Article

2004-02-24

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Guest 2004-02-24 5:30:07 PM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Absolutely true!

Posted by Korora 2004-2-24 6:56:03 PM|| [http://basementburrow.blogspot.com] 2004-2-24 6:56:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 This guy gets why this is a problem, and a big one. I am sick of having the gay lifestyle shoved down my throat. I am tired of this small minority of our society using the media to leverage their numbers. As he states, there are lots of ways that gay couples can get the benefits of civil unions (taxes, wills, etc.). They are NOT being discriminated against in that way. I know that there is homophobia and interpersonal discrimination against gays and I'm not saying they are bad or wrong or anything like that. But Gays want the societal imprateur that says their relationships are no different than heterosexual ones. Sorry. That is just not true and never will be.

Posted by remote man 2004-2-24 7:00:28 PM|| 2004-2-24 7:00:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#3
I am sick of having the gay lifestyle shoved down my throat.

??

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-2-24 7:26:25 PM|| 2004-2-24 7:26:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I am a heterosexual, male, recovering ex-Democrat for whom there is, unconditionally, one and ONLY one issue in this coming election: the survival of my country.

Since barely a few months after the 9/11 attacks--that is, from the beginning of the campaigns for the 2002 mid-term elections--the Democrats have been doing their level best either to force the war against Islamic totalitarianism onto the back burner so they can focus the public's attention on their usual class-envy politics, or cynically and dishonestly make a fraudulent political issue of the war itself.

I despise them for this, and not only do I consider Democratic Party politicians to be little better than traitors, but believe them to constitute, through their blind averice for political power, a clear and present danger to the very survival of the United States. They are an outright menace to our very lives.

That said, I have to add this: the Right, particularly of the fundamentalist Christian variety, is becoming just as much of a menace to our survival, by taking its eye off the ball and focusing on the "threat" to traditional marriage allegedly posed by the prospect of--GASP!!--gays joining up with one another in committed relationships.

We are in a fight for our lives, and we need to unite in that fight. Worried about the sanctity of traditional marriage? Then focus on the REAL threat: totalitarian, radical Islam.

Posted by Dave D. 2004-2-24 8:01:47 PM|| 2004-2-24 8:01:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Dave, this would not be an issue if it weren't for the Mass. supreme court and the San Francisco mayor.

In any case, all that Bush has done is said, "let's have a discussion about this, rather than letting the courts decide for us". Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-2-24 8:33:18 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-2-24 8:33:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 The institution of the family has been breaking down for a long time. I believe it really started when we began to teach values in the classroom. No longer was the family responsible for teaching the child moral values, but rather the school. First it was sex education, then drug and alcohol usage, then multiculturalism. And as the school took more and more of this responsibility, the families just said "okay, that way I don't have to do it."

The school is now responsible for nearly every aspect of a child's life that use to belong to the family. And in many ways the school overrules the family. The child is taught at home homosexuality is wrong, the school says "Bad parent! I'll teach your child something else and don't you dare complain about it!"

I see this as the final stand for those of use who believe in the sacredness of marraige. Between the school system and the government dictating how I can raise my child the only thing I have left is the fact that if I am married, it is a scared institution.

Our society is slowly, but ever more rapidly, splitting into two parts. If we do not start to fight some of us who are more traditionalists when it comes to the family will become the minority and lose all rights to teach our families the values we hold dear.

Posted by AF Lady 2004-2-24 9:13:04 PM|| 2004-2-24 9:13:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 AF Lady - Freudian slip?
"the only thing I have left is the fact that if I am married, it is a scared institution."

just teasing...
I'm OK with civil unions, not "marriage", and I reaalllllyyy resent the Judicial branch activists usurping power that we never gave them. I support the DOMA as a executive and legislative bitch slap to the activist judges

Posted by Frank G 2004-2-24 9:26:12 PM|| 2004-2-24 9:26:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 30 years ago this would have been a state's rights issue. Unfortunately, the Constitution is drafted in such a way that guarantees that a right granted you in one state must be respected in another state. The Defense of Marriage Act will be struck down because it is actually unconstitutional. If we were to use the Constitution correctly, Americans should amend the Constitution to grant the right of marriage to gays through a Constitutional Amendment.

Does anybody honestly think that 6 people in Boston should be redefining marriage for the rest of us? You can certainly find six irresponsible people in Boston to decide to destroy any portion of our society.

Bush says he welcomes Vermont's idea of civil unions. There have always been states that recognized common law marriages and other states that didn't. In Nevada prostitution is legal, for goodness sakes.

What has changed is the courts. It began slowly in the 40's, with the creation of the separation of church and state, is now gaining speed exponentially. The courts are creating rights and legislating from the bench at an alarming rate. It is now perfectly believable to me that my state will be forced to grant same-sex marriages by the courts.

Many liberals are now calling this a state's rights issue. I am personally skeptical that they mean to assist the people of Indiana in rejecting gay marriage. Logically, they should though. A state's rights issue, than mean spirited states will be fully supported as they individually reject gay marriage....right.

I don't find it so far fetched that the ACLU will be parading crack-ho's throughout the Midwest into court to make prostitution legal through the US. States rights are actually being attacked in this new way which will require constitutional amendments, one after the other, to prevent nationalization of everything allowed in Vegas. Itâs sort of funny until the donkey show appears in a neighborhood near you.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-2-24 10:29:31 PM|| 2004-2-24 10:29:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Frank - no offense... not a freudian but its hard to watch 24 and write at the same time.
Many liberals are now calling this a state's rights issue.
Super Hose... funny that I had an arguement with my leftist boss today about this issue and what she threw in my face was "This is a state issue!" We use to be able to talk civially about issues but lately she practically screams in my face like how stupid are you. The liberals are angry and it is showing. In one way that scares me cause they might get really motivated in November. On the other hand they have been forcing down conservative throats now for so long they really can't stand it when we start standing up to them.

Posted by AF Lady 2004-2-24 10:40:21 PM|| 2004-2-24 10:40:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I'm with remote man and Dave D. I'm already tired of this. While I respect the civil rights aspect of their plight, we have bigger issues on our plate right now. The gays delivered an ultimatum and they lost.

The biggest irony here is that they forced Kerry's hand too, since the majority of Americans don't support this...doesn't matter if they are wrong, it's just the way it is.

And the even bigger irony is that if they don't back Bush, it gives the fundamental Islamists - who will grant no rights or respect to homosexuals - a real boost in their efforts to establish a caliphate.

Haste makes waste, as they say.

Posted by B 2004-2-24 10:47:34 PM|| 2004-2-24 10:47:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 This decline is not just about marriage. My wife recently had our baby and the nurse insisted that we get the Hipititus B vaccine. Now Hip. B is transmitted much like aids -- unsafe sex or sharing needles and a small chance of it passing from mother to child during birth (my wife tested negative for hib B of course). So the default assumption this person was making was that we shared needles and engage in unsafe sexual practices. We (and I think the vast majority of people) don't do either. I read an article where someone was told to either give the vaccine to their baby or find another doctor (she went elsewhere).

My wife just received a questionaire from the state health department concerning her pregnacy. Several times they ask 'were you beaten by your husband before your pregnacy? were you beaten during it? After? Were you verbally or mentally abused? Allowed to eat right?' Of course the answer to all these (except the eating right) is no but it disturbs me that they assume that families are 'disfunctional' by default.

Now we have Governors and Mayors (and their Judges) who think they can 'pick and choose' which laws to enforce. "Oh we want affirmitive action so we will enforce those (so we can have a dependant class of voters), but not immigration laws so we won't enforce those -- we will just allow all these illegal immigrants do what they want -- we will even provide them medical care for free!". We need a few of these people to be arrested and thrown in jail.

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-2-24 11:10:48 PM|| 2004-2-24 11:10:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Interesting thing about all of this -- the President has nothing to do with a constitutional amendment, other than voting in his/her registered precinct.

Constitutional amendments require 2/3 approval by both houses of Congress and 3/4 of states approval. There is no "presidental signature" on an amendment to the Constitution.

All Bush can do, is vote in Crawford, TX when this gets on the Texas voting ballot.

Posted by Just Me 2004-2-24 11:18:03 PM|| 2004-2-24 11:18:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 My wife recently had our baby and the nurse insisted that we get the Hipititus B vaccine

My son and his wife just had a baby and the same thing happened. They inquired further and were told that this was going to be a required vaccine for kids going to school.

Posted by AF Lady 2004-2-24 11:24:06 PM|| 2004-2-24 11:24:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 What alot of very well thought out opinion. What it shows is how important this is. I've gone on record as saying marriage is about "who's the father" and I stand by that. Love is cool, respect, stable relationship whatever. But a marriage is the tree. The tree has roots. Who's you daddy.

If anybody has a better reason for marrige please spit it out. Because love, respect, whatever doesn't require a marriage. But a man fathering a child, whether his sperm or not, from a woman he is married, makes a marriage. Even freaks have roots.

Posted by Lucky 2004-2-24 11:59:34 PM|| 2004-2-24 11:59:34 PM|| Front Page Top

18:06 Anonymous
08:57 Raptor
03:29 SON OF TOLUI
00:12 Lucky
23:59 Lucky
23:32 Lucky
23:24 AF Lady
23:21 CrazyFool
23:18 Just Me
23:10 CrazyFool
23:07 B
22:57 PBMcL
22:47 B
22:44 Super Hose
22:40 AF Lady
22:29 Super Hose
22:14 dataman1
22:07 dataman1
22:00 True German Ally
21:57 Super Hose
21:55 Super Hose
21:44 Alaska Paul
21:43 Super Hose
21:39 Alaska Paul