srah blah blah

TheCatWhisperer (Christien Lomax) - January 19, 2004 - 12:03 PM - ℓ

The issue seems to be that everyone wants to use the word "married". Now I don't see why this should be an issue, as the word "Married" is used in many different contexts that are in no way really religious... ex:

* "Thomas, Knicks a good marriage" - heading talking about Isiah Thomas shaking things up for the Knicks.

* "Laval merger was a marriage that lasted" - article speaking of a merger (not between two people).

You can find hundreds if not thousands of uses of the word "marriage" that have NOTHING to do with the union of two people in "holy" wedlock. It's not really the use of the word from what I've been able to deduce, but more along the lines that many people just don't agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, or be together, they dislike homosexuality, and can't outlaw it (that would be against a person's civil rights and would be seen as a hate crime), so thaey instead focus thier attention on somthing they can "fight" by proclaimin the the word "Marraige" is a religious word, and using it in such away would be an infringement of thier religion. (or somthing along those lines).

BTW: cool link, seems a recent poll on the American Family Association (AFA) website, backfired...
What is your position on homosexual marriage? ^)% it seems are in favore of "homosexual marriage" :) hehehe..

sorry for the uber comment :|

/c

TheCatWhisperer (Christien Lomax) - January 19, 2004 - 12:32 PM - ℓ

Ack sorry for pinging 3 times :| I was editing my entry ;)

Mer - January 19, 2004 - 1:30 PM - ℓ

That proposal sounds suspiciously French, Srah.

Urs - January 19, 2004 - 2:18 PM - ℓ

People are stupid.

I have also yet to see what the legal "benefits" of marriage are. People forget to bring that up

jday - January 19, 2004 - 2:36 PM - ℓ

Tax breaks, benefits / insurance coverage, etc. are "benefits" of marriage that homosexuals are not automatically afforded. I agree with the cat whisperer and srah. Why can't homosexuals share the verb? I mean, c'mon, it's a word for goodness sakes. As a "religious" person, I don't understand bickering over the word, but I guess I'm pretty radical. But honestly, what's so wrong about loving someone, wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone, and wanting to be given the legal rights and advantages of doing so regardless of gender or sexuality?

Steve - January 19, 2004 - 5:10 PM - ℓ

I think I can speak for most of us gay boys when I say that (a) we don't appreciate being used as political pawns by Fascist FunDumbMentalists (FFs) to scare red staters into voting for the Repugnantlican agenda and (b) I don't need my FF family, or their FF church or the Empire and its political parties approval or official sanction.

Frank and I were married at San Francisco City Hall three years by Gavin Newsome, the newly annointed Mayor of SF. We wear rings and we plan to be together forever. We love and support each other and that should be celebrated.

However, here in Michigan, if I have to go to the hospital, he has no legal rights. We have no tax advantages. If I die, according to Michigan state law, Frank's legal standing to carry out my wish to be cremated and my ashes scattered in New Mexico is superceded by the 'rights' of my FF family/next of kin, who undoubtedly will want me stuffed full of embalming fluid, crammed into a nasty suit and tie, shoved in a ridiculously expensive metal box, prayed over by an FF preacher and buried six feet under the Oklahoma red clay. Why? Because BOTH Frank and I have the same 'equipment.' No other reason, just that. Do I resent it? You bet.

Am I going to spend this 2004 campaign season angry since I'm a pawn in the Great American Culture War? Signs point to yes. According to FFs in Colorado Springs and the Repugnantlican National Committee, by demanding equal civil rights as everyone else in the nation, I have brought down God's wrath and deserve whatever I get this year. And according to the Bush family's very good friend, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his Washington Times, my destruction and elimination is inevitable.

Sorry about the vitriol; I get a bit bent out of shape when politicians and clueless so-called 'Christians' attack my family.

At this point, me and my fellow travellers are beginning to set our sights a bit lower than marriage; pure survival may have to be our sole agenda.

Continue to love the 'blog Srah! Always a wonderful read ... have a great semester!

jday - January 20, 2004 - 2:34 PM - ℓ

Steve- I see absolutely nothing "Christian" in the treatment of you and your husband. I resent that the "FFs" abuse that title, and I hope you know that you deserve to be loved for who you are (in my mind, a child of God, but maybe you prefer a child of Nature, as srah does), regardless of your sexuality. I truly hope that your family will wise up and accept you for who you are, and that you can forgive them for their ignorance and accept them for who they are. It is a shame that politicians see your situation as an issue, not people but pawns. Anarchy is sounding better and better!

katie - January 22, 2004 - 10:06 AM - ℓ

I agree with jday. I resent very much that all of this discriminatory persecution of homosexuals is labeled "Christian". It's not. But certain militants latch on to Christian beliefs that can be used as ammunition. What this means is that, like homosexuals, we Christians are also herded into a socially perceived category that we don't all fit. I'm a Christian, and I definately don't fit the FF description at all.

I think everyone is approaching this issue from the wrong angle. People shouldn't have to be married (hetero or not) in order to have legal rights! A person, no matter what their marital status, sexual preference, etc. should have the right to designate whoever the heck they want to have tax, visitation, etc. rights. They shouldn't share the verb, they should share the rights! What we need to do is stop attaching the rights to the verb.