I know it’s not local, but I read this recently and it put a burr under my saddle that I need to get out. I’ll apologize ahead of time for sounding a little like a liberal whack job, but to quote the great philosopher Popeye, ”I’ve had all I can stands, ‘cause I can’t stands no more!”
A federal court in Massachusetts has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. Check out a news article here: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100709/US.Gay.Marriage.Benefits/
For info on DOMA specifically check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act (I know, I know…Wikipedia public editing…yadda, yadda…it’s a jumping off point. Shut it.)
Anyway, I don’t really want to get involved in trying to sort out the legal tangles. It just gives me a headache.
Let’s bottom line this, shall we? Should gay people have the right to get married? Not “legal union” not “domestic partnership,” but marriage?
The correct answer is YES.
The bigger question for me is: Why do you care?
Exactly what does the “Defense of Marriage Act” defend marriages from? It seems like we’re talking about defending the word “marriage” itself and, quite frankly, who give a rat’s ass? We are spending billions of dollars and thousands of the courts man-hours on semantics? Let it go.
Riddle me this if you will: if the homosexuals that live down the street from you (and yes…they live down the street from you…) get married, how does it affect YOU in any way, shape, or form? How does their “marriage” affect your marriage or family in any way? How does it infringe upon your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
It doesn’t. It no more affects your marriage than does the marriage of the hetero couple on the other end of the street.
And seriously SPARE ME the B.S. argument about having to explain it to your kids. That ship has sailed. Gay people already exist and they walk around and live together and whether or not we keep them from getting married isn’t going to change that.
And please-please-please-PLEASE do not give me a Biblical argument. In terms of the law, Biblically based arguments are null and void as far as I am concerned. We are NOT a Christian nation. We are a nation of many religions. (First person who comments that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles is the proud winner of my 25 page report on the subject. It contains the Treaty of Tripoli in full and several letters between the founding fathers. The whole thing is long and boring and CORRECT. We are not a Christian nation. You won’t and can’t win that argument with me, so move on.)
We are free to worship as we wish. Whether you are a Christian or Jewish or a pagan or you worship the great Satan himself, it’s your call alone. Ergo – if a gay couple can find a church/temple/mosque/whatever that is willing to marry them, then obviously they have found a religion that’s cool with gayness and gay marriage. So that argument is gone too.
A few months ago, former Lt. Governor-turned-embattled RNC head Michael Steele made what I call the “insurance” argument. Basically (I’m paraphrasing here) if we allow gay marriage then businesses will have to provide insurance benefits to gay couples and that will be pretty pricey.
With all due respect, sir – that sounds like an argument against ALL marriage. So let’s forget that argument too.
Then there’s the “civil union” argument, which goes like this: It’s ok if gays want to be together, but why can’t they call it civil union? Why does it need to be “marriage”?
Semantics. Again. Let it go.
Let’s get to what I believe is the real crux of the issue: you don’t like gays. You don’t like seeing them together. You think it’s tasteless or sinful or gross. You bare no ill-will towards homosexuals, but you just don’t like it. Fine. You don’t have to. But we can’t just outlaw things we don’t like. If we could, I would at this minute be in DC lobbying for the end of “So You Think You Can Dance?”
How about this: if you really want to defend marriage – work on your own. Nearly 6 out of 10 marriages in this country end up in divorce. I am almost certain that has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage. If marriage needs defending it is from the enemies within, not the big scary gay invaders.
In other words – mind your own damn business. If you are not gay, it is none of your damn business. We have ACTUAL problems in the country. Gay marriage isn’t one of them. Let’s work on a few of those and forget the semantics.
(BTW – hot tip for the GOP: Gay marriage? Seriously, get off of it. Like myself, there are a lot of people who a very conservative, but they are smart enough to realize that the gay marriage issue is a stupid one to worry over. My opinion? There are LOTS of big name GOP candidates who agree with me 100%. The reality is they are pandering to the older Bible-thumpers in the party who, sadly, have all the money. In other words, they are telling Grandpa what he wants to hear so that Grandpa will pony up for a shiny new bike come election time.)
Danny Bonaduce
I promised, so here it is.
Last month, my band the Mobtown Saints was playing Bally’s in Atlantic City. Great spot. We play there a lot. It had been a weird road trip already.
It started in Shaun the drummer’s driveway in Abingdon. The GPS says 96.5 miles. We drove 45 minutes and I swear to God the GPS said 115 miles to go. New rule: Shaun doesn’t get to drive anymore. He drives like an old lady and insists on taking back roads. They are in fact NOT faster. (love you pal).
Anyway, when we arrive and get on stage in our crowd is: Sebastian Bach of 80’s hair band Skid Row, Bam Margera from Jackass, Aaron Lewis from Staind, and Danny Bonaduce of the Partridge Family.
Had we put the names of 1,000 celebs in a hat, we’d never been able to come up with a more random crew. They hung with us all night – although I am not sure any of them knew where they were. They had a pretty decent head start on the night based on the number of empties around them.
After we wrapped at 2 a.m., we headed out of town and reflected on the weirdness of the evening at a Dunkin Donuts. Mikey the guitar player says, “How much weirder could the night have gotten?” The words had barely left his mouth when the bus full of nuns pulled up…
(Shameless plug – the Saints will be playing in Harco at “Half Pints” aka the old Torinos on 7/17 come see us)
Next week – everyone wants a more specific update on Rouse. I’m going to go see him soon, so full report next week.
“Biblically based arguments are null and void as far as I am concerned.”
–Ah, nice to see you’ve got an open mind.
“You won’t and can’t win that argument with me, so move on.”
–I see a pattern here
“So that argument is gone too.”
–Nice to see you can argue with yourself to prove your point
“So let’s forget that argument too.”
-Whew….I’m gettin’ worn out just listening to you spout your granular arguments so you can pounce on them with your at-the-ready responses. You’re a genius!
“Let’s get to what I believe is the real crux of the issue: you don’t like gays. You don’t like seeing them together. You think it’s tasteless or sinful or gross. You bare no ill-will towards homosexuals, but you just don’t like it. ”
-Thanks for telling me what I feel/think.
“I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
-Thomas Jefferson
As for gay marriage. I agree with you. If Frank wants to marry Bill and pack fudge all day long, I could care less.
Bryan The Dagger does not need this clown!
I don’t understand why conservatives aren’t all for marriage for gay people as well as straight people. Surely a stable home aiming for raising a family is the bedrock of society. Gay people should be encouraged to form stable family-type bonds.
Ok….if you’re going to break out quotes…..
TJ was saying HE personally was a Christian. He didn’t believe in forcing that on others.
Second- I referenced the treaty of tripoli. It was signed in 1796. Adams, TJ and a whole bunch of other founding faiths sign it. In fact at the congress unanimously approved it.
Here’s the important part:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries
So the question is- what part of “not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” is unclear?
Btw-if you’re looking to bolster Christianity with Jefferson quotes, you may want to rethink that….
Jefferson did not believe in the resurrection, a part of the faith that most Christians believe is paramount. In fact he edited the Bible so that there were NO references to the resurrection.
Referred to as the “Jefferson Bible” I believe his edited version was used by many in congress for some time.
Are you sure TJ was a Christian and not simply a deist, as were most of his compatriots, or even an agnostic? (Keep in mind that fundamental Christianity as it exists today – the kind that sees homosexuality as a “sin” and massive problem – did not arise until the late 19th century.)
Anyway, a collection of his quotes seems to point to him having a rather negative opinion of the religion.
The following is a brief excerpt from a much longer piece at http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html
In the following significant passage we have Jefferson’s opinion of the Christian religion as a whole:
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies” (Letter to Dr. Woods).
Could a more emphatic declaration of disbelief in Christianity be framed than this?
In his “Notes on Virginia,” the following caustic allusion to Christianity occurs:
“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites.”
Amen (and women)!
I am shocked! Shocked to hear the voice of reason come from conservative Harford County, which I left more than 30 years ago for Montgomery. Shocked that someone in that dot of red in a mostly bright blue state has even heard of the Treaty of Tripoli. Yay for Maynard! He has it exactly right.
This article is a joke.
This is an endless argument with any liberal so I won’t attempt it. However, I will say that it is important to protect the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. Men and woman each have distinct and important roles and attributes that are essential to raising a child. It is damage to our children and society to allow gay marriage. I have nothing against homosexuals personally, but I do oppose their lifestyle. We should do everything in our power to prevent gay marriage in our country.
This is the last article I will read on this flaming liberal website that somehow calls itself a news outlet. I encourage others to not read this garbage either. Let’s not give clowns like this a voice.
So I think Maynard’s getting to your point that you’re making arguments about all marriages, not just gay marriage. You advocate men and women having distinct roles in a marriage, yet that is certainly not encoded in the law. Is it against the law for a guy to stay home with his kids while his wife works? How about for the woman to pick up a hammer and repair the back deck? Do you oppose this couple’s lifestyle, as well? Would you like to make it illegal?
So in other words, if your “distinct and important roles” aren’t written into law and you have nothing against homosexuals personally, what is the hangup on legal gay marriage?
Eric….adios hypocrite! We don’t need “your kind” ’round hear anyway!
Jefferson also said, “Question with boldness even the existence of a god.”
I think in his quote regarding being a “real Christian” he was referring to his own belief in the morality of Jesus.
In any regard, I do believe that religion has caused a great many conflicts in the history of civilization. It’s a shame.
My apologies if my sarcasm went too far in my post (seriously).
My feelings about gay marriage and abortion are exactly the same: if you are against it–DON’T DO IT.
And Maynard–I want to know what happened to Linda. I went away for a weekend and when I came back, she was gone.
there’s a difference…gay marriage affects no one…abortion kills a child!
harco res, me thinks that maybe you should have been aborted?
Lol, wow intelligent and mature…next time try putting something past the 5th grade into your thought
Why? I was intentionally “dumbing down” my comment for the intended audience….YOU! 🙂
try making an intelligent response and I’ll debate the issue with you, but if insults are all you have then I’m done with this conversation…
Way to go Maynard. Gives me hope for Harford County that they produced someone that can analyze this issue and highlight the absurdities. Better yet, that you live here and are willing to stand up and make these observations.
I agree it’s absurd to worry about this issue. They’re probably as likely to divorce as a hetero couple anyway… What irritates me is the large percentage of gay/lesbian individuals who won’t be satisfied with marriage and will continue “fighting” for acceptance. Some won’t be happy until everyone capitulates and avows that their lifestyle choice is wholesome and righteous – in which case happiness will continue to elude them.
Very refreshing point of view. I agree completely and wish people would concentrate on things that affect them like crime, unemployment, peer pressure on your kids, etc. Two people of the same sex being married–no impact on me whatsoever.
Maynard, I’m glad that this website has given you a forum for which to let loose your obvious frustration. But as a staunch gay rights supporter myself AND a conservative, I’d have to say that the tone, belligerent language, childish tactics which you employ in this article are extremely detrimental to our cause, and while I know you don’t care about the issue, I don’t think you want to see others’ rights trampled on. While I agree with the points you make and acknowledge your skill as a writer, I’d have to believe that articles like these will not turn skeptics into believers but rather alienate those who oppose gay rights, and even those on the fence about the issue, simply because this article sounds more like a radical’s rantings than it does an intelligent political argument. This article had the potential to be a really great piece about an important issue in our government today and you really are a talented and intelligent writer, but I’m inclined to believe that this article if fuel for the anti-gay fire. Please use your talents for more productive journalism.
Opponents of marriage equality for Gay couples speak passionately about “States Rights” and Federalism and so on … but the fact remains that MOST of the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage are bestowed on couples by the FEDERAL government. They number 1,138 according to the Government Accounting Office (GAO). Most significantly they have to do with tax law and Social Security, so it simply wouldn’t do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa to suddenly become UN-married once they move to a neighboring state. On the other hand, any heterosexual couple can fly off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and get married by an Elvis impersonator, and that marriage will be automatically honored in all 50 states, no questions asked.
This is why DOMA is transparently unconstitutional under both the 14th Amendment and the “Full Faith & Credit” clause. The fact that Judge Tauro found DOMA unconstitutional according to the 10th Amendment is just icing on the cake as far as I’m concerned. I know marriage equality for Gay couples makes some people uncomfortable. There are still many people today who are uncomfortable with people of different races marrying. But “popularity” and “constitutionality” are not always synonymous.
If the federal government wants to wash its hands of this and leave it to states to define marriage for themselves, the federal government had better be prepared to dispose of all the benefits of marriage under tax law, Social Security, and so forth. I wonder how many married STRAIGHT couples would be happy with THAT?
How is it that Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is considered a very GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.
It has nothing to do with religion, because the United States is not a theocracy. It has nothing to do with parenting, because one does not need a marriage license to have children, nor is the desire or even ability to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
Like it or not, there is simply no purely constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the exact same legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.
Maynard: Harford Countians don’t know what to make of you. I love it!
I do, and I think he’s great. And while I TOTALLY agree with Maynard on THIS issue, I’m certain that there are MANY issues that I will disagree with him on. Keep it up Maynard, and we’ll keep responding!:)
Not too convincing when the article is a string of pro-gay marriage statements interspersed with “don’t even try to argue this” or “spare me that” pre-emptive strikes against counter arguments. For the most part, it’s simply a monologue in the strong tradition of “Because I said so.”
What people fail (or refuse) to understand is that a majority of Americans support equal rights for committed gay couples – they just don’t support “marriage”. It’s too simple and glib to blow it off as just semantics. Words have meaning, and once you start redefining them to mean whatever you want for a particular situation, the meaning and precision of the language are lost.
If I want to open a pork BBQ restaurant with strict rules on cleanliness and preparation, can I call it a Kosher restaurant? No? Why not? Isn’t that just semantics? Oh, I get it. ‘Kosher’ has a specific meaning, like… ‘marriage’. I can set up a similar system but I can’t co-opt a name that has a long established, specific definition.
Let go of the stubborn demand for the label and watch the opposition shrink dramatically.
I totally agree with Maynard on this issue for different reasons. I think govt. has no buisness being in the marrige buisness. If that alone is a church construct and I have to pay a tax for the state to sanction it then if a religion will recognize it the state should be fine with it. Ergo state should call it civil unions for everyone and leave marrige to churches.
I’m a Christian. As far as America being a Christian Nation, it matters little one way or the other. There are moral laws that exist and they are as rigid as 2+2=4, and one of these laws states that sex between two men or two women is a sin. The word “sin” is breaking a moral law and it’s what we as humans do best. Adultry, murder, pride, gluttony, etc, are no worse or better than homosexuality, just a different stripe on the same cloth.
Why it matters to our nation is because it opens yet another door. Once we give the green light to homosexual marriage, how do we say no to bigamy? Or Triads? Or foursomes? Or marrying an animal? Or a robot? Or an adult and child? That last one sound ludicrous? Something about the child not being able to consent? How does a child of two gay parents get to consent? Kevin Jennings is our Safe Schools Czar in the Obama administration and one of his heros was Harry Hay, a strong proponent of NAMBLA. Google those terms for yourself and tell me where were heading.
Maynard, fortunately for America, you don’t get to set policy by yourself. It goes to the people, like Prop 8 in California, and that speaks volumes, that one of the most liberal states in America said “no, marriage is between one man and one woman”.
2 Apples plus 2 Oranges equals 2 Apples still! so 2+2=2
I’ve noticed that conservative religious types like to fantasize about man-on-dog sex and all sorts of other nasty things that have nothing whatsoever to do with same-sex marriage.
I don’t know why the concept of consenting adults escapes them.
I don’t understand why they think denying gays the right to marry will end the “sin” of gay sex.
I also don’t understand why they point to their Christianity when they try to justify their bigotry since, as the Bible tells us, Jesus said absolutely nothing about homosexuality.
And I sure as heck don’t understand why they’re not picketing at every Red Lobster and other seafood restaurant in the land and warning people who wear cotton-polyester blends of hellfire and damnation since eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics are declared abominations in the very same Old Testament book that labels homosexual sex as such.
Oh well, I guess I’m just an ignorant liberal.
You have the ignorant part correct.
I said nothing about wanting to have sex with a dog. That is the boilerplate response when a person disagrees with anything a progressive believes in. No gay marriage, you’re homophobic. Small government, don’t mind social security do ya? Legalizing gay marriage could lead to additional “alternative” cultures demanding the same rights, you want to have sex with a dog.
For all their bluster about being intelligent, progressives regress to the forth grade when the disagree with anyone.
Jesus didn’t say a lot of things were wrong. He credited us with having enough sense to sort the big stuff out and spoke in parables about the stuff we have a hard time grasping. Matthew 19; 4-6 is as close as he came to it, and if you look closley at it, it kinda says that man and woman shall be one flesh, not man and man or woman and woman.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p1
Prop 8 stats; 85% of conservatives voted for it, so you’re kind of a rare breed among conservatives.
Chuck gets it mostly right. Marriage in and of itself is a religious rite & the issue of marriage should remain there (that is not to say that 2 athesits should not be able to go to the JOP & get hitched if they wish). Marriage is a rite established by the church for the raising of children & the stablizing of society.
The problem arises when the state involves itself in marriage through the granting of benefits i.e. tax breaks & the like & inserting itself for a cut of the dough through marriage licenses. Why does the state demand anyone get their permission to marry via the payment of a fee for a license. If the state would just butt out of the issue there would be much less acrimony. It should stop granting benefits & stop collecting fees. We do not need their permission. The issue would then remain merely a religious one for 95% of people. If two gay people (I never really understood why homosexual people took the moniker gay. Are they really that much happier than everyone else?) found a church that would marry them, then fine. Issue resolved. Homosexual couples can already will their property, benefits & much else to each other so the monetary issue is moot.
There is a benefit to society for children to be socialized & educated in the traditional family of a man & a woman. That is how the norms, customs & traditions of society are passed down the generations & society is thus stable. The main goal of the homosexual lobby is that they want their lifestyle validated & considered to be normal. It is not. It will not happen until 51% of society is homosexual, at which point it won’t matter since society will be dying at that point. I have nothing against homosexual people. They can do what they want in the privacy of their home. Who cares? It’s nobody’s business.
The exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis makes us nervous. Why? Because the sin Adam and Eve committed in the story was anal sex–the mystery Augustine almost solved 1600 years ago. (He thought their sin was normal penile/vaginal sex!) For more information google “WikiAnswers-What is wrong with Robert Hagedorn’s Blogs”