[The Gays March On] Looks like the second state to jump on the pro-gay-marriage bandwagon will be California, now that its supreme court has ruled its anti-marriage amendment unconstitutional.Which means it also looks like all those nontaxable dollars the LDS Church pumped into the Proposition 22 campaign were wasted. Your tithing dollars at work: It must have been such a faith-building experience to have scrimped, saved, sacrificed and denied your family 10 percent of your income so that gays in California could be oppressed for, oh, about 8 years.
Way to go, faithful tithing payers! Maybe you'll be able to do it all over again this year now that the wingnuts are gearing up for yet another futile battle. Careful, though--most of them are evangelicals and you know they don't like the Mormons one bit better than they like the gays.
Another thing for the membership to think about as their money gets spent by wiser and more powerful people than them: Civil marriage for gays has absolutely no effect on LDS temple marriages, which will continue to be restricted to opposite-sex couples for as long as the church cares to do so. And that's just fine with us. (Brandon Burt)
Yahoo
ReplyDeleteThis ruling won't affect public policy in Utah.
More interesting and relevant to Utah is the Michigan Supreme Court ruling a few weeks ago that said attempts by local governments to provide benefits for domestic partners (like Democrats on Salt Lake City and County Councils are always trying to do) are an unconstitutional attempt to circumvent state constitutional amendments banning homosexual marriage (like Utah voters passed a few years ago).
$
ReplyDeleteNo Problem
Plenty more where that came from, it's no sacrifice at all, we won once and expect to do so again.
Not interested in marriage for time and eternity?
How bout a 10 month long California hitch.
(Wouldn't waste my time changing the monogram on the towels, tho)
Just as I thought, "anonymous." Keep it up and we'll see how long that tax-free status you're so proud of lasts! :)
ReplyDelete--BB
I agree, anonymous. This court will get either be overturned, or the Constitution will be amended in November. Supporters already have the signatures to get the issue on the ballot.
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to know that mocking the fact that I give 10 percent of my income to my church is totally not below the dignity of City Weekly to mock. It's also nice to know that for all your arrogant preening and elitism, your paper is still supported by escort services and 1-900 numbers.
Carry on.
Your grandchildren will look back at these bigoted comments and be ASHAMED. As the equivalent of those who fought to keep segregation alive, enjoy the view from that high horse while it lasts. And, hey, if you're lucky maybe a nice warm pile of manure will soften the fall.
ReplyDeleteSo wait-
ReplyDeleteI want to keep the definition of marriage as it has been for thousands of years (except polygamy was involved for most of those years, but I digress), and I don't begrudge homosexuals the right to a relationship, only a right to the word marriage... And you compare me to segregationists and tell me my grandkids will view me with shame? And I'm on my high horse?
Cmon, now. I'm not anti-gay. I'll drink from the same fountains, eat at the same restaraunts, go to the same theaters, poop in the same public restrooms (I will put down a sanitation cover on the toilet, but that's kind of just a general thing), heck, I'll even share popcorn with you at a movie. It's all good. I just disagree about what marriage is/should be.
I'm also acknowledging political reality: The decision of this court is likely to be overturned either by a higher court, or overturned by amendment to the Constitution. It will be a tough fight, no doubt. And one eventually that I am convinced gay rights advocates will win. I'm just not ready to roll over and play dead on an issue I find important for the future.
So wait-
ReplyDeleteI want to keep the definition of marriage as it has been for thousands of years (except polygamy was involved for most of those years, but I digress), and I don't begrudge homosexuals the right to a relationship, only a right to the word marriage... And you compare me to segregationists and tell me my grandkids will view me with shame? And I'm on my high horse?
Cmon, now. I'm not anti-gay. I'll drink from the same fountains, eat at the same restaraunts, go to the same theaters, poop in the same public restrooms (I will put down a sanitation cover on the toilet, but that's kind of just a general thing), heck, I'll even share popcorn with you at a movie. It's all good. I just disagree about what marriage is/should be.
I'm also acknowledging political reality: The decision of this court is likely to be overturned either by a higher court, or overturned by amendment to the Constitution. It will be a tough fight, no doubt. And one eventually that I am convinced gay rights advocates will win. I'm just not ready to roll over and play dead on an issue I find important for the future.
So ... we're supposed to believe you're a reasonable person because you're willing to eat our popcorn?
ReplyDeleteTry again, jeffjames. Even if you don't run screaming in the opposite direction whenever you see a gay person coming, if you favor treating me and my family as second-class citizens, you are Not A Nice Person.
(Brandon Burt)
BB-
ReplyDeleteFor a writer, certainly you aren't misunderstanding what i meant in my post. The post i responded to implied I was akin to a segregationist in the 50s and 60s. My reply was in response to that characterization.
I don't view you as a second class citizen, BB. Far from it. I welcome your challenge to the definition of marriage - it's within your rights as an American citizen. I simply disagree with you about what constitutes marriage. I don't begrudge you a civil union of some sort to allow hospital visitation, insurance benefits, etc.., I just believe marriage has been, and ever should be, between the two sexes.
Does that make me "not a Nice Person"? Perhaps in your mind, BB. I'm not playing the "all those who disagree with me are ignorant/assholes/elitists/mean" card, though. You've already played it, and it undermines your arguments.
Mark my words: Years from now, children will learn in their classrooms that there were once people who fought tooth and nail to prevent same-sex couples from being allowed to wed. And, yes, I do believe they will be ashamed.
ReplyDeletePS - Sorry for the delayed response, I was rummaging around for that gold star you deserve for eating at the same restraunt/drinking from the same fountain/going to the same movie theatre as a gay person.
sorry, sweetie;
ReplyDeleteI'll raise my kids and grandkids right.
They'll look back and be proud and grateful for what we did to protect society.
(Will that homosexual marriage you're hankering for be producing any grandkids?)
Thanks. I'll take my gold star. The point was related to segregation, Lisa, and I was countering the argument as though I were being accused of favoring segregation of homosexuals. My point is, physical contact and even just shooting the breeze with a homosexual doesn't make me cringe. I'm no bigot.
ReplyDeleteBut this conversation, and the one developing on the new thread, simply serve to alienate folks like me. I know you don't give a crap about your readers, seeing as you have no subscription fees, but this kind of abuse is flat out uncalled for.