Showing posts with label same-sex marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label same-sex marriage. Show all posts

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Bill Clinton Is Now In Favor Of Same-Sex Marriage

Embedded video from CNN Video


Here is the accompanying article:
Clinton Changes Mind on Gay Marriage
AOL News
posted: 14 HOURS 36 MINUTES AGOcomments: 3301filed under: National News
PRINT|E-MAILMOREText SizeAAA

(Sept. 26) -- Former President Bill Clinton has revealed he recently had a change of heart on the issue of same-sex marriage.
In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper Friday, Clinton explained that he still believes each state should decide whether to legalize gay marriage, but he is no longer personally opposed to it.
"I think if people want to make commitments that last a lifetime, they ought to be able to do it," Clinton said.
"I was against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide, and I still think that the American people should be able to play this out in debates," the former president added. "But me, Bill Clinton personally, I changed my position."
Asked what caused him to switch his stance, Clinton said he realized his support for other gay-rights issues -- such as adoption rights for same-sex couples -- didn't square with his position on marriage.
"I realized that I was over 60 years old. I grew up in a different time ... and I was hung up about it," Clinton said. "I decided I was wrong."

2009 AOL LLC. All Rights Reserved.
2009-09-26 11:17:37
One more step forward for Baptists that support marriage equality.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

it seems to me...: barack obama's liberal speech to school children

it seems to me...: barack obama's liberal speech to school children---excerpt:
barack obama's liberal speech to school children

Hi! Flush Flimflaw here, and I am just outraged by Barack "Osama" Hussein Obama's speech to school kids last week. And I'm even more outraged that the liberal media is not outraged by it.

Obama said, and I quote, "I’m glad you all could join us today."

Can you believe that? It's outrageous! What a bunch of liberal hooey. "I'm glad you all could join us today."

Now I want to explain to you what liberals mean when they say that. Because when an ordinary person says, "I'm glad you all could join us today," it's just a greeting. But when a liberal says it, it's just outrageous what the liberal media lets him get away with.

You see, what he's telling the kids is that gay marriage is OK. When a liberal says "all" he means that same-sex couples should have "all" the same benefits as normal people. That's what the word "all" means there. Obama is indoctrinating our school children right in front of our eyes.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

SBC Leadership Increases Abortion Rates While Gay Marriage Drops Divorce Rates In MA

Mainstream Baptist: Southern Baptist Leadership Causing Increase in Abortions---excerpt:
A story today from Baptist Press, the propaganda arm of the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Board, features the headline "Rep.: Health care plan would lead to abortion increase." The article is part of an ongoing campaign against health care reform by the fundamentalist leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention. Central to that campaign was the delivery of more than a million signatures to congress opposing health-care reform. The petitions were delivered by Richard Land, head of the SBC's wed-to-the-hip-of-the-GOP, tax exempt, political action arm. Undoubtedly, many of those signatures were a knee-jerk reaction to false information about "death panels" and abortions.

The sad truth is that the fundamentalist leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention bears much responsibility for about 97% of the abortions that have occured over the past 30 years. They have long been at the forefront of the uncompromising pro-life people that caused former surgeon general C. Everett Koop to withdraw from the abortion controversy.

More than anyone else, C. Everett Koop, along with the late Francis Schaeffer raised awareness about the issue of abortion among evangelical Christians. Bill Martin, in his book With God on Our Side, quotes Koop's explanation for why he dropped out of the controversy:
If the pro-life people in the late 1960's and the early 1970's had been willing to compromise with the pro-choice people, we could have had an abortion law that provided for abortion only for the life of the mother, incest, rape, and defective child; that would have cut the abortions down to three percent of what they are today. But they had an all-or-nothing mentality. They wanted it all and they got nothing.

Before the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, the position of denominational leadership, like the position of the majority of Baptists today, was that we support abortion when necessary to protect the life and health of the mother, in cases of rape and incest, and when the fetus is known to have severe physical deformities such as anencephaly.

Had the moderate position prevailed, abortions could have easily been reduced by 97%. Instead, for 30 years the SBC fundamentalist "all-or-nothing mentality" has swollen the ranks of those who are uncompromising on this issue.
Interesting news and just another way Fundamentalist corruption destroyed the SBC. One Southern Baptist adds this to the issue though:
If we are going to lower the abortion rate it should come because loving SBC members are in the lives of teens and single moms. It's personal, it's relational, it's not meant to be public. Our convention should support the local church and unleash it to do good for the kingdom.
---so at least there is hope within the SBC itself. And I might add that I agree with the above statement.

On the other side of things, Massachusetts seems to be enjoying a decrease in divorce rates since legalizing same-sex marriage. Massachusetts Enjoying Decreasing Divorce Rate Because of Gay Marriage?:
We're not quite ready to say that same-sex marriage is "saving" straight marriage in Massachusetts, but when you put together two pieces of data, you might be able to reach that conclusion. As Rachel Maddow did. As she points out, when gay marriage was legalized there, the divorce rate stood at 2.2 people per 1,000. Now, it's down to 2.0, giving the state one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. Meanwhile, as we've previously noted, the state of Florida currently bans same-sex marriage; Florida also enjoys one of the highest divorce rates in the country.
Here is an excerpt from a Huffington Post article on this fact:
Opponents of same-sex marriage reject it on religious and moral grounds but also on practical ones. If we let homosexuals marry, they believe, a parade of horribles will follow -- the weakening of marriage as an institution, children at increased risk of broken homes, the eventual legalization of polygamy and who knows what all.

Well, guess what? We're about to find out if they're right. Unlike most public policy debates, this one is the subject of a gigantic experiment, which should definitively answer whether same-sex marriage will have a broad, destructive social impact.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire have all decided to let gays wed.

Actually, the "experiment" has been running in Massachusetts for fully 1/2 decade now. Over three years ago I wrote a story, "Christian Right Wrong on Gay Marriage", summing up the apparent non-impact of the then-2 year "experiment". Now, we have 4 consecutive years of data. According to the most recent data from the National Center For Vital Statistics, Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor that triggered the US entrance into World War Two.

Provisional data from 2008 indicates that the Massachusetts divorce rate has dropped from 2.3 per thousand in 2007 down to about 2.0 per thousand for 2008. What does that mean ? To get a sense of perspective consider that the last time the US national divorce rate was 2.0 per thousand (people) was 1940. You read that correctly. The Massachusetts divorce rate is now at about where the US divorce rate was the year before the United States entered World War Two.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Large Number Of Clergy Including Baptists In Favor Of Same-Sex Unions


Okay, okay, so my last post wasn't much of a post, but you got to admit seeing a great white shark facing a little sea-faring kayak is a pretty awe inspiring sight. Anyways, here's some awe inspiring news by way of the Alliance Of Baptists' Facebook page:
Alliance of Baptists: The Alliance of Baptists have been leading the way in supporting gay rights. We need to share this Good News of the Alliance. Let's get the word out. :


Distortions Aside, Clergy Support Gay Rights in Surprising Numbers
By Peter Montgomery
May 24, 2009
Recently released results from a survey of mainline clergy reveals that, when policies are portrayed honestly, the number of clergy who support same-sex marriage, adoption, etc., nearly doubles.
In a recent ad by the National Organization for Marriage, a scary storm of homosexuality threatens to rain gays into people’s lives and churches. That campaign, widely mocked by Stephen Colbert and numerous others, was just the most recent example of the religious right’s ongoing effort to portray the gay rights movement as an enemy of religious liberty and faith itself.

Progressive religious leaders have been working hard to make it clear that religion and religious people are not exclusively on the “anti” side of the gay rights movement. Now there’s new evidence that widespread support exists among Christian leaders for public policies that protect the rights and lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and for their full inclusion in the life of the church.

An in-depth analysis of mainline Protestant clergy shows large majorities of support for anti-discrimination laws, hate crimes legislation, and the right of gay couples to adopt children. Even same-sex marriage, so often portrayed by religious right leaders as an attack on the church, draws support from nearly half of mainline Protestant clergy when it is clarified that no church would be forced to bless same-sex couples.

Those conclusions are drawn from recently-released findings from the Clergy Voices Survey conducted last year by Public Religion Research [Editor’s note: In addition to working as an adviser on the survey the author has been hired by PRR to do outreach and PR for it].* Researchers identified 1,000 senior clergy from each of the seven largest mainline Protestant denominations and sent them in-depth questionnaires by mail (the response rate was over 40 percent). The survey’s 60-plus questions covering LGBT issues provide the most extensive look ever at clergy beliefs about homosexuality, interpretations of scripture, and the inclusion of LGBT people in the life of the church—including ordination.

The PRR analysis holds mostly good news for equality advocates, providing yet another tool for challenging assertions by anti-gay activists and public officials that, for example, hate crimes laws are a designed as a prelude to dragging preachers from their pulpits.

Among the most dramatic findings is the striking diversity of opinion within mainline clergy who, in general, hold much more diverse political views than white evangelicals; mainline Protestants are one of the only major religious groupings who are truly swing voters (white Catholics being the other).

Some of the divisions break down pretty dramatically across denominational lines, with clergy from the United Church of Christ and Episcopal Church at the equality-affirming end of the spectrum, and clergy from the American Baptist Churches and the United Methodist Church at the more conservative end, both theologically and politically.

With Facts, Support Doubles

But it’s also interesting to look at factors that cut across the denominations. The authors of the analysis, Public Religion Research’s Robert P. Jones and Daniel Cox, also looked at a set of questions, including things such as the inerrancy of scripture and the sinfulness of homosexuality, to evaluate mainline clergy along traditionalist/orthodox and modernist theological orientations. And, based on questions about sexuality, public policy, and the role of LGBT people in the church, they divide mainline clergy into three major groupings.

Roughly equal proportions fall into a strongly gay-supportive base (who generally do not see homosexuality as a sin and are very supportive of pro-equality policies and full inclusion of gays in church leadership—29 percent) and a base holding the opposite view (30 percent). A plurality of respondents (41 percent) fall into what they call the “Uncertain Middle.”

That large middle group is ambivalent or uncertain about the nature of homosexuality, but is also generally supportive of equality-affirming public policies; much closer on policy issues to the supportive base than to the opposition. In some ways, clergy in the “Uncertain Middle” model an approach to public policy issues that gay-rights advocates need to bring more fully into the policy arena: the majority of these clergy believe that having religious questions or concerns about the nature or sinfulness of homosexuality does not require one to oppose equality in the legal realm. This is the separation of church and state in action; with churches deciding questions about leadership and ordination, and policy decisions being made on Constitutional principles like equality under the law.

This kind of clergy voice could be especially compelling to those people of faith who find themselves in an uncertain middle, perhaps struggling with what they have been taught about scripture, and wondering how much credence to give the arguments that religious liberty and legal equality are somehow irreconcilable.

This potential is evidenced by one of the most striking findings in the survey, which deals with support for same-sex marriage among clergy in the “Uncertain Middle” (which, remember, is a 41 percent plurality of the overall group). When asked whether they support marriage for same-sex couples, civil unions but not marriage, or no legal recognition at all, only 26 percent of clergy in the uncertain middle initially choose marriage equality. But when asked a follow-up question about whether they would support allowing gays to legally marry if the law guarantees that no church would be forced to marry any couple, that support jumps a remarkable 23 percentage points, to 49 percent. That is a powerful and potentially very useful fact.

But perhaps the most hopeful results for gay-rights advocates is the fact that almost half of the mainline clergy report that their own views on gay and lesbian issues have become more liberal over the past ten years, with only 14 percent saying they have become more conservative.

- - - -

*This editor's note initially noted that the author had "worked with PRR," a small but meaningful difference. RD deeply regrets the error and always strives for complete transparency with regard to conflicts of interest and personal relationships.

Tags: gay marriage, lgbt, mainline protestants, public religion research, same-sex marriage, surveys


The best part of the whole article is this comment:
Whatever it takes to support your prejudice
Posted by arwilson on May 25, 2009 at 3:45 PM
As Evangelical Christians continue to cherry-pick verses from the Old Testament to support their prejudices, I have yet to hear a valid reason why they overlook the creepier ones referring to stoning your children and restrictions on marriage (used to great effect here: http://bit.ly/tZS7K ). I have a very conservative friend who is a minister and is very involved in protecting "traditional" marriage. In fact, he supports it so much that he has been married twice. He promised his God that he would remain married to his spouse until death - two times. Is he a polygamist, a liar, or a hypocrite?
Evangelicals have created a world in which they are free to discriminate, justify torture, and worship money and guns. They have done more to turn people away from Christianity than any other so-called demonic temptation, and that is a shame. Evangelicals are a living irony that cares little for Christ's greatest desire that people simply treat others as they wish to be treated, and would rather cling to archaic thinking and misconstrued scripture. They have drawn a line in the sand with issues social and scientific and bully people onto their side with made-up threats of fire and brimstone - a culture of fear and ugliness.
To be honest, I don't care how much of the clergy supports marriage equality. If only one minister supports love over ignorance in the name of Christ, then all is not lost. Evangelicals should hang their heads in shame and admit their hatred and prejudice and ask for forgiveness - the truth shall set you free!
My sentiments exactly.

Monday, April 27, 2009

Same-Sex Marriage And Separation Of Church And State

My friend Justin and I are having an interesting discussion on thoughts from this video:
The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Douglas Kmiec
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorGay Marriage Commercial

over at his Blog. (Justin and I have been friends ever since our days at Campbell and through the years have had interesting discussions). Here are some of Justin's thoughts on the subject at hand:
Should Clergy Perform (LEGAL) Marriages?

I am ordained clergy and one of my favorite parts of being ordained is the unique role that I can play in officiating a wedding. I've already done 2 this year, and there's more to come. There is something so holy to me to when I walk a couple through the vows that they chose/wrote for each other as they look lovingly in each others eyes.

However, as of late there has been an interesting point being pointed out by many in the church. The latest is found on Tony Jones' blog entitled: Doug Kmiec Is Right: Clergy Should Not Perform (Legal) Marriages.

In this Tony points out some interesting and thought-provoking observations about clergy and marriage. He says:
In no other fuction as a clergyperson did I function as an extension of the government -- not when I was baptizing, burying, counseling, or communing. Only when performing a wedding did I, with the stroke of a pen, make official a legally binding contract that, in the eyes of the state, allowed that couple to enjoy certain privileges like the ability to file joint tax returns, visit one another in the hospital, and receive joint health care benefits from one of the partner's employers.....
I do find it odious that clergypersons are called upon, in this one instance, to act as agents of the state.

He goes on to conclude:
Clergy and churches, on the other hand, should have no part in legally-binding contracts. Instead, religious professionals should bless and sanctify unions and partnerships that fit within their religious traditions as part of their sacerdotal functions.

Of course part of this is brought on by the issue of same sex marriage. Douglas Kmiec on The Colbert Report, points out that "the state has an obligation to treat all of its citizens equally and to preserve the principle of equality." In essence, he is saying that by allowing the polemic Church to decide who can and can't be married that the State is not upholding its role of equality for all citizens. This is something of which I had not considered, but has been thought-provoking to me.

By watching the video and reading all of Tony's blog, you will see that what they are suggesting is a separation of the two roles. This allows the state to practice equality, while allowing the Church to decide according to their own convictions and traditions. That would mean that different traditions would bless and marry same sex couples, and others would not. If a couple would not be recognized/blessed by their own church/tradition, then they could seek out another tradition. Either way, they would still have equal rights as heterosexual unions, because according to the State, all couples would have to go through the state for the legal union of marriage. (Read Full Post: Here).


Here are some of my thoughts from my comments on that post:
TheoPoet said...
Interesting post. I agree with all you said and I am sure officiating marriages is a joy. However, I would tend to think that officiating over sham weddings wouldn't be so joyful and by that I mean people getting married for all the wrong reasons. Lets face it same-sex marriage isn't a threat to the institution of marriage but divorce and people getting married for all the wrong reasons are. I wonder how much this plays into Kmiec's views. It seems that we spit on marriage when we allow sham weddings to happen but same-sex marriage is fought over and homosexuals with a genuine love for each-other are denied the right to marry. Isn't it amazing how marriages of convenience are always granted such as Britney Spears' 24 hour marriage or even weirder the woman who married the Eiffel Tower but not for homosexuals who are committed to each-other with genuine love.

I also wonder how literally we take the phrase: "Into this holy estate these two persons present now come to be joined. If any person can show just cause why they may not be joined together – let them speak now or forever hold their peace." from the Traditional Wedding Vow is taken. As for me I've never seen any wedding where anyone dared to take the phrase to heart and answer it---perhaps out of fear of being labeled "jealous" or a "hater" or some other insult---although, I do know of instances where perhaps the phrase should have been answered honestly and thereby preventing messy divorce or some other form of violence.

TheoPoet said...
Bringing my comments back to the issue of separation of church and state, I believe that those who oppose same-sex marriage don't understand the concept. It involves exactly as you said:
This allows the state to practice equality, while allowing the Church to decide according to their own convictions and traditions. That would mean that different traditions would bless and marry same sex couples, and others would not. If a couple would not be recognized/blessed by their own church/tradition, then they could seek out another tradition. Either way, they would still have equal rights as heterosexual unions, because according to the State, all couples would have to go through the state for the legal union of marriage.


Also, interestingly enough our Puritan fore-bearers believed in separation of marriage and church:
The English Puritans who founded Massachusetts in 1630 formed a society as committed to religion as any in history. But for them, marriage was a civil union, a contract, not a sacred rite.
...
Early Boston’s Puritans would not have sanctioned gay marriage, because they would not have had the conceptual categories to make sense of the idea. They condemned and occasionally punished homosexual behavior as a sin, a deviation from the procreative function of sexuality. But in this light, homosexual behavior was not categorically different in their eyes from other forms of sexual transgression, from premarital sex to masturbation. Sexual behavior was something a person did, an action of the moment, not a form of identity or a defining characteristic of a person’s nature. Race, by contrast, was a category that New England’s Puritans often did regard as a form of identity, a defining characteristic that separated Europeans from Africans or Native Americans. In this respect, they were no different from most people of that era. And yet Puritans like Samuel Sewall, a judge on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and author of the first antislavery pamphlet in America, abhorred the laws barring interracial marriage. He fought to grant legal recognition to the marriages of slaves and free people of color. Sewall stands at the beginning of a proud tradition in which Massachusetts judges used the court’s power to decide cases in favor of equal rights for all. In Sewall’s view, all people "are the Sons and Daughters of the First Adam, the Brethren and Sisters of the Last Adam, and the Offspring of God; They ought to be treated with a Respect agreeable."

Massachusetts history reminds us that what we commonly call marriage today was initially, and quite deliberately, constructed as a form of civil union. Although marriage was a fundamental aspect of these highly religious people’s lives and the foundational element of their social order, its regulation was separate from the church. The Puritan founders understood marriage as a social institution that needed adjustment according to changing circumstances, and they left the state to do this important work.

In every region of colonial North America, devout believers fought over how to define true religion, and where to draw the line between church and state. In some of the smaller and initially more homogeneous colonies like Massachusetts and Connecticut, religious uniformity was enforced by the state. But taken collectively, no single religion in colonial America ever had the power to decide for everyone, everywhere, what was sacred. As a practical matter, the traditional practice of state-enforced religious uniformity proved to be unworkable in the new American republic. It was this de facto diversity that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrined in federal law.

Different religious communities have long maintained different standards governing who can marry, whether interfaith marriages are permissible, what the obligations of marriage entail, and when or if divorces can be granted. We should not forget that the English Reformation began in 1529 with a conflict between Henry VIII and Pope Clement VII over whether Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon could be annulled. Henry said yes, Clement said no, and in that dispute a new religious tradition, with new ways of defining the relationship between church and state, was born. The idea of legalized homosexual marriage is no doubt innovative. Some religious traditions reject it, while others support it. But the same was true of past adjustments to the legal definition of marriage, such as the recognition of interracial marriage. The traditions pioneered by Boston judges–a legacy that removed marriage from church control–have made these legal adjustments to social changes possible. A policy wherein all marriages are considered as civil unions would be consistent with America’s strongest traditions regarding civil liberties, equal rights, the separation of church and state, and the freedom of religion. (Read full article: Here).


It wasn't until later when theocratic Calvinism took over that marriage became entrenched in a blend of church and state language as it had always been in the Catholic/sacradotal traditions.


For all those interested, join the conversation over here: A Noggin' Full Of Noodles: Should Clergy Perform (LEGAL) Marriages?.

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage
AP
posted: 2 HOURS 57 MINUTES AGOcomments: 585filed under: Law News, National NewsPrintShareText SizeAAA

MONTPELIER, Vt. (April 7) - Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.
The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote — the minimum needed — to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.
Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.
Tuesday morning's legislative action came less than a day after Douglas issued a veto message saying the bill would not improve the lot of gay and lesbian couples because it still would not provide them rights under federal and other states' laws.
House Speaker Shap Smith's announcement of the vote brought an ouburst of jubilation from some of the hundreds packed into the gallery and the lobby outside the House chamber, despite the speaker's admonishment against such displays.
Among the celebrants in the lobby were former Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, and his longtime partner, Chuck Kletecka. Dostis recalled efforts to expand gay rights dating to an anti-discrimination law passed in 1992.
"It's been a very long battle. It's been almost 20 years to get to this point," Dostis said. "It think finally, most people in Vermont understand that we're a couple like any other couple. We're as good and as bad as any other group of people. And now I think we have a chance to prove ourselves here on foreward that we're good members of our community."
Dostis said he and Kletecka will celebrate their 25th year together in September.
"Is that a proposal?" Kletecka asked.
"Yeah," Dostis replied. "Twenty-five years together, I think it's time we finally got married."
The House initially passed the bill last week with a 95-52 vote.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2009-04-07 11:25:18

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

More On Same-Sex Marriage



Elderly Gay Couple Regrets Not Marrying
AOL
posted: 9 DAYS 14 HOURS AGOcomments: 2930filed under: National NewsPrintShareText SizeAAA

(March 6) - It was 1951 when they fell in love. They've been together every since. And now, Bob Claunch and Jack Reavley are wondering whether they made a mistake by not getting married when they had the chance. The two met in the Army, where Reavley was Claunch's commanding officer, the Los Angeles Times reported. For years, they had to conceal their relationship for fear of being court-martialed. Eventually, both men received honorable discharges.
Today, Claunch, 83, and Reavley, 85, live together in Los Angeles. They are registered domestic partners in California. When same-sex marriage was legalized in California, they decided not to go for it.
"I know that we've been together a long time," Claunch told the Times, "but the idea of cementing this relationship seems unnecessary."
But now, they are starting to wonder: What happens to the survivor if one of them dies? Without a marriage license, they lack some fundamental rights.
But in November, California voters approved Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage. The state Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of the measure. Claunch and Reavley say that if they get another chance, they will get married -- although something in their background still makes them hesitate.
"I suppose it's because for so many, many, many years and centuries, men have not married men, and women have not married women," Claunch said. "We've been brought up not having anything like that, not wanting anything like that … We've always been given the impression that it was a horrible kind of situation, and it is not easy to cross over that line."
....
And you can learn more about the couple’s long romance through filmmaker Stu Maddux’s 2006 documentary, ‘Bob and Jack’s 52-Year Adventure.’

2009 AOL LLC. All Rights Reserved.
2009-03-06 22:30:54


See also: Yahoo! News: Gay Marriage, Is Sean Penn right about gay marriage?, 16,000 Reasons to Vote No on CA Proposition 8, where I found this video:

Also see: Is Controlling Anti-LGBTQ Sentiment One Of Our Primary Jobs? and blah blah blah: The Church, Homosexuality, and Texts That Divide: How Corporate Reflection of Scriptures Could Change Our Sexual Ethics.

A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage

Here is a fairly recent article from the New York Times on same-sex marriage:
Op-Ed Contributor
A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage

By DAVID BLANKENHORN and JONATHAN RAUCH
Published: February 21, 2009

IN politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now. We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill. For those not immersed in the issue, our proposal may seem puzzling. For those deeply immersed, it may seem suspect. So allow us a few words by way of explanation.

Whatever our disagreements on the merits of gay marriage, we agree on two facts. First, most gay and lesbian Americans feel they need and deserve the perquisites and protections that accompany legal marriage. Second, many Americans of faith and many religious organizations have strong objections to same-sex unions. Neither of those realities is likely to change any time soon. Further sharpening the conflict is the potential interaction of same-sex marriage with antidiscrimination laws. The First Amendment may make it unlikely that a church, say, would ever be coerced by law into performing same-sex wedding rites in its sanctuary. But religious organizations are also involved in many activities outside the sanctuary. What if a church auxiliary or charity is told it must grant spousal benefits to a secretary who marries her same-sex partner or else face legal penalties for discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status? What if a faith-based nonprofit is told it will lose its tax-exempt status if it refuses to allow a same-sex wedding on its property?

Cases of this sort are already arising in the courts, and religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are alarmed. Which brings us to what we think is another important fact: Our national conversation on this issue will be significantly less contentious if religious groups can be confident that they will not be forced to support or facilitate gay marriage. Gay couples have concerns of their own. Most, of course, want the right to marry, and nothing less. But federal recognition of same-sex marriage — leave aside what you think about the merits — is not likely in the near future. The federal Defense of Marriage Act forbids it. Barack Obama and most other Democratic presidential candidates opposed gay marriage. And most Americans continue to oppose it.

(Read More: Here).


See also: A Better Case for Gay Marriage and Faith and Theology: Twelve propositions on same-sex relationships and the church.

Kirk Cameron's Homophobic Rant



Read the comments to the video: here.


Here's a parody of homophobe Dr. Laura on The West Wing:



See also: Cafeteria Christianity: Picking & Choosing, where I found this video:



And: Exploring Our Matrix: Sunday School: Homosexuality, Genesis 19 and Judges 19.

Friday, March 13, 2009

New Contender For Fundamentalist Disdain: Object Sexuality

Woman Marries the Object of Her Desire ... the Eiffel Tower?
SexDating & LoveOdd NewsMar 11th 2009
By Emerald Catron


At one time or another everybody gets fed up and swears off relationships with other people forever. But do they go and marry an inanimate object?

They do if they're like former U.S. Army helicopter pilot Erika La Tour Eiffel.

Did you catch that last name? Erika married the Eiffel Tower two years ago in a small ceremony with some friends in Paris.

Material Obsessions

La Tour Eiffel is one of a very small group of people who have intimate relationships with ... objects. These people, called, "objectum sexuals" are never attracted to human beings in the first place. ...
There are not very many known OS people in the world. The OS online group was founded by Eija-Riitta Berliner-Mauer--who coined the phrase--and has approximately 40 members, most of whom are women. Berliner-Mauer (which is German for "Berlin Wall"), tells "The Independent" that objectum sexuality is much more common in Eastern cultures where people "routinely believe that objects have souls."

A Special Relationship

OS people don't just love objects, they believe that objects are sentient beings who love them back and talk to them. That's why La Tour Eiffel has a hard time using her bow in archery competitions. They broke up, and now things just aren't the same.

Not everyone who is OS is attracted to large public attractions. One British woman is primarily attracted to radios and hi-fis. And Amy Wolfe has a piece of banister that she just can't get enough of.

The documentary "Strange Love: Married to the Eiffel Tower" (catch the whole thing here) features quite a bit of footage of Wolfe and Mrs. Le Tour Eiffel, including a scene of the two at an amusement park in upstate New York, where Amy visits her main squeeze (you can also tack polygamy onto the list of things they believe in).

The Music of the "Nacht"

The ruler of Wolfe's heart is a rather phallic carnival ride called 1001 Nachts. Wolfe caresses and kisses the ride (which frankly doesn't look like nearly as much fun as the Tilt-a-Whirl) and even gets some of its gear oil on her fingers and sniffs them, marveling at how "good" it smells. It's a little awkward to watch, but Jezebel declares it a must-see and provides a good summary for those of you who think the thought of a woman getting down with a picket fence is a little too out-there.

Roughly half of known objectum sexuals have been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, which is an autism spectrum disorder that makes it difficult to form relationships with others.

But David Morgan, a senior psychoanalyst at the Portman NHS Trust for sexual dysfunctions tells The Independent that he thinks the desire to desire objects comes from being treated like an inanimate or unfeeling object in early childhood.

Regardless of what caused it, most OS people seem to be pretty happy the way they are.


And here is a definition of object sexuality from Wikipedia:
Object sexuality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Object sexuality or Objectophilia is a pronounced sexual desire towards particular inanimate objects. This is a rare form of fetishism and those with this expressed preference may feel strong feelings of arousal, attraction, love and commitment to certain items or structures of their fixation. Sexual or even close emotional relationships with humans are incomprehensible. The term was coined in the 1970s by a woman named Eija-Riitta Eklöf Berliner-Mauer from Liden, Sweden, who was married to the Berlin Wall.[1] Object-sexual individuals also believe in animism, or the belief that objects have souls, intelligence, feelings, and are able to communicate.[2]


I must admit even I think this is weird stuff---but here's the best part of Lemondrop's article--- a comment by a poster named sidharthae: " Yeah, well that makes sense; gay couples aren't allowed to marry but you can marry a building. Unbelievable." My thoughts exactly. Other good comments are:

Friday 13 March
By crisNeutralReportPositiveNegative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

seriously! i completely agree! this is ridiculous. someone can legally marry a building, but 2 gay people that are completely in love cant?


Thursday 12 March
By sunnydawsonHighest RankReportPositiveNegative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good question! That article did not say if they have a sexual relationship with their objects of desire.

Reply

Thursday 12 March
By zackNeutralReportPositiveNegative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

if you click the link they actually do have sex with the objects just click there here link high lighted in blue theres a story of a women in love with the golden gate bridge and one with her bow and arrow.


Thursday 12 March
By MattNeutralReportPositiveNegative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

well maybe the sentient being just being there for them is enough to turn them on and give the like feeling of a sexual relationship. sometimes it doesnt have to be physical.


Thursday 12 March
By seriously?Highest RankReportPositiveNegative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i can't believe that. and they say gay marriage is a mockery of the spiritual union between a man & a woman? then what the hell is this??? so two people who love each other can't get married, but some whack-job can marry an inanimate object? i honestly don't think i've ever heard anything so absurd. i'm not trying to start an argument on beliefs or whatever... but i'm seriously speechless on how fucking stupid this is.

Reply

Friday 13 March
By CoreyNeutralReportPositiveNegative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously,I agree with you.At least with gay marriages two people are getting married,but with this "os" you have people marrying inanimate objects.And to them these are just like people,but it is not normal.Not to be mean in any way but it seems like a fetish to me or something.Next somebody is going to marry "The Statue of Liberty" I just don't get it.


Friday, October 10, 2008

Connecticut Says Gays Can Marry

Connecticut Says Gays Can Marry By DAVE COLLINS, AP
posted: 5 HOURS 9 MINUTES AGOcomments: 872filed under: Law News, National News, Political NewsPrintShareText SizeAAAHARTFORD, Conn. (Oct. 10) - Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that gay couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions through the courts.
The ruling comes just weeks before Californians go to the polls on a historic gay-marriage ballot question, the first time the issue will be put before voters in a state where same-sex couples are legally wed.

The 4-3 ruling is the first time that a state that had willingly offered an alternative to marriage was told by a court that civil unions aren't enough to protect the rights of gay couples. Connecticut was the first state to voluntarily pass laws to affirm civil unions.
"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.
"I'm just ecstatic. It's such a relief, the joy of it," said another plaintiff, Jody Mock of West Hartford, who sued with partner Elizabeth Kerrigan.
In the majority opinion, Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote that denying marriage to same-sex couples would create separate standards.
"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Palmer wrote.
The Family Institute of Connecticut, a political action group that opposes gay marriage, called the ruling outrageous.
"Even the legislature, as liberal as ours, decided that marriage is between a man and a woman," said executive director Peter Wolfgang. "This is about our right to govern ourselves. It is bigger than gay marriage."
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the ruling goes into effect Oct. 28 when it is implemented by action of the of the Superior Court. There will be no appeal, he said.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with the ruling.
"The Supreme Court has spoken," she said. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success."
State Sen. Michael Lawlor, chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee, said he expects the General Assembly will pass a gay marriage law next year codifying the Supreme Court ruling.
"It's important that both the legislature and the court weigh in," he said. "The court is saying that it's a constitutional requirement that marriage should be equally available to gays and straights and the legislature should weigh in saying whether or not it's constitutionally required, it's the right thing to do."
The court was sharply divided in the decision, with three justices issuing separate dissenting opinions.
Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that he believes there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, and the court's majority failed to discuss the purpose of marriage laws, which he said is to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct."
Zarella added, "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court."
The lawsuit was brought in 2004 after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.
They said the state's marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.
Supreme courts in Massachusetts and California also have ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples, concluding the domestic partnerships were unequal to the rights given in heterosexual marriage.
Civil unions and a similar arrangement, known as domestic partnerships, are offered to same-sex couples in Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Oregon, Hawaii, Maine, Washington and the District of Columbia.
Peck said that as soon as the decision was announced, the couple started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other friends and family.
"We've always dreamed of being married," she said. "Even though we were lesbians and didn't know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."
Associated Press reporters Pat Eaton-Robb, Stephanie Reitz and Larry Smith in Hartford contributed to this report.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-10-10 10:06:05