|
|
| Barney Frank declared a gay turncoat (thank goodness no film at 11) |
| 12.09.04 (6:50 am) |
Ran across quite the rant on another blog today, felt it necessary to respond but sadly the comment section simply didn't have enough room to dissect the entirety of the diatribe, so I thought it best to do a full blog entry.
[i]We the people for a sane world officially declare 100% support for gay marriage, as a civil right and a birthright. [/i]
Which leads to an interesting question, who's right is it? If I have a fundamental right to be married, as the poster suggests, then it would stand to reason that such a "right" would belong to the individual. Since each and every individual would therefore have a "right" to marriage, technically speaking you then must acknowledge that who, or what they decide to marry is completely immaterial, since marriage is supposedly a fundamental "right" of the individual. So it would soon have to be permissible for any individual to declare himself legally married to anything or anyone he wishes. You open a pretty big door here with this statement. It would be possible for a man to marry an animal, for example. You also open the door for such things as polygamy and yes, even marriages between adults and children.
Marriage is not a fundamental right, it never has been under the law. Legal marriages as provided for by the various states involve a liscening process, much like a drivers license. Just as not everyone is entitled to a drivers license merely as a function of their birth, so too not everyone is entitled to marry merely as a function of their birth.
[i]Those religious institutions that condemn such partnerships are in flagrant violation of the US Constitution's first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Furthermore, said institutions often encourage attitudes of hatred and promotion of violence against sexual minorities in many other ways, and have a long history of such. And these "godly" organizations remain, as they have for untold centuries, the main and sole cause of virulent homophobia.[/i]
Well, the First Amendment does state that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion, however it doesn't really apply in this case as what we are talking about here is not the establishment of a particular religion. If one were willing to make this leap then one must also acknowledge that most crimes, up to an including murder, should be legal thanks to the First Amendment. After all, these same religious "zealots" are also responsible for moral judgments like "thou shall not kill". If the notion is any law that happens to agree with a religious principle is automatically a violation of the First Amendment, I'm afraid most of our laws would be Unconstitutional.
[i]Furthermore, said institutions often encourage attitudes of hatred and promotion of violence against sexual minorities in many other ways[/i]
I can't speak for other religions, only my own, but my religion doesn't encourage hating or being violent towards anyone. But there is a significant difference between "hating" someone and simply not agreeing with or condoning their actions. It is possible to not support Gay Marriage and to feel that homosexuality is wrong without "hating" people who are homosexual. The simple fact that some may disapprove of such a lifestyle is not homophobia. I also happen to disapprove of the way my neighbor parks his car, but I don't hate him for it, and it certainly doesn’t make me “Steveophobic”.
[i]America would not tolerate such ugly behavior by a religous group towards any other minority, in our modern day. And it is one important tenet of so-called activist judges, to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. Especially when such a minority is more universally hated than any other; as are homosexuals, transexuals and bisexuals. In fact, as oppressed as many minorities remain, most of them still cling to backward and hateful notions against even their own non-heterosexual minorities.[/i]
Funny, I haven't seen a lot of anti-gay bias in the media or coming from Hollywood. I see a whole ton of anti-Christian bias coming from both.
[i]The issue of gay marriage has become a glaring example of dangers that arise when church matters are not kept separate from those of the state. Indeed, it has become The Great Test Of Today's America regarding the issue of individual rights versus majority prejudice. [/i]
Again, there is no individual right to marriage, never has been. Marriage, as defined by law, has always been a legal contract between two parties, and the vast majority of the protections and benefits of that contract are not designed to protect either of the primaries of the contract (either spouse) but rather the offspring of that relationship should they have children.
[i]And if we keep moving in that sorry direction much longer, we are likely to see a full-blown holocaust against these long-suffering people[/i].
My apologies, but I hardly see this as being anything even remotely like the holocaust. Every year in this country over 1.2 unborn children are deprived of their lives without due process of law based on the unscientific notion that they are not people and thus not entitled to legal protection. That is a holocaust. The fact that a few thousand or perhaps as many as a few hundred thousand people are not able to enter into a contract of marriage hardly compares.
[i]But progressives of all stripes must also share considerable shame, for sometimes participating in homophobic actions (at worst), or looking the other way too often (at best). To rectify this, we stand with other responsible liberals and moderates, who take up the cause of gay equality starting with marriage, in brave and aggressive manners. Even some churches are finally joining in, thus answering to their savior's message of compassion. I hope this will mark a sea-change in attitude regarding our sexual minorities.[/i]
Well, our Savior certainly told us to have compassion, but he also instructed us not to ignore, enable or encourage sin. There is a bit of difference between the two.
[i]We stand with good folks like Assemblymember Mark Leno, with good organizations like Marriage Equality California, and with good media venues like Air America Radio...[/i]
Air America Radio? Are they even still on the air anywhere?
[i]and demand an apology from politicians such as Senator Diane Feinstein, for suggesting that gay marriage is responsible for contributing to the failure of our recent election. [/i]
Lol.. ok, certainly Senator Feinstein should apologize for many, many things but this isn't one of them. In every state where they proposed an amendment to their state constitutions to ban gay marriage it passed, and all by overwhelming margins. This wasn't a whim, this was a pretty good indication as to where the majority of the public stands on the issue.
[i]We decry even Senator John Kerry, for stating in a presidential debate that he is Catholic and against gay marriage. And we also condemn former president William Clinton, for his signing of the Defense of Marrage Act and the destructive policy coined Don't Ask Don't Tell. Lest we forget: we also condemn as queer turncoats those gay politicians like Congressman Barney Frank, who likewise blame gay marriage for the failure of Kerry to win the presidency. We also acknowledge that none of these four examples are Republicans; in fact they are all regarded as staunch Democrats. (Centrists have proven themselves to be Republican wolves in Donkey hide.)[/i]
Lol.. I decry Senator Kerry and former President Clinton for a lot of things, but on this topic all you can really berate them for is playing both sides of the fence. They tell those who are militant supporters of the gay agenda whatever they want to hear, and then tell the rest of the American public something different because they understand how untenable your agenda is to most of the rest of us. When it comes to standing up for what you believe in and getting elected, they'll take getting elected every time.
[i]All truly progressive people will not tolerate any more homophobia from our own liberal groups and representatives, and must therefore, if need be, not just condemn but separate ourselves from those who continue to harbor anti-gay attitudes. We must be as clear, as strong, and as unwavering regarding gay marriage, as we have been these many years against racism, misogyny, child abuse, and preemptive declarations of war. For it has become all too obvious that condemnation of gay marriage is a red herring that serves to detract us from the real agenda: removal of all LGBT rights to establish them as second-class citizens in perpetuity.[/i]
Lol.. ok, your already one of the most protected of all minorities. How much more do you need?
[i]And then, the elimination of all rights for every other citizen, except for a remnant of the power elite. [/i]
So your solution is to enact legislation such as "hate crime" laws that make any crime against a homosexual or other protected minority "worse" than against anyone else? Force hiring quotas on companies through affirmative action so that eventually just being a homosexual almost guarantees you whatever job/promotion you want but also guarantees that you cannot be fired no matter how poorly you do your job?
Is that is what you consider equality?
[i]We will no longer tolerate frivolous and mean-sprited arguments questioning whether or not gays can marry, whether or not they deserve equal status as human beings, and whether or not they shall go to heaven.[/i]
I have no idea if you will go to heaven or not. That's God's decision, not mine. I can tell you that homosexuality is a sin, but then again that just makes you a sinner. I'm a sinner too. Such it is with all men, so I can no more tell you that you can't go to heaven than I can be certain that I will end up there.
[i]Such debates hold no validity in any civilized nation, as they are founded on a premise that is blatantly erroneous from the start, for it flies in the face of common sense and compassion. Nor shall we ever again engage any discussion over partnerships termed and defined as something resembling marriage, but not ever equal to. In other words "separate but equal." (But if equal, why the necessity of coining a new term?) [/i]
Well I'm afraid your declaration that no debate holds validity is simply false. There are plenty of things about this issue that can spark a valid debate. Also, your "separate but equal" argument falls equally flat, as the term marriage is more than just a legal term, it is a term whos definition carries over into the realm of various religions as well. So what your truly asking for is that the State mandate to various religions what does and does not constitute a proper marriage. Sorry, but that is a direct violation of the First Amendment you quoted earlier.
[i]Marriage by any other name just doesn't cut it.[/i]
Then doesn't that make one wonder if what your looking for is actually equality under the law, or instead some sort of forced acceptance by the rest of society? One can be legislated, the other simply can't.
Just my 2 cents worth.
[i]Submitted by: Stepdad[/i]
|
|
|
0 Comments
|
| |
|
|
|
