion that there has to be a standard in society and that this standard must be , in the aggregate, the model that the society teaches its youth to aspire to.

    (Notice I say , “in the aggregate”, nothing I’m talking about should be construed as coerision)

    Gay Marriage is a vector that the Left is using as a wrecking ball to establish a moral framework whereby the youth will have absolutely no family model to aspire to.

    This will lead to a demographic , cultural and economic collapse. (See Europe if you want a preview)

    I believe that we modern people have absolutely no idea the damage we’re doing to our futures by the recent innovations of birth control, abortion, and the abolishment of the expectation of marriage and procreation.

    I think its narcissistic for gays to insist that the entire society destroy the meaning of something that is already endangered because one wants to feel the validation of the State.

    My God.. I want the State to have nothing to do with my relationships.. especialy since they do not involve children.

    I beleive that there is much benefit to the sexual and familiar restrictions that stemmed from the Biblical religions. (in terms of one managing themselves.. i am not speaking about enacting any sort of civil law based on it ..i am not aspiring to being subjected to the strict Torah law that not even the Jews obligated themselves to mete out the punishments proscribed therein)

    If you force gay marriage onto this society, when it so clearly rejects it, you are only guaranteeing more hostility to your life choices, not more acceptance.

    If you want Gay Marriage, then you’re going to have to earn it.. one conversation at a time.

    And calling people names (And I’m not accusing the author of doing so) is not that conversation.

    • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

      What I want is the same access to the over 1,000 rights granted to heterosexual couples paid for by my taxes. I don’t see why I have to subsidize rights to which I am not afforded, do you?

      I daresay I disagree with this statement: “I think its (sic) narcissistic for gays to insist that the entire society destroy the meaning of something that is already endangered because one wants to feel the validation of the State.”

      Thank you for clarifying that I am not calling anyone names, since, well, I didn’t. :-)

      And of course, you are entitled to your opinion.

      • Freedom Fighter

        What I want is the same access to the over 1,000 rights granted to heterosexual couples paid for by my taxes. I don’t see why I have to subsidize rights to which I am not afforded, do you?

        If you pay taxes, you probably don’t get to collect on welfare. Is it fair that people who pay taxes have to subsidize benefits to which they are not afforded?

        • Eastan McNeal

          If you do not serve in the military, do you have the right to their protection?

          • Freedom Fighter

            Of course, that’s the purpose of the military, to protect the civilian population, not the military itself. Same applies to marriage, it serves a specific purpose, and people like Rev. Amy wants to remove that purpose. Thanks for making my point.

            • Eastan McNeal

              What specific purpose does marriage serve?

              • Silence Dogood

                I have no clue what that idjit FF is talking about.. Does anyone have a universal translator that translates Idjitese?

                I swear most of the time she/he just posts anything just to get a rise out of someone. Maybe they are a GOP operative, sent here to make the other bots look bad? That would explain it.

                • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

                  Ya got me, SD! A universal translator – teehee!

                • Eastan McNeal

                  GOP. No. Unless that stands for Getting Over PCP with coffee, pot, booze and sleeping with a Hope poster under my pillow on the floor.

                • Freedom Fighter

                  It’s not that hard to comprehend is it?
                  I mean I used the same argument as Rev. Amy, and I almost used the same words. It seems you understood Rev. Amy’s article, so are you just acting dumb?

                • Peggy Sue

                  This is the same FF who questioned the police action in Lakewood, the guy who gunned down 4 cops in a coffee shop. The same FF who wants us to understand the angst of Major Hassan, the poor misunderstood extremist who murdered 13 and gravely injured dozens of others at Ft. Hood.

                  But gay rights? Heavens no!

                  It just occurred to me, Amy. You need to buy a gun and commit some heinous act. Then you’ll be on the radar for the FFs of the world.

                  Morons!!!!

                  • Silence Dogood

                    Ms./Mr. F.F. Oxymoron is a fucking hypocrite! I said it. :P

                    BTW, I left you a message on the thread where I reead your mind. :)

                    • Peggy Sue

                      Did that message finally come up, psychic silence???

                      I gave up on it and didn’t want to risk a double post. Plus, my eyes were starting to cross from fatigue.

                      I’ll take a look.

                    • Silence Dogood

                      I was thinking of setting up a blog, what do you think? I found a free host that doesn’t censor because some whiny troll kvetches one is mean to poor Baby Opampers.

                    • Peggy Sue

                      Tell me where and when, silence. The more voices, the better.

                      Good for you!

                    • Silence Dogood

                      OK, let me ponder. Maybe you can write for it too?

                    • Peggy Sue

                      If you trust me ;0)!

                    • Silence Dogood

                      I could always fire you, or fire myself and leave you with stuck the stinkin’ thing. :D

                  • Freedom Fighter

                    Americans have a Constitutional right to question police action. I am sure you understood this when you were still a Progressive. Too bad, you fanatical devotion to Hillary Clinton has damaged your cognitive faculties.

                    • Silence Dogood

                      !@#$ off. You are a loony bird.

                    • Donna Brazile

                      Freedumb:

                      Whatever! I’m just sayin’ bigots come in all shapes, sizes, and colors! As is clearly evidenced by your comments.

                      Stop your stupid comments fest!

                    • TeakWoodKite

                      Lot a good that questioning did for an interned American of Japanese decent during WWII.

            • TeakWoodKite

              “people like”…

              I consider this phrase to be very dangerous.

              Die endgültige Lösung begann mit den Worten “Leute wie”.

          • TeakWoodKite

            Depends on which country. Hezbolla gets to keep their arms caches in Lebanon, I read this week, so …who will they defend? Great point Easton.

      • VinceP

        I have no problem with Civil Unions for granting the same legal , contractual, financial, etc… provisions.

        I think that’s the best compromise to situation to this.

        But yet it seems to not satisfy many for some reason.

        I think many Americans lose sight of the many times in the past where two sides of a very contentious personal yet national issue reached a compromise.

        Probably every significant Constitutional clause was reached at by compromise.

        This country was never designed for uniformity.

        I might sound contradictory but what i’m saying is that as a matter of legal legitimacy , gay marriage is definitely something that a State could make law on. The people will decide on what they decide on.

        It seems to me though that there’s a feeling that this issue is something that should be prevented from being legislatable due to the gay marriage having some illusionary Constitutional undeniable mandate.

        It’s that expectation that gay marriage is axiomatic that I really am against.

        And i can’t relate to having an emotional need to feel oneself having society validate them.

    • Silence Dogood

      Comment by VinceP | 2009-12-03 20:21:15

      It’s not about “equality”.

      I’m gay and am utterly opposed to “gay marriage”

      Yeah I recall you said the same thing last time Rev. Amy brought up this important issue.

      Be “utterly opposed” with whipped cream and a cherry on top for all a sense of fair-play cares, but you should not inflict your views on other human beings who demand and deserve equality and equal protection under the law. Try reading the Constitution some time.

      No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      The full faith and credit clause covers the fact others states must recognize a same sex marriage consecrated in another state where it is legal. DOMA is clearly unconstitutional. (As is “Don’t ask don’t tell” unconstitutional.)

      Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.

      Live your own morality. No one is making you marry another guy! The prognostications of would-be Chicken Little’s has proven to be incorrect: the sky has not fallen where same sex marriage is the law.

      Oh and don’t forget life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… Don’t deny your fellow woman/man this!

      • VinceP

        No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        Everyone is free to marry a person of sufficient age , appropriate unrelatedness, unencumberance of a still-intact previously entered-into marriage, and of the opposite gender.. gay or straight.

        I find the appeal to the equal protection clause to be quite absurd… I really can’t determine if those who do so do so from sincerity.

        Marriage has never been about homosexuals marrying each other.

        Oh and don’t forget life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… Don’t deny your fellow woman/man this!

        No one is denied entering into what they consider to be for themselves a marriage to any other person or persons they want.

        My position does not deny anyone their natural rights.

        You could go to a MCC Church anywhere in the US and get married.. no one is stopping anyone.

        My argument was multifaceted..

        I argued why I believe marriage and healthy societal demographics to be related

        I argued that society in general in the US does not want to have their definition of marriage destroyed

        And I implicitly argued that it’s counterproductive for gays to somehow circumvent the general disposition of the American people and impose this without getting a broader consensus in the general population first.

        but you should not inflict your views on other human beings who demand and deserve equality and equal protection under the law

        To assert that gay marriage falls under those things is to deny the American People their sovereign right to enact Law to express their will and desire. The American People and not the Courts will decide these issues.

        Therefore its those who assert an absolute Constitutional Requirement to change marriage law everywhere who seek to inflict their views on all others.

        • Silence Dogood

          You must really hate other gay people to deny them their liberty.

          SCOTUS will decide this eventually. We’ll see who is right. And I don’t think it will be your camp.

          I expect to see you again next time this issue comes up. I can set my watch to you.

          And it could be you are gay, but I doubt it. Your manner is very cold and calculated and calling yourself gay just makes your agenda easier. Walks like a duck axiom applies.

          • VinceP

            You must really hate other gay people to deny them their liberty

            Give it a rest.

            I can’t stand such stupid simplistic reductions.

            I wrote at length the various issues that I feel need to be considered on this topic. My feelings about gay marriage have almost nothing to do with gays at all and yet you’ll characterize what I said in such a way as to be about nothing but my opinion about gay people.

            I never attempt to so distort what other people purport to stand for, and yet I find such courtsy is rarely ever extended from the Left side. Please.. keep your pychoanalysis for people you know since you suck at it with people you don’t.

            I expect to see you again next time this issue comes up. I can set my watch to you.

            You’re damn right you will. I feel I offer a viewpoint almost never expressed yet is very critical.

            I’ll be sure to watch out for your cliched and tired route response to it!

            And it could be you are gay, but I doubt it. Your manner is very cold and calculated and calling yourself gay just makes your agenda easier. Walks like a duck axiom applies.

            Well thank you for trying to pigeonhole me in what you think a gay person’s writing must be seen as.

            It’s fascinating how the only people who ever attempt to use my gayness against me is Leftist.. especially gay Leftists. If i was straight you never say this stuff to me.

            But since I am gay you feel almost obligated to be my thought police.

            It’s what I so despise from the Left.. the oppressive groupthink and total lack of princple.

            • Silence Dogood

              Give it a rest.

              I can’t stand such stupid simplistic reductions.

              Bite me and reduce this.

      • http://www.lesstalkmoreactivism.blogspot.com whoframedrudy

        “The full faith and credit clause covers the fact others states must recognize a same sex marriage consecrated in another state where it is legal. DOMA is clearly unconstitutional.”

        We’ve got to be careful. You’re making exactly the same argument Orrin Hatch made for amending the Federal Constitution to ban gay marriage.

        Our only defense against the federal version of Prop 8 was the Congress. Many of the Senators who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment said either (1) it was unnecessary because of DOMA or (2) it’s a state issue, not a federal issue. But you want SCOTUS to make it a federal issue? SCOTUS can be over-ruled just like the California Supreme Court. Except that where it’s possible to reverse Prop 8, it would take 100 years to repeal the FMA.

        Right now the unpopular Dems have supermajorities they didn’t earn. One terrorist attack, or deeper recession, and the Repubs could end up with large majorities, coupled with surviving, nervous Blue Dogs, to bring back the FMA. So the last thing we need is SCOTUS to get involved.

        I’m very critical of our strategy. With all respect to Evan Wolfson, he led us into an ambush in 2004. When a general leads his troops into a slaughter, you don’t make him Supreme Allied Commander. But that’s exactly what we’ve done, pushing the Marriage Equality lobby to the forefront of the broader gay liberation struggle.

        Amy, I wasn’t surprised by NY. At a press conference before the vote, the director of Empire State Pride looked like he needed to pass a cantaloupe. My guess is they were pressed to push up the vote for Patterson’s benefit. The spin was ‘just getting a floor vote was a victory.’

        The NY state senate is a brothel that should be closed by the Health Dept. Everybody in the state knows it. Every dollar we waste on those skeezers would be better spent supporting gays in the Red States. They face the worst discrimination. The poster is right about one thing: “one conversation at a time.” Starting in the Bible Belt, not Greenwich Village.

    • VinceP

      In my first comment I said:

      Gay Marriage is a vector that the Left is using as a wrecking ball to establish a moral framework whereby the youth will have absolutely no family model to aspire to.

      This will lead to a demographic , cultural and economic collapse.

      This Press Release from the Pacific Justice Institute (a group I know nothing about) serves as a good example of how the Left will use Gay Marriage to make the argument that anyone holding to traditional values is a threat to the Left’s Utopia of No Standards and Models. In this Utopia everything is Tolerated except those things to which it is opposed.

      (I feel obligated to state clearly that I by no means have the opinion that all advocates of gay-marriage share in this radical aim, I realize many people legitimately view this issue as a natural evolution from the past civil rights movements….. I think those good-natured folks have not critically examined the unintended consequences of gay marriage)

      Parents Take a Beating from School District, Court in Anti-Bullying Case
      City:
      Alameda, CA
      Date:
      12/01/2009

      A judge today slammed parents as “bigots” for seeking to excuse their elementary-age children from controversial pro-homosexual curriculum. The parents are being represented in court by Pacific Justice Institute.

      PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider argued in Alameda Superior Court today on behalf of parents seeking to enforce a provision of the California Education Code that gives parents the right to opt their kids out of health education. Alameda Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch lambasted the parents, repeatedly insinuating that they are bigots and insisting there can be no homosexual indoctrination because people are born that way. The judge equated a view contrary to his own with creationism and called both false.

      The legal battle over Alameda’s anti-bullying curriculum has intensified in recent weeks. Leading up to today’s hearing, attorneys for the school district grilled parents in depositions about their religious beliefs. Parents were asked numerous questions about church attendance, sermons they had heard against homosexuality, and whether they were aware that the Bible had been used to defend racism and oppression

  • Peggy Sue

    I’m sorry, Amy. I’m sure it’s a kick in the teeth. And frankly, the New York result surprised the hell out of me. I’m mean we’re talking about an area of [primarily but not all] liberal Dems. The idea that it didn’t pass there is surprising to say the least. But since it wasn’t a “go” in NY then New Jersey makes a bit more sense–the Dems are running like scared rabbits. Doesn’t make it right, of course.

    Rick Warren’s refusal to comment on the Uganda proposal goes well beyond surprising right into despicable, particularly for a pastor. What right thinking Christian could ever buy into an idea like that and/or not be appalled, outraged???

    I’m speechless.

    Your boldface quote caught my eye and had me nodding:

    “Democrats put one hand out to ask for money, and with the other they stab you in the back.”

    Ain’t that the truth? I feel An Awakening coming on. For a lot of people. Take care.

    • http://www.rabblerouserruminations.blogspot.com/ Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy

      Thanks for your kind response, Peggy Sue. It is surprising abt NY, isn’t it? As much as CA was, I’d say.

      I have seen some very interesting discussions by the GLBT community abt the Democrats, and Obama, specifically. Many of them feel similarly – that the DNC has used them, and just wants their money. Lots of frustration going on these days, it seems…

      • Freedom Fighter

        It’s not that the DNC or President Obama have abandoned the GLBT community, but that the GLBT community does not constitute a big enough constituency. Some times you have to weigh the costs and benefits of an action. Should the DNC and President Obama deliver to GLBT community(1-2%) at the risk of alienating the African American(12%) and Latino communities(13%)?

        • Silence Dogood

          You are playing god here, valuing people into who is wroth less and more. You would fit well in Hitler’s cabinet. Do you have a human skin lampshade on that lamp next to your computer?

        • Peggy Sue

          How about women, FF? We represent 51% of the population and the Dems have pissed a lot of us off.

          And I’d like to know how the hell you can defend mass murderers like Major Hassan, so damaged by post-traumatic stress disorder [we must understand you said in another thread] but you’re not willing to defend basic civil rights for every American citizen, regardless of how small their number?

          Oh that’s right. The DNC and President Obama must be defended first.

          Hypocrite!

          • Freedom Fighter

            Ummmm, I specifically said what happened at Ft Hood was a tragedy, why do you have to be dishonest and claim I defended him? I only asked that people not jump to conclusions so quickly, and act stupidly.

            As for women, as far as I can tell, every feminist organization endorsed Obama for president. A majority of women voted for Obama, as you may recall. So, the so called “pissed off women”, appear to be in the fringe minority.

            • Silence Dogood

              You are such a babe in the woods.

            • Peggy Sue

              You ought to check the comments at NOW and NARAL over the Stupak Amendment or the curious announcement that mammograms are no longer needed. Pap smears?? No big deal.

              The rationing begins.

              As for being dishonest, I read your frigging posts FF on the days after the shooting at Ft Hood. You most certainly did make excuses for the inexcusable. Post traumatic stress disorder my ass!

              What about the cops, you forgot that. Clemmons was shot dead. You questioned the officer’s action then made a comment that the relatives were being “persecuted” by the police department. Why? Because they were being questioned about sheltering a cop killer. And when you do that? You can be charged with aiding and abetting.

              Not persecution were I come from. But please, keep up the pity party for murderers and their friends. It makes so much sense.

              And then there’s the gay community. They just want to have life together. Like most of us.

              • Freedom Fighter

                We can argue the reasons that drove him to do what he did, but that is in no way defending the action. It’s nice to see you backtrack from claiming I defended the guy to making excuses for the guy.

                And what about Clemmons? Regardless of what he did the day before, the police do not have a right to execute a suspect. From the article, it appeared that the cop recognized Clemmons and shot him dead. It’s nice to know Hillary supporters don’t hold the Constitution in any regard.

                As for gays, I am not aware that they are not allowed to live life together.

            • jbjd

              Slaves did not constitute a majority in this country, either.

        • Lee12

          1%-2%?

          Where on earth FF did you come up with that figure?

          Once again we hear the meme that, the LGBT community is small, small enough to dismiss. More mythology from the Obama supporters / administration.

          Even if we go with FF laughable numbers, does this mean people who work hard, pay their taxes just like everybody else should be denied the basic rights to a good job, health care and more?

        • Ani

          Oh please. Then he shouldn’t have made these b.s. promises out on the campaign trail. You defend him to the point of defying all sense. Basically, since the evangelicals constitute the biggest voting block — and are his next target, then that justifies throwing everyone else under the bus to get THEM? Do I have that right? And since the AA community are experiencing worse unemployment than any group right now, he has thrown them under the bus, too? In favor of whom, exactly?

        • TeakWoodKite

          GLBT community does not constitute a big enough constituency.

          No taxation without representation. Period.

          • Silence Dogood

            Taxation without representation is what I have now, since the last election was a scam. Those dip$hits were not elected.