Seems to have the debate covered

What is left out?  Oh, I know — a solution!


Filed under hate groups, Marriage Equality

17 responses to “Seems to have the debate covered

  1. Gay marriage will be culturally sanctioned in my life-time, I think. I conclude this by comparing my high school years to my kids’ – ages 17 and 15 (next week) same developmental period. To clarify, I had kids late in life – I was 38 when my son was born and 40 when my daughter was.

    In Wichita high schools there are kids who are openly gay. From 1968 to 1972, I am betting, there were no openly gay kids in any school in Kansas.

    My daughter belongs to a gay/straight alliance that is a school sponsored group. They are against all forms of discrimination. From 1968 to 1972, I am willing to bet that no such school sponsored group existed in Kansas.

    The times they are a changin’…

    I’m off today due to a WSU finance workshop. Will be back at it tomorrow, though.

  2. The trick about gay marriage for places like Kansas is that marriage is both a legal and religious construct.

    It is not like there aren’t plenty of non-christians getting married, even here in Kansas. They merely chose to not partake of the religious privileges [if there are, in fact, any] attached to marriage.

    What would be wrong with adding a clause to a gay marriage license which said, you are not entitled to any religious privileges associated with the legal construct of marriage. Would that satisfy the religious right? – until they realized that there really are no glaring religious privileges associated with marriage.

  3. A note on easing the readability of the graphic for this header: If you click on it, it enlarges so it is easier to read.

    All the familiar points are there.

  4. PrairiePond

    Iggy, I wish I shared your optimism.

  5. I do know younger people have a different and better attitude toward differences. There is just so much fear and hate in too many people and it seems to be spread by churches. If there’s anything to be afraid of it’s those hateful people!

  6. tosmarttobegop

    When you run out of logic reasons to be against something then the reasons to be against something also runs out.

    All the reasons I have seen presented to be against Gay marriage is also a valid reason to be against Heterosexual marriage. Even in Biblical terms marriage is an evil, so there should be no support for any marriage.

  7. Zippy

    It’s become complicated because very few of those who discuss have the courage or honesty to face the very simple issues.

    Do you believe in religious freedom? Then how can the state impose someone else’s religious beliefs on unconsenting couples? And how can churches that marry gay people be denied access to the contract, on that basis alone (while ‘Elvis’ is Vegas is perfectly free to marry atheists)?

    The First Amendment protects religious freedom and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, applies to the states (which typically have their own “religious freedom” provisions, notwithstanding the Stupid Amendments to presumably override that part).

    Do you believe in equal protection of the laws? Then the government must have, at the very least, a rational basis for discriminatory treatment. Griswold v. Connecticut (the seminal 1965 Supreme Court privacy case) specifically disallowed “procreation” as a legitimate state interest in interfering with marital privacy (the law in question banned condoms). Loving v. Virginia noted the obvious, mainly that just because the racial discrimination involved persons of different races, it didn’t make it any less racist.

    Likewise, the discrimination against gay people isn’t any less sexist.

    What the hyper-religious need to realize is that they are not required to approve of anyone else’s marriage, or even the concept. No one will ever be forcing their minister to marry gay folks (or that dreaded “miscegenation” for that matter). The First Amendment, with nearly a century of settled precedent, makes that clear.

    But if they feel their personal interpretation of Leviticus or whatever should control someone else’s civil contract, they are simply and utterly wrong.

    But this is simply one more example of the religious right using the civil law to make others live up to their religious tenets. And–usually–complaining how their right to control the whole society is being violated. I’ve heard, at one time, oral sex was illegal in Kansas. I suppose one can produce some objections to the practice, but the ‘reasoning’ is ultimately the same.

    And that’s ultimately what it’s come down to: they don’t want to tolerate the legal recognition of couples that already exist, because, if that happens, they might be regarded as full citizens, as they are, and human beings.

    It undermines the narrative that gay people are aberrations to be “cured,” a view they are perfectly entitled to hold, but not one which has the empirical validity to change civil law–and civil law, at that, which has nothing at all to do with mental helath.

    Instead, they are trying to introduce arbitrary discrimination into a civil contract to accomplish a social engineering goal, mainly punish gay couples for daring to exist. And that’s both inherent wrong–logically and morally–and transparently stupid as well.

    But apparently we, in the final analysis, are not any more enlightened than the Enlightenment leaders who wrote eloquently of human freedom while indulging human slavery.

  8. “Loving v. Virginia” Thanks needed that reminder to tell my daughter what I was wanting for Christmas:

  9. Nancy is a little more than two months older than me. I can hardly believe that. She is one very gorgeous woman; me, a little less than that adjective…

  10. David B

    Nearly too frightful to mention is the legislation introduced in Uganda call for death penalties for homosexual behavior.

    Uganda has had a decade of heavy intervention by American evangelical missionaries, including American legislators. The story was covered by Rachel Maddow a few days ago.

  11. lilacluvr

    Let’s just talk about health care reform and the need to curb some of these Medicare claims.

    As you may know, I work in a closed-door long-term pharmacy doing medical records for nursing homes, home health, hospice, etc.

    I work weekends so that I can provide daycare for my grand-daughter during the week.

    Today I was doing a bunch of podiatrist orders for feet care. I was inputting orders likes Vicks protocol to toenails, Crisco protocol to feet, lotion to feet. This not rocket science – these are typical treatments to keep the toenails clean and the feet hydrated.

    So, tell me why is there a podiatrist practice based in ElDorado that has travels around to nursing homes and they do nothing but see nursing home patients to prescribe these simple remedies and to clip some toenails?

    Just exactly why does it take a podiatrist charging Medicare big bucks for the things that a nurse’s aide used to do 10 years ago?

    And, mind you, the Vicks, Crisco and lotion treatments are not being performed by this podiatrist – he simply orders the treatments and the nurse’s aides do the actual treatments.

    So – exactly why is a podiatrist required when a nurses’s aide is really doing these simple treatments?

    I had about 50 of these orders to input today and with each one of them – I kept thinking this thought – no wonder Medicare is in running out of money if we are paying a doctor to write up an order that grandma’s feet needs to have lotion put on them.


  12. Until the day comes where all people can recognize and acknowledge that sexual persuasion is not an illness, not a choice, and is as much a part of a person as the color of their skin or eyes, we won’t find a solution.

    I don’t know how to get there. How do you convince any person who is obsessed with the lie that sexual persuasion is a choice? How do you convince people who say they believe in God and His word, yet use Him as their excuse to hate?

    • lilacluvr

      Not all churches and preachers spread the hatred of homosexuality. But those that do spread the hate, in my opinion, are the ones who are more concerned about their ability to bring in lots and lots of money.

      And what better way to bring in alot of money than to have a perceived enemy to fight?

      I think perhaps God would be happier if these church people would concentrate on straigtening out their own heterosexual marriages before starting on someone else they perceive as the enemy.

      But on second thought, if these preachers started denouncing the behavior of their own church peoples’ behaviors – then I’m guessing their churches would not survive economically.

      So, it all boils down to money and has nothing to do with what God wants?

  13. Money, yes, it isn’t called the root of all evil without meriting that accusation! And is there some satisfaction in judging other people? Does it boil down to if “they” are wrong then I can be right? Do you know people who seem not to be able to accept that there can be lots of ways to be right without anyone being wrong? No one is asking another to include people in their lives they don’t choose to be around. No one is asking more than each person be treated equally.

    And, of course, leave the judging where it belongs.