The ‘equality’ conundrum of gay ‘marriage’: Where judgment begins

Debbie Thurman's picture

You know about the brouhaha, right? Seven million Californians voted to uphold the ages-old view that marriage is between one man and one woman and enshrined it into their state’s constitution. With one judicial stroke, a federal judge nullified their will. It’s becoming a common theme.

It’s all about “marriage equality,” we are told by the progressives. Is it? Is there even such a thing as marriage equality? Same-sex marriages will threaten traditional marriages, shout conservatives. Should we be more alarmed by what no more than 5 percent of the population is doing than we are by the 50 percent whose families are already ravaged by no-fault divorce?

For millennia marriage has been the basic building block of civilization. It is the microcosm of society, in fact. Families are little societies that exist for the mutual benefit of all members. Many families intersect to build enclaves and towns and spread out from there. It is, therefore, not far-fetched to say that as the family goes, so goes all of civilization.

Although the Judeo-Christian ethic teaches us that “the same Lord is Lord of all” (Romans. 10:12), and America’s Declaration of Independence declares that “all men are created equal,” there is something deeper to ponder.

Consider Isaiah 29:16: “You turn things around! Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay, that what is made would say to its maker, ‘He did not make me?’ or what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘He has no understanding?’”

Those who disregard the significance in why God “made them male and female” and warned us not to “put asunder” what he had joined together are, indeed, telling the potter what to make of them. That casts culpability on both sides in this debate.

Of course, it is foolish to claim that because we’ve already made a shambles of God’s perfect design for marriage, we may as well open it to whatever definition imperfect man can come up with. After all, can dirt be made dirtier?

Historical/religious defenses of marriage are being quickly ushered out the back door of every house on Main Street America. Those who look to history or Scripture are considered antiquated backwaters, out of step with the times. Pity.

There once was a time when common sense was more attuned to the divine, when C.S. Lewis’ analogy of “one-flesh” marriage as a lock-and-key mechanism was perfectly understood. Now we have “studies” (God help us) purportedly affirming that moms and dads are interchangeable, that the great mystery of marriage is not. Is this what academic freedom has wrought?

As Lewis’ old Screwtape said to his demon-in-training nephew, “Great scholars are now as little nourished by the past as the most ignorant mechanic who holds that ‘history is bunk.’”

Where is the Church in this conundrum? More properly, where ought it be? Many culture warriors want to use God’s truth as a great battering ram to knock down the idols they see accumulating over the landscape. Better that than to allow the long-standing pillars of civilization to be knocked down, they reason. But isn’t it true that judgment will “begin with the household of God” (1 Peter 4:17)?

If those of us who go by our Maker’s name would properly tend to our own houses, how could the result be anything but good? You see, this, too, is a purpose of family — to set examples for others to see and emulate. It’s a ripple that goes out far and wide, for ill or for good.

Naturally, given that all things are not equal, many families will still lie in ruins, stinking up the land. Human nature is strong and difficult to buck. Difficult but not impossible.

Time will give us the consequences of the ill-conceived experiment of same-sex marriage, just as it has with all the other fool’s gold on Earth. Meantime, those of us who know better have some chores to attend to at home.

[Award-winning columnist Debbie Thurman writes from Monroe, Va., for the Amy Internet Syndicate. Her email address is]

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Joined: 06/26/2010
Jesus and the Military

Perhaps some of you more erudite Christians can enlighten this obviously less learned Christian as to why many churches and congregations are overtly pro-military. I don't recall anything in any of Jesus's messages about going to war. Rather, if one really took Jesus's message to heart, it would seem that pastors, preachers, and followers of Christ would be against military action in any form. Anyone have a good answer?

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Joined: 11/29/2006

Perhaps it has something to do with the children of those 'flocks' in uniform.

Courthouserules's picture
Joined: 07/02/2010

Yes, you are correct in some cases. They are very proud to send them sometimes (raise them that way) to fight and kill.
We can not selectively use phrases from the Jewish Old Testament to complement the New Testament! They fought and slaughtered their whole lives!

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Joined: 06/26/2010
Yes, I Can Understand That (Mike King)

Sure, I can understand parents wanting protect their children, but that does not allay the issue of wholesale church support for the military. Can someone point out in the new testament where Christians are called on or even allowed to engage in warfare, or to support it indirectly? I am not a pacifist myself, but it still seems strange for churches/Christians to be pro-military. I think it has more to do with culture, especially here in the south, co-opting the church.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Joined: 11/29/2006
Culture, Yes

But please explain those of that 'Christian' Church who have decided to protest at funeral proceedings for fallen soldiers.

Indeed it is strange in light of the way His Son lived, but I ask that you consider the Scripture from The Old Testament from which the New Testament began.

I would add that it is not limited to the southern US, but that culture resides throughout rural America. Just an opinion.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Joined: 06/26/2010
More on Jesus and the Military

I doubt that an extremely small minority of the population, 'Christian' or otherwise, would condone such protests. I certainly do not.

Yes, I understand the Old Testament roots of the New Testament, but the New Testament is exactly that, new. Just as Christians are not mandated to abide by Old Testament dietary laws and burnt offering rituals, neither are they wedded to the prescriptions for warfare laid out in the OT. In fact, the doctrines espoused by Jesus would appear to turn a lot of OT theology on its head. I think many, if not most, Christians turn to the OT to justify their own personal views toward war and the military.

As I said, I personally am not a pacifist, but I do think the teachings of Jesus indicate that is the correct path for Christians. Rather than coutenance my views using the OT, I blame my own shortcomings as a human being for not being able to always 'forgive those who trespass against us.'

bladderq's picture
Joined: 12/02/2005
Dear Debbie: Quit Burning Books

Maybe not you but people of your ilk. Just Don't burn books. The NSDAP did & it didn't work out too well for them or the rest of the world.

Just go to church & pray. Pray really hard. Stay inside & pray.
Look Sonny prayed. It rained & the drought was over. Just pray for gays, the war, the infidels, the non-believers, the wicked... See the list is almost endless & should keep ya'll inside church for along time.
Now someone on here before has said I have malice towards my "Christain" neighbors..phooey
OH, And let's show the religious tolerance WE are famous for & build that Muslin church thangy closer to the strip club than it is to Ground Zero. It will be OK & it will make God, Eloah, Elohim, El Shaddi, Adonai, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah & Abraham. Not to mention Buddah HAPPY

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Joined: 10/30/2005
We're all so blessed

when one person has all of the answers. . . straight from God!!

Spyglass's picture
Joined: 01/28/2008
I don't get the big deal people have with "Gays" in general..

What is it that bothers folks so much? Is it that they keep up their property? Dress neat? Have generally higher incomes and education than most Heteros?

Like others have said, I say live and let live on this issue. They are doing nothing to hurt my way of life.

Main Stream
Main Stream's picture
Joined: 04/27/2006
readers of the Citizen are now being "discipled" to... the Amy Foundation. Jeez, thanks Cal!

"Debbie Thurman writes from Monroe, Va., for the Amy Internet Syndicate." aka The Amy Foundation:

"The Amy Foundation whose symbol is the cross over the hexagram, states: "The Amy Foundation, founded in 1976 by W. James Russell and his wife Phyllis...The Amy Foundation offers a self-contained brochure titled "The United States - A Discipled Nation in this Generation" which outlines a biblical plan for discipling our nation by the year 2025. The Discipled Nation Plan is the latest ministry of The Amy Foundation... Other programs of the Foundation include the Church Writing Group effort, which is a call to the latent writers in the church to influence their community through letters to the editor, point of view columns, and book reviews in their local newspapers..."

tygersilver's picture
Joined: 08/02/2010
Same old quote the bible when it suits me, ignore the rest!

This was written to Dr. Laura but Debbie needs it too!
Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also
tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go
to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family
affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a

Mikeyc's picture
Joined: 03/14/2009
Same old qoute

James, That's pretty funny, although I thought it was funnier the first time I saw it when it was used on an episode of "The West Wing". Were you paid a royalty?

Mikeyc's picture
Joined: 03/14/2009

I apologize for the mis-direct. Yes, you do clearly state that it is a reprint of a letter sent.

tygersilver's picture
Joined: 08/02/2010
same old quote

For the record...I am not James, he wrote this letter to Dr. Laura, I thought that was understood. It may have been used on the West Wing.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Joined: 10/30/2005
The Bible

Jesus and other 'scholars' throughout time have tried to make it easy for us mere mortals. Do unto others, as you would have them to unto you. Hmmmmm - hope those who are in conflict try to use this concept in negotiations for peace among ALL MANKIND. Thanks for sharing Dr. Kauffman.

scribbler's picture
Joined: 11/01/2007
Rightly dividing the word of truth...

It's quite clear that your Ed. D hero [quoted above] does not understand the interpretation and application of Biblical principles.

Rest assured, the Biblical revelation is clear-- Old & New Testaments-- the permissions and prohibitions under the Law, forgiveness, restoration and healings available in the covenant of Grace.

The questions really are the same --For the proponents of same-sex behavior and subculture-- as for everyone else, and they portend really simple propositions:

1. What is the nature of a human being?

2. How do we know what is right and wrong?

3. What happens to a person after death?


The Biblical record, prayerfully contemplated, correctly interpreted, and willingly embraced, answers these questions with astounding clarity in both Old & New Testaments. God is not confused about His own Creation.

The real contentious issues arise from our realization that God's clear answers for life do not revolve around "me", nor do His prescriptions always suit our self-centered preferences, or give us leave for unlimited pursuit of pleasures and lusts in any form. if we believe at all that God is God -- then we are not.

In stark contrast and preference at the center of this debate, we find the current popular "secular, progressive, anything-goes" worldview; which oh-so-conveniently shoves the very idea of the existence of God (and by extension-- relevance of the Biblical life-principles), completely out of the intellectual pathway.

Without a realistic [Biblical] view of this Eternal and Holy God, any thought of our conduct of this life while considering the outcome of a final accounting, is easily cast aside.

Thus, permitting each individual to essentially "be their own God" -- defining right & wrong, crafting their own view of morality, ethics, and boundaries of behavior I(Nincluding sexuality & marriage) that suits them just fine.

If the Bibical revelation is NOT what is claims to be --- its no contest. You are right, we who believe in God's promise of eternal life, are to be pitied most among all men (2 Corinthians 15:19, in context).

However, if the Bible is God's Word revealed, sent to us for His purpose-- there's a lot to consider-- for this life, and for the age to come.

When we quote the Bible, we shouldn't "ignore the rest", but simply ask -- which of these contrasting views, principles and outcomes will eventually prevail?

It's a mutually exclusive proposition, and we get to choose what to believe, as well accepting the responsibility that ultimately --we are the arbiters of our temporal choices concerning how to live this one life.

Your quoted Professor friend and I...
...simply have a clear but honest disagreement.

Thanks for reading this response.

Enjoy your day.

tygersilver's picture
Joined: 08/02/2010

You write beautifully, shame it does not mean anything! Keep your sermons to yourself...the point is the absurdity of you or ANYONE else portending to know the "will of god" and forcing the rest of us to agree with you by passing laws based on those conflicting, convoluted, contridictory, and corny opinions!


scribbler's picture
Joined: 11/01/2007

Thanks for those first kind words...

NOW--Let's have a look-see at the rest!


tygersilver wrote:

You write beautifully, shame it does not mean anything!

I love objective, open-minded people.... don't you?

Instead of engaging the merits of the discussion, pro & con, we have here the classic blanket dismissal of any points-of-view that do not conform or agree with your position.

The more name-calling and pejoratives thrown in to an emotions-only response -- the better.

Again.... well done... an excellent railing rant!


tygersilver wrote:

Keep your sermons to yourself

Another astute argument -- My freedom of speech and treatise of opinion are NOT ALLOWED in this marketplace of ideas, while your pride-centered value system gives you permission to censor what is believed, thought, spoken and printed-- and what should all-wise be "kept to oneself".

I am starting to get it-- I think


tygersilver wrote:

the point is the absurdity of you or ANYONE else portending to know the "will of god"

Well let's have a look at "ABSURD".

If an all-powerful God knows who He is, and loves His created sons and daughters enough too reveal Himself to us...
God is certainly capable of sending us His message...
So that we can indeed discern His existence, understanding His character, attributes, heart and mind.

Please keep in mind -- that proposition doesn't force anyone to accept His Law, or His Grace... or even acknowledge His existence.

But the message is certainly given clearly enough that no one... not one... will be able to stand before the Throne with a shrug and say "I didn't understand..?!??!?"

"ABSURD" -- is the person with their fingers in their ears running in circles and singing loudly...
La-la... la-la-la... la-la te-dah... la-de-dah....

LEST---They hear a thought or word that challenges their point of view, and their (incomplete) worldview... and forces them to actually open their set of possibilities, and objectively consider the outcomes.

If you had to actually process this paradigm-- well... that is a lot of work.


tygersilver wrote:

and forcing the rest of us to agree with you by passing laws

Yes -- the basic structure of American law is based in Judeo-Christian ethics (--and has been from the birth of this free nation). The understanding of the sanctity of human life and the natural order of relationships was written into the code-- both criminal and civil.

The affirmation of what had been understood for centuries, that the marriage contract was intended as a foundation principle, to be made between one man and one woman.

In the midst of the recent (40-50 years) moral challenge and political debate, this premise was put to a vote in California, as a proposed AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION -- and it was passed and approved under the civil law of a traditionally liberal state.

Thence appearing -- a single liberal activist federal jurist.. (OH-- BTW -- he's a "known practitioner" of the lifestyle in question; but I am sure that didn't influence his judicial disposition or legal findings-- no worries... right?)

This "courageous legal decision" has already been over-ridden on the stay of his findings until the appeal is complete-- I am sure the SCOTUS will fast-track this case from the 9th Circuit.

Soooo... the question is begged from your own assertion--

--And affirm their extraordinary behavior and subcultural "anything-goes" mores--thereby imposing the will of the minority on the objecting majority?

Dont be confused.

Traditional Americans are found NOW DEFENDING what has been the underpinning of family life and our social fabric from the beginning.

Honestly -- you shouldn't be lecturing anyone about forcing the "passing of laws", when your friends and proponents of same-sex marriage are the ones on the mission of moral and cultural insurgency via judicial fiat (as opposed to obtaining a majority of legislative consensus).


tygersilver wrote:

...based on those conflicting, convoluted, contridictory(sic), and corny opinions!

Any one with a scintilla of genuine interest, and an open mind can read the Bible for themselves, do a little intellectually honest homework, and find that the precepts, principles, promises, and prophecies aren't quite as hard to understand as the God-hating media mouthpieces of the secular / humanist persuasion would have you believe.

It's only conflicting, convoluted, contradictory--- and especially corny-- to someone who hasn't even bothered to take a look for themselves.

John Wycliffe, and English historian and Bible translator was determined to make the Scriptures clear enough in the English language, for the average British plowboy to be able to understand God's Word.

I challenge you to obtain a readable modern version of the Holy Bible, and just read it through--(New American Standard, New International, or New Living Translation).

The 66 Books are not presented in strict chronological order-- so you can read it like Grisham or Clancy --straght through; Or move around a little--see what the authors had PERSONALLY WITNESSED...And personally discovered about this extraordinary entity -- the One who was revealed to them as the God of all creation.

tygersilver wrote:


The institutions of the church and the state have been separated as the founders intended since the Constitution was drawn and ratified.

The establishment clause has been turned into a cudgel against the Body of Christ, and all expressions of Christian faith in the public square, as well as the representations of the Judeo-Christian value system underlying the structure and basis of common and adopted law.

Another chance to do your homework on what the First Amendment really means-- if you are serious about your own proposition.

It was adopted to GUARANTEE what was already an underlying principle: the freedom of religion, assembly, and expression in the public square;

The First Amendment was never intended to be a legal device to provide or guarantee "freedom FROM (expressions of) religion". I wonder who started that trendy thing??
Go figure.


In addition to my invitation for you to read the scriptures for yourself,

I challenge you to have a polite, face-to-face, civil conversation with someone who has walked their own pathway of Christian faith for a good while. Followers of Christ will tell you how their lives were re-ordered, their hearts and minds transformed, and their pasts forgiven of grievous injury and offense, upon their personal discovery of the person of Jesus Christ..

Most of us would gladly pick up the check for lunch or coffee -- just to help you understand that the message of the Gospel is indeed quite personal - not so "religous" -- or blindly institutional -- As we are often made out to be.


I challenge you to talk to God in the quiet privacy of your home;

It's quite alright to just BE HONEST ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE.
It's really OK... Knock yourself out....
But really do this--for the sake of being honest with yourself

You can curse and holler, and shake your fist at the ceiling...
And scream-- "I DON'T BELIEVE IN YOU -- one hundred times or more!!

Whatever feels right from where your heart is at the moment...
In your present disposition and point-of-view-- as represented to me here.

The Lord won't fall from His Throne, nor will He "smite thee".

But don't be surprised if your brutally honest moment, is followed by one of His own very honest moments--- in due time.

The flow of His compassion, wisdom and love, released to comfort you in a flow of unconditional and incredibly holy love.

Try it.... You might like it.


I've enjoyed the dialogue.

Please enjoy your long weekend and holiday!

I am praying for you -- that God will indeed bless you--
-When you least expect it!

tygersilver's picture
Joined: 08/02/2010
Clean the keyboard up after

Clean the keyboard up after that extended religabation? We got it; you are the most holy, the sacred voice of GOD! We must all bow down to your most pious and blessed sacraments...not.

The simple fact is the bible really does not have much to say about homosexuality, Jesus NEVER mentioned it, and the rest is mostly in the old testament, seems to me the heterosexuals have been the ones taking vows to God like "for better or worse", "richer or poorer", "till death do us part", and then cheating, divorcing, remarrying and doing it all over again.

Another fact is that this country was founded to escape the church of England, a corrupt, politically manipulating, money grubbing organization and the Monarchy. Freedom FROM is as important as freedom OF...I could waste time looking up quotes from the founding fathers like "there is more use for lighthouses than churches" but you are smarter than that, you know better.

Find another way to justify your hate and leave God out of it, I spoke to him personally and he thinks you are full of it!

Observerofu's picture
Joined: 07/14/2010
scibbler good post

shame it was wasted on many.

God scares them as does our Traditional American values. They want change unless it affects them. Same Sex Marriage, Amnesty for Illegals what is the difference? Both go against the majority sentiment however a vocal minority backed by the spineless fence riders that will gladly bend over to look like they are enlightened slowly bleeds America of it's traditions.

An old saying by Pastor Martin Niemöller titled "First they came for the Jews" applies well today. Just when do we stand for our Family values? When they are being taken away or before?

tygersilver's picture
Joined: 08/02/2010
God does not scare me, you

God does not scare me, you do! You don't know the difference in Same sex marrige and Amnesty for illegals?

You miss the point of "first they came for the Jews"'s about NOT letting hate and fear escalate and protecting each other even if we don't agree!

Your last question is "When they are being taken away or before?"

I hope you were not educated here in Fayette cause you make us all look stupid.

Observerofu's picture
Joined: 07/14/2010
Grab your tail tyger

and give yourself a quick yank. It might wake you up.

The deeper meaning was to "traditional" acts in America. Not comparing the two per se. Jeez what is with the folks here who can't see past the initial writings?

The attack by the vocal MINORITY on traditional American values and the wish to impose your own values on the Majority is what is expressed here.

Rather you are a believer or not is not really the point and what is "feared" by others is just where does the attacks stop?

As the very vocal minority uses the courts to usurp the will of the majority the underlying premise is our "Rights" or "traditions" do not matter. This is where the push back occurs. Many if not most of America has seen especially over the last decade our "traditional" system under attack by special interest groups that "CREATE" a supposed right by legal fiat.

Between activist Judges with agendas or these same Special Interest groups want to turn America into THEIR view of what it should be. What is the difference between that and what you claim in happening now.

You claim the Religious Right is oppressing your Rights, but then you wish to do the same and use any methods you deem necessary to get what you wish.

I see no difference.

NUK_1's picture
Joined: 12/17/2007
Not so sure it's a "vocal minority" any more

I think there is probably a majority in a lot of places for something like gay marriage/civil union/whatever that puts gay people in the same class of people as recognized by the government, corporations, etc as traditional marriage does. I'm all for it myself. I don't understand it but I also don't see it as trying to "hijack" Biblical marriage either.

It's about time that fundies and their far-right oppression gets buried and if that means "gay marriage," it works for me. People are beyond sick of the "social conservative" crowd that is more concerned about someone buying some "sexual device" or who is sleeping with whom than with every major problem on the planet. Of course, they figure if you can buy a dildo somewhere, that's why there are problems in the world. Ugh.

The Tea Party definitely figured the above out quickly and that's why they are still around instead of expired after 15mins. The fundies are pathetically trying to leech on to the movement to keep from being irrelevant, but it's too late. OK, they have one in Christine O'Donnell wh0 has no qualifications except for being a moron, deadbeat, a crazy, and oh yeah, a SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE! Yee-haw!

tygersilver's picture
Joined: 08/02/2010
Don't try to tell me what to do with my "tail"!

and I'm not asleep.

Let me help clear up your confusion; "equal rights" are not "special". the "majority" is not always (and rarely) "right", "traditions" are maintained by families and groups and should not be made into law, "values" are personal convictions and can't be taken away from us just because the law changes.

As things stand YOU have the "special right", the right to deny EQUALITY to another tax paying citizen! I believe in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

With everything going on in the world and in this great nation...war, famine and starvation, the destruction of the working class in this country, corrupt government, crappy healthcare, the robbery of retirement and investments, collapse of the real estate market, unemployment, defunding public education, and what gets you off is your feeling of superiority to gay people? Really? Make you feel like a big macho man to bash fags and lesbos?

I have to point out the obvious here, "the one's who yell the loudest want it the most" ala Larry Craig...I've learned that it's usually the stone throwers who are twisted by their own desires and sexual frustration that end up looking for sex in public parks and restrooms or hiring an assistant off while denouncing those nasty gays and screaming about "tradition" and "values".

If you don't like gay marriage don't have one, otherwise it's really just none of your business! Nobody is taking anything away from you, or infringing on you rights! Are you really such a sniveling coward that allowing gay people to marry is going to destroy your family? Really? You must not have much conviction or devotion to "family" if it can be destroyed so easily. I don't need the government or a church or you, or anyone to validate my relationship but it is EQUAL to yours and as such must be legally.

Observerofu's picture
Joined: 07/14/2010
Well Tyger and Nuk if you want Gay Marriage so badly

then join me in the Libertarian party.

Let's get Government completely out of the Marriage business. Instead each State should decide if it will accept Gay Marriage.

btw- what is it about Government recognizing the act that makes it so attractive. It's not about Rights anymore. Every Insurance company already accepts "significant others".
Common Law Marriage rules apply to any party that lives as a married couple and a simple power of Attorney and a Will solves any legal requirements. So it obviously is not about "Equality" per se so it is about legitimacy. You want Government to recognize your status to give yourself the appearance of being legit papered so to speak.

So what you are really asking for is to make the Government force the rest of us to accept your lifestyle rather we want to or not.

tygersilver's picture
Joined: 08/02/2010
You are either completely uninformed or a bold faced liar!

Legal marriage carries with it over 100 rights and privileges; medical decision making, rights of survivorship in real estate, credit and banking, just to name a few.

Many insurance companies and most employers do not offer DP, a power of attorney does not guarantee ANYTHING and can be challenged, same for a will so YES, IT IS ABOUT EQUALITY!

If you don't understand an issue perhaps you should investigate before you spout incorrect information!

Marriage is not a state issue, stupid! I get transferred with my job and suddenly my marriage does not exist?

Being gay is not a "lifestyle" I live the same life you do.

Observerofu's picture
Joined: 07/14/2010
Wow a bit defensive are we

Tyger I could NOT care less what you do in the privacy of your bedroom.
So that being said leave it to the States to decide. If the people in a State has a say and they say YES then Good For You. If not.. well Sucks to be you.

That is Freedom. You have the Freedom to be you and I have a Freedom to not be. Your Freedom ends at my front door.

When you use the courts to pass laws edicts as it where forcing all to acknowledge a "lifestyle" rather they want to or not Freedom no longer exist.

btw-My argument still stands. How about outlining those "Rights" that "Married people" have that gay couples do not have or can not be created by legal means.

The only "Right" that Married Couples have that Gay couples do not is the RIGHT to be penalized by the Government for being Married in the form of the Marriage Tax. You want that I will be glad to transfer mine to you anyday.

tygersilver's picture
Joined: 08/02/2010
Yes, I am defensive against ignorance, knowledge is power

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman. See below for a partial list of these provisions of federal law.

Right to benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts

Observerofu's picture
Joined: 07/14/2010
OK Tyger

Much of which you have stated here relates to the Military and or Government service.
The Military specifically has no duty to recognize non-spousal arrangements unless so specified by Congress.

Dito for Government service outside of the Military.

Now you stated many "Marital rights". Which of these excluding Governmental services do same sex couples do not have or cannot by legal means achieve?

The answer is none. So I stand by my assertion. It is not about Rights. It is about forced recognition and Court mandated acceptance.

tygersilver's picture
Joined: 08/02/2010
Ever hear of Christian compassion?

What if you have to travel through a state that does not have equal marriage protection and your partner was fatally injured or ill and the hospital prevented you from seeing them? From comforting your loved one on their deathbed? You think that is a traditional value? You think that is "Christian"?

I hope that if you have children they are not exposed to your hatred and cruelty.

I can't waste any more time on you...


The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Joined: 04/09/2008
Alternate definition of ridiculous

as referenced above "I hope that if you have children they are not exposed to your hatred and cruelty"


NUK_1's picture
Joined: 12/17/2007
Already in the LP

Have been for about 25 years now.

As far as every insurance company accepting "significant others," that's BS. So is the idea that "common law marriage" already applies because it doesn't in several states. So, dispense with how "gay marriage" wouldn't change anything from the status quo already. It's beyond "legitimacy."

I'd be more than happy to let the states decide this(and abortion for that matter) themselves, but that isn't going to happen when a solid chunk of American voters hate the idea of states' rights on anything, especially Repubs who are even more against that concept than liberal Dems. I don't know if there are enough "independents" out there to ever go back to something resembling state's rights after Reagan stomped all over the concept frequently and then W jacked it up exponentially. I think that idea is dead.

I still hold out hope, but.......

Observerofu's picture
Joined: 07/14/2010
News you can use

"Thank the gay rights movement for successfully driving a workplace trend toward domestic-partner benefits that's improving the lives of many committed couples, regardless of sexual orientation or marital status.

At the end of 2002, about 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies along with 6,000 other, smaller businesses, organizations and educational and government entities were offering the same level of health coverage eligibility to live-in companions of employees as they were to workers' spouses, according to a study by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation."

A Large part of the US now accepts DP status. Most major Corporations do as well. While it may not be 100% "equal" it is far from the Gay Pride groups claim of "NO" coverage.

btw-I would have you pegged as a Liberal in the "D" column considering you seem to lean Lefty most of the time. That crack about O'Donnell is a prime example.

She at least is better than the self-avowed MARXIST she is running against.

It will take some time to top all the crackpots the Libs had placed: Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Cythia McKinney and Al "Freakin" Frankin for Gods sake.

NUK_1's picture
Joined: 12/17/2007
"Liberal?" attention. Legalizing drugs, gambling, hooking, etc. along with massive downsizing of government is NOT a "liberal" postion these days. It's certainly not a Repub position either. Unfortunately, it's not a TP position either, though they are getting closer to that than the Big 2 Clueless.

As far as O'Donnell.....give me a break. She's just plain awful. The Dems have already shown that when you allow ANYONE who calls themselves a "D," that voting majority pays off big. I don't quite get where the Repubs can't figure that out. Sure, there are a lot of big-spenders and left-leaning "moderates," but you can sometimes count on their vote when it REALLY matters. Dems just jammed thru their agenda....Repubs still wondering why.

MYTMITE's picture
Joined: 02/14/2008
I always have to laugh when I read that same sex marriages

are a threat to traditional marriage, especially when those yelling the loudest are found with their pants down around their ankles indulging in 'illicit acts'. Of course, then they claim the devil made them do it and cry and beg for forgiveness and they are good to go until the next time they are caught. I really would like for someone to explain to me how two men or two women marrying each other can be a threat to Marge and Homer who have been married for eons, or for that matter, two newlyweds. I have known gay couples who have been together for decades--and have remained true to each other--unlike certain politicians who scream from the roof-tops about the sancticy of marriage as they start their third or fourth marriage with the person they fornicated with while married to their previous spouse. Guess it must have been that gay couple down the road that caused those other marriages to go sour. I have no interest in what you do in your bedroom or anyplace else and with whom you do it as long as I do not have to be privy to it--but then I do not want to be privy to the affairs of our cheating, fornicating politicans either. I do feel if two people are together be they of the same or opposite sex, they should have the right to be at the bedside of their chosen one during illness and/or subsequent death. I feel they should be able to share their homes, their benefits, their assets and their love--without thee and me sticking our noses in their business.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mytimite/CHR only

Although I have been allowed to view The Citizen, I could not respond until now - 'service unavailable'. Have a glorius weekend! (This is response to your discussion of 'color discrimination within the Black community)

I think Courthouserules gave you some insight into this problem. Ignorance knows no color. There are/were families who felt it very important to be 'light' - because in the past the color of your skin was taken into account for hiring, etc. When integration occurred, many employers hired those who looked more 'white'. . even though they could list the person as 'black'. (And remember, many mulattos were related to prominent 'white' families and were extended privileges in the community that 'blacks of a darker hue' did not have) My hope is that the younger generation has moved from this idiocy. The general public has also accepted seeing Blacks of all colors in films, advertisement, positions of importance in their respective communities, etc. There is an interesting book 'One Drop' that also gives one insight into the 'color' issue in the Black community. (And a researched history of the Creoles in Louisiana) As I look at the younger generation of Blacks, I see less of this. In my own family, we range from 'white' to 'ebony' - and the color of skin had/has nothing to do with one's success in life. My mother is a beautiful mahogany color - I'm freckled, red hair, etc. Her brother, who was ‘dark’, graduated from law school and was a Superior Court Judge. My grandchildren have the same ‘color’ range. The person who shared this with you Mytimite 'trusted' you - for this is rarely spoken of among 'mixed' company. It is this type of communication that helps us to understand one another - and is healthy. I know that in the mid-sixties the conversation that you shared was an issue that certainly existed. . .and among some, may still exist today. It shows that discrimination exists within ethnic groups. In high school, the ‘blond’ students of Jewish heritage were invited to join certain social clubs; the ‘darker’ students of Jewish heritage joined another social club. It appears that there is a ‘gene’ within humans that triggers the need to feel ‘better than’ for one reason or another than our fellow human. (It seems that cheerleaders – regardless of color – seem to have the same physical characteristics) One who does not possess these characteristics MAY feel that they have no chance of becoming a cheerleader. MLK had it right – content of character rather than color of skin.

CherylS's picture
Joined: 05/14/2010
Same Sex Marriage

Some questions -
1. What harm will a same sex couple getting married do to my 40-year marriage? No one has been able to give me a reasonable explanation.
2. How can same sex marriage do any more harm to the sanctity of marriage than heterosexual marriage? 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Where's your outrage about the sanctity of marriage over that?
3. What business is it of yours who someone else loves and marries?
Deep down we are all the same - we all want love and connection and someone to spend the rest of our lives with.
It's time for these prejudices to die a final death.

Jenigma's picture
Joined: 09/02/2010
This is America, Remember?

First, you're speaking as if same-sex marriage has never been done before anywhere else, with your "what happens to society!!!" screed. Allow me to introduce you to foresight and personal responsibility. You imply that your issue isn't with same-sex couples at all, but with this vague concept of impending doom "down the line sometime." Great! Here's what you do: anytime you're afraid of something or something makes you angry, learn everything you can about it. If I were you, I would start with researching every place that has same-sex marriage, especially the firsts (try Massachusetts for the US effects, broaden to Europe to see longer-term effects of same-sex marriage.)

We are Americans. We are an intricate part of the political system. Instead of crouching in the corner quaking in fear, eyes wide, imagining a nightmare future, imploring government for "more bans, more laws, more rules to make our future safer!" take the bull by the horns, find out what some of the future effects of legal same-sex marriage are and start working now to prevent them! In America, we don't outlaw high schools because SOME teachers MIGHT harm children, we outlaw harming children and keep a sharp eye out for signs it's actually happening. Think about it. People protested miscegenation based on where they *feared* it would lead society. They were wrong. So, respectfully, are you.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Joined: 11/29/2006

You may be new to this blog, but you are indeed a breath of fresh air! Bravo!

Recent Comments