Court Rules Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional, Irrational is an old piece of mine published at LA Progressive. Today, a comment came from a religiously motivated ‘phobe who is under the mistaken notion that the US is a theocracy, and… well, let’s just say this misguided fellow child of the Creator picked the wrong day to mess with me.
First, check out the Jim Crow proponent’s comment (name withheld because I respect his humanity more than he respects mine).
JCP: I support marriage as a religious union and I also support civil unions. I am far from anti gay, I had a gay organist play the music at my wedding. I have had dinners at a gay club. I have a child who has a same sex partner and while they are of the same sex, they are not of the same ethnicity, which causes an additional problem in our current social order. Both of them feel as I do, that marriage is a “religious term”. This couple and their parents agree that strong civil unions, a secular joining outside the church is needed to provide equal rights. Civil unions should have the same legal privileges as marriages but not the same name. I also contacted a gay cousin for an opinion and got the same answers.
My family supports marriage as a religious term that declares that one man and one woman have joined as one before God and their church membership. If the term marriage is used outside of it’s original religious intent, then government is diluting a religious act.
All of my family members feel that some gays want the term “marriage” so much that they do not pursue the much more attainable solution of social unions performed under state law and outside of the church. Such a union could quickly be available in all states where as “gay marriage” is going to take a lot longer in places like the south.
I have another minority group in my family, Quakers. I have an observation about the minority members of my family, one group invites an invasion and the other group would require some converts in order to repopulate itself. How do gays become parents? If one or both would agree to carry a fetus to term I would have more warm feelings towards gays. What would happen to a country composed of only gays or Quakers? One group can not replace the population of the country and the other group can not defend it, yet my family has done both. My family members agree that a country could not survive if it were composed of only either of these two minorities.
Viel Gluck to all
My turn.
NR Davis: Sounds like “Some of my best friends are gay, so I can’t be a homophobe.” [And apparently self-hating gays, to boot.]
Screw that.
Let’s just agree that you are un-American and opposed to legal equality for all citizens and save the rest.
Brown v. Board of Education. Separate but equal is NOT equal. Separate but equal is UNconstitutional. And immoral.
Period.
Your religious views are yours. Period. They don’t belong in civil law. Period.
And if you expect people to accept inequality peacefully or quietly and to continue to endure the secular government punishing us because of your religious views, think again, pal.
Why should I pay taxes if I am unequal under law???
Why should I accept it — for *your* sake?
Think again.
Until the philosophy that holds one group superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, it’s war. Period. [Thanks, Bob Marley. I'm standing up for my rights.]
You’re in my prayers. No one wants to withhold equality from you, but not only do YOU wish to do that to ME, you [expect] me to accept it. Which means that in addition to being un-American, your position is INSANE.
If what you say is so — it patently is not — then hets who marry in courthouses should be limited to civil union. And church weddings should hold NO legal status. [And no tax exemption.]
If you get civil marriage, so should I. That’s the American way. Otherwise, America is a vile, mendacious construct.
And let’s be honest: You don’t want equality; you want SUPREMACY. And that is just evil on every level. Shame on you.
Do I sound rude? I am not taking anything from you, buster. And I refuse to kowtow to your ilk anymore. I’ve had it.
I know my right-wing friends and loved ones don’t like the word “ilk,” but the shoe fits. I don’t like second-class status and am forced to suffer that indignity day in, day out, year after year. Who has it worse?
Watch — I’ll be called the bad one. Be nice to your oppressor — including the new president — no matter what, right?
Screw that. I’m not trying to take his rights away. If anyone owes an apology JCP does — to me and to the millions human beings he feels should be less than him under civil law because his god says so.
Cheers to New Hampshire! Six states down, 44 to go. And we’re comin’ for ya, bigoted 44. It’s war. Nonviolent war, but war. A loving war, but war. The second-class citizens — those who don’t hate themselves — have had it up to here. We’re done.
Advice to those, who like me, live under the majority’s boot: Be good and kind and fair to everyone, but do not accept inferior status. Do not capitulate to their terms. Those who align with the Religious Wrong and its theocratic tyranny over the secular arena don’t deserve superiority and supremacy. Period. They deserve equality and fairness — and so do we, whether their god likes it or not.
No justice, no peace. And, if you can take the risk, no taxation without equality.
I loved his music. His young voice was almost a miracle, his poise in retrospect eery, his joy, tempered by pain, often unbearably uplifting. He made the greatest music video of all time; and he made some of the greatest records of all time. He was everything our culture worships; and yet he was obviously desperately unhappy, tortured, afraid and alone. I grieve for him; but I also grieve for the culture that created and destroyed him. That culture is ours’ and it is a lethal and brutal one: with fame and celebrity as its core values, with money as its sole motive, it chewed this child up and spat him out.
For Right-Wing Group, Someone New Wears the Pants
On its face, this is not major news. It is instructive, however, when considering the source of the hateful and divisive “information” that comes from Focus on the Family and its various media outlets. In sharing this at the very least interesting and unique (in 2009 America) story, the intent is not to criticize, but to get people thinking: Female employees were forced to wear dresses, skirts, and panty hose at Focus as recently Tuesday. Two days ago. Boggles the mind — and it may explain quite a lot about the mindset of at least some of our opponents.
→ 2 Comments
Posted in Activism, Equality, Media
Tagged anti-gay, Commentary, conservative, Culture, fashion, focus on the family, fotf, Opposition Research, Religion, republicans, Right Wing, society, women, women's rights