Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
http://www.thealbanyproject.com/frontPag…
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
8 "nay" Senators reside in districts with majority support for marriage equality.
Time to primary these bastards.
What a bunch of cowardly assholes.
A sad day for America.
In the words of Loveschild, "let the people decide" -- vote these people out. It's just like her and her kind did when they ran ads opposing supporters of SB5688 here in WA State and when NOM threatened to run thousands against any senator voting "yea".
where do you live? Can I come live with you?
I wonder how we lost several GOP equality votes that were planning to vote "yea", Loveschild? And why NOM was calling several Dem Senators in fringe districts? And why NOM has been working with Senator Diaz? And why Senators Skelos and Monserrate flipped so hard?
Don't fake sincerity or morality on this one. And remember: you know for a fact that this can't be put to a public vote, so don't even front.
We will overcome.
Even if we have to play your little game.
No one is denying any one their human rights, people who identify themselves as gays can still do so right now in NY, they can engage in whatever they want and no one can stop them. That doesn't mean that basic societal institutions should be redefine by a small group of people while denying the rest of us our right to voice our opinion and voices in the ballot box because when you deny us that then that does constitute a violation of the people's human rights as guarantee under the Constitution of our nation.
We have freedoms, responsibilities and a system thru the people to redefine or preserve our institutions. Bring it to the people, if you want to legitimize the societal redefinitions you seek.
No one is denying any one their human rights, people who identify themselves as gays can still do so right now in NY, they can engage in whatever they want and no one can stop them. That doesn't mean that basic societal institutions should be redefine by a small group of people while denying the rest of us our right to voice our opinion and voices in the ballot box because when you deny us that then that does constitute a violation of the people's human rights as guarantee under the Constitution of our nation.
We have freedoms, responsibilities and a system thru the people to redefine or preserve our institutions. Bring it to the people.
Kind of like people were free to be black under Jim Crow in the South, LC, just denied the right to eat where they wanted, stay in hotels, vote, etc. But they were totally free to "engage in being" black.
"Let the people decide" is a red herring. And you know it.
So even in WA State...
Fine, force it at your own defeat, because if you do (and I am hoping you do) a Constitutional amendment will be implemented.
Time and time again this has been brought up to the NY senate and time and time again it has been repelled, the people of NY state as those of NJ and DC don't want it but you want to force it down their throats.
A Constitutional amendment is the only way to put this down to rest until finally understand that we are not a monarchy as Dingo's homeland, we the people have the final say not on what you do in your house or with your partner that's your right but on what our institutions, i-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n-s mean. Thirty one states thru the ballot box have made that clear, and the only place where you have succeeded you have done it thru the court, and politicians that are not hold accountable (like any good monarchy isn't hold accountable for an arbitrary ruling) Marie Antoinette has been brought to the guillotine today in NY.
Unless of course you want to MARRY your partner. We're all over that.
And there's always Proposition 209 as well as affirmative action being voted down in my home state of Michigan.
No, Loveschild, we are not a monarchy, we are a democratic republic. "The people" vote on their legislators and the legislators vote according to both their constituencies and their own conscience.
Mob rule such as you propose has killed many a wise man. Holy men, even.
Be honest for a change. The truth is you want this to be a monarchy...with you in charge. How's that cake taste?
The Senate which is not related to population is under the control of the Upstate region (even though the center of population for NY State is just across the river from NYC, and even then, several GOP members out there are in districts that favor via plurality or majority marriage equality.
Don't forget in your Marie Antoinette analogy that those who fomented the revolution, the Girondists and Jacobins, those who bankrolled it and gloated upon the death of the royal family, were the ones who suffered the most.
It took a lot of Democrats to defeat this-
Will you call for a boycott of the Democratic Party?
Are Democrats Asshole Bigots?
I'm sure your country has no flaws whatsoever (yeah rite). And you certainly seem to spend a lot of time on a blog that's based in such a "fucked up country." Funny how that is.
Congress will be shoving it up your ass in a few weeks.
It will be a great chance to put a lot of members of Congress on the record.
Members from the 31 states that have already voted to outlaw homosexual marriage.
Some by as much as 80%.
Are you comparing gay marriage with the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ?
No one is denying you to engage in homosexual acts or proclaiming you're gay, no one.
But you have no right to arbitrarily decide on what societal institutions mean that is made by the society = the people.
You can decide on what your relationship means in your house or in your daily life not or institutions that are implemented by and serve society for a specific purpose.
You want to make this about you being somehow 'attacked' and that is disingenuous of you, it's like the boy who cried wolf.
Just like in the States, same-sex marriage was originally legalized in Canada as a result of court cases that ruled existing bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage became legal across the country via a bill that was voted on in Parliament. Had that bill failed, certain provinces and territories would not have had same-sex marriage, but court challenges would have continued, bringing about the same result.
Parliament could have passed a new law explicitly restricting marriage to opposite sex couples, or they could have ammended the Canadian constitution by inserting the clause "marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman", and in fact, Canada's Prime Minister wanted to do just that.
There are key differences in what happened in Canada and what's happening in the States. First, despite 80% of Canadians claiming to be Christian, Jewish or Muslim, when churches tried to get involved in the same-sex marriage debate there was a backlash from the general population, who recognize that religion has no place in politics. Second, there was a shift in public opinion, feelings, values, attitudes towards and beliefs about LGBT people that cut across all segments of the Canadian population such that, by 2004, a majority of Canadians supported same-sex marriages. In 1996, polls showed 47% opposed to same-sex marriage; by 2009, 61% were in favour of same-sex marriages.
Just because we find ourselves in a time were marriage has been harmed, mainly by sexual anything goes ideologies doesn't mean we should kill the institution. Because it does play an important role, it does to those who truly believe and observe it.
Look, if you hate marriage or think it's some antiquated vestige of by gone eras like Dan believes, and that it is something shackling, and that monogamy doesn't work and having open (multiple) partners is better for whatever relationship you have (as Dan believes) then by all means GO AHEAD, NO ONE IS STOPING YOU NOR SAVAGE FROM DOING SO. But you don't have any right to destroy marriage for the rest of us just because you don't believe in it.
Loveschild, sweetie, I am actually a profane enough heretic and blasphemerto make that comparison but that's not what I was doing.
I was comparing the process of voting at the ballot box (on whatever issue that pertains to civil rights, of a sort) to other forms of...public juries such as the one you propose.
I was actually thinking much more of Socrates than Jesus. Just because "the people" vote on something doen't mean that their vote is "just." It was why Plato didn't like the mob rule known as Athenian democracy (not that I favor what Plato's alternative proposal was).
That's why we live in a representative democracy. Because people like you are ill-informed and bigoted.
So marriage isn't marriage unless it produces children, is that it? I look forward to you proposing laws banning marriage for the sterile or post-menopausal.
As to the "destruction" of marriage, I just don't see it. My straight, suburban, two kids and counting marriage seems to be in pretty good shape up here in the land of gay marriage, in spite of all the sodomites who have the same kind of marriage license that I do.
I'd like to point out that Jesus, according to the Gospel, spent an awful lot of his time with people that upright/mainstream society at the time considered outcast / unclean / deviant or otherwise beneath them.
Food for thought. If there's a Second Coming, you're more likely to find him in the Castro with the 'mo's than in your church. Unless he's showing up to smash up the megachurches, because false piety and commerce in the house of God are about the only things that really (again, according to the Gospel) pissed him off.
If you actually knew about the person Jesus of Nazareth, read not just your translated into English Bible, but the Roman and Jewish antiquity records of his life, then you would know that you stand opposed to him and the Kingdom of God he proclaimed. He wasn't for the status in quo, he opposed tradition for tradition sake, he opposed inequality and injustice, his understanding of scripture flew in the face of the religious leaders of his day. Such was his unwillingness to compromise his vision, his moral position, that he was crucified for it. Dr. King knew him, Desmond Tutu knows him, Archbishop Romero knew him, Bonhoeffer knew him, but nothing you say here indicates that you know him, LC. You worship your "god" of proclaimed ethnic background, your "god" of traditional marriage, and in your worship you proclaim support for legislated genocide in Uganda and Jamaica because they are sovereign nations. In your worship you justify unequal treatment under the law. Your so blind that you don't even realize your standing in the mob and calling out for blood, Loveschild. And I grieve for you.
We're up to 30 points in this thread.
can you explain how same sex marriage "destroys" marriage, and give us some of the specific problems that this causes? Perhaps you can use the social disruption seen in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Canada to make your point.
Don't talk to me about the need for family when blacks invented the term "babydaddy" in order to circumvent that thing so many of you dread- parenting
Don't lecture me on the right to vote on things like that- if we voted on segregation or curfew right now for people in CERTAIN groups it may just pass.
Some people believe homosexuals are a threat to deceny, some people think people cop killers and attackers of the elderly are. People in Seattle tend to believe cop killers and old-lady-attackers are more abhornent that homosexuals. I guess Ken Hutchinson doesn't agree since I don't hear him yapping right now about certain groups who are a threat to commuty standards.
Defending your bigotry doesn't make you any less of a bigot.
Is creating and nourishing the next generation into adulthood a right of marriage? A responsibility of marriage? It is a way for a marriage to contribute to society, I agree, but what about how society contributes to a marriage? And for the married persons, what should the basis of their relation to each other be?
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.
Words to live by, LC, wouldn't you say??
Ummm, apparently not!
Society's role is very simple, it is to create a vehicle (and after its creation to preserve it and protect it) to incentive and sustain man and women unions for the existence of said society in the future.
"And for the married persons, what should the basis of their relation to each other be?"
The formation and subsequent rearing of a family.
Now i know that many people who are not of reproductive age also marry, and you're are going to say that they cannot form a new extended family as a young couple would, so why should they be granted marriage licenses?
Very simple, because even if a man and a woman who wish to consolidate their union in marriage are not of reproductive age, they can still be examples unto others who are. Just by the simple act that they want to enter into such an important commitment means that they know of it's relevance and want to at minimum become role models if merely by the act they consciously made for others to follow. They affirm the importance of marriage even as it evolves into old age. And also be it that there is no deviation from the couples that produce new generations for all societies in this world, no one can say that they may not (even tho it has been a rare occurrence) produce new offspring and thus belong in the category of couples for which the institution of marriage has been constructed for by society.
That's really fucking depressing.
"Even if a [two men or women] who wish to consolidate their union in marriage are not [able to bear children], they can still be examples unto others who are. Just by the simple act that they want to enter into such an important commitment means that they know of [its] relevance and want to at minimum become role models if merely by the act they consciously made for others to follow. They affirm the importance of marriage even as it evolves into [new forms]."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszX…
It clears up a lot of question about a Good Christian Marriage.
Has anyone ever accused Loveschild of being a performance artist or some other sort of a scam? 'She' always seems to post suspiciously close to the time of release of all sorts of Stranger columns...
I really resent that decent hard-working citizens of this country are being denied basic human rights because of a few narrow-minded jeezo-bigots. Religion is a form of mental illness.
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
My opinion: Men can't actually lie with other men like a man and a woman do anyway. The Bible phrase is useless. Now, if the Bible is mandating men and women have anal intercourse and men can't mimic that with each other, fine, then it makes sense. But it's something a male homosexual couples and straight couples can both do, anal sex. Also oral sex where a man receives a blowjob. Somehow I don't think the Bible was that specific about sexual acts where men lie with men. But men having vaginal intercourse with men? Heehee. No. Love it when the Bible is wrong.
Am waiting for conservative Christian Republicans to come up with their new commandment: Thou shalt not have homosexual relations.