Do You Have Equal Civil Rights?


Even traditional man/woman heterosexual marriage can be presented in an unfavorable light.

Still, it’s perfectly legal for this couple to get a civil marriage license and receive from our government the full civil rights and responsibilities that marriage is entitled to by law.

. . . adultery is a choice

. . . homosexuality is not a choice

. . . divorce is a choice

. . . homosexuality is not a choice

. . . marriage is a choice

. . . homosexuality is not a choice

200 years ago perhaps it could be understood that society would view homosexuality as immoral.

100 years ago perhaps it could be understood that society would view homosexuality as immoral.

Even 50 years ago perhaps it could be understood that society would view homosexuality as immoral.

But today, in 2006, with the current psychological, medical, sociological, anthropological understanding about homosexuality – what basis, other than Biblical, would cause an intelligent, fair-minded, enlightened person to view homosexuality as immoral? And evolving theological thinking is certainly moving in the direction of, at least considering the context in which the relatively few Biblical references considered relevant to this discussion, are to be applied to loving, caring, monogamous, and committed homosexual couples. And we do still value separation of church and state in America.

It’s beyond sleazy to have George Allen and his Republican friends in the Virginia legislature use this socially volatile issue, of an amendment to Virginia’s Bill of Rights, to define homosexuals as second-class citizens, in order to bolster Allen’s Senate race and help propel him towards his desired 2008 presidential candidacy. The marriage amendment is a means to an end – and this message must get to the public before November.

Comments

rwilymz said…
today, in 2006, with the current psychological, medical, sociological, anthropological understanding about homosexuality – what basis, other than Biblical, would cause an intelligent, fair-minded, enlightened person to view homosexuality as immoral?

You are assuming any number of foolish things in this panty-wetting whine, Bill.

You are assuming that the majority of people in any given population are "intelligent"; also "fair-minded"; also "enlightened".

Further you are assuming the meanings of these terms -- conveniently arranged to be in line with your conclusions on the subject, too. Funny how that works, isn't it?

You are assuming that the only purpose for wishing to have no gay marriage is "biblical", which presupposes a christian theology. Yet many Jewish theological schools oppose gay marriage, and most, if not all, Muslim ditto does the same. Your bigotries are showing. Have decency; cover up.

Here's the way people work, Bill, since you are desperately clueless on the matter: people are going to support things that, almost entirely, appeal to them for selfish reasons. Your support for gay marriage is almost certainly your selfishness. As is my support for gay marriage. It is simply self-delusion to think otherwise, and it advertises that you don't pay attention to the real world.

The people who oppose gay marriage oppose it for selfish reasons as well. And for many, the selfishness is nothing more than "ewww, that's just icky". In other words, they don't like the thought of it.

Like eating horse meat, or paté. Which have inspired laws against horse slaughter and goose-fattening. Are you going to get all sanctimonious about those bigots as well?
Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:58:00 AM
Charlie Bishop said…
I've been cruising the gay blogs lately. No, not THAT type of cruising. I recently posted my thoughts on the Marshall/Newman amendment, and decided to look into the thoughts coming from your community.

You guys would probably make more headway if you lightened up on the "morality" and "Christianity" arguments.

If passed, it will be a law. Fight it on a legal and logic basis.

You won't change anyones religious beliefs, but you may be able to show them the logic and legal ramifications of such an amendment.
Sunday, June 25, 2006 10:36:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Consequences Of Voting Yes On The Virginia Marriage Amendment

The following is offered as there are opposing lists being circulated by the religious right. So, here are my Top 10 Consequences of Voting Yes on the Virginia Marriage Amendment. 1. Voting Yes is unnecessary, as marriage is already defined in Virginia by statute. 2. Voting Yes ignores the facts – ignores the accepted medicine and science on this subject. 3. Voting Yes to constitutionalize such a socially charged issue, in flux, is clearly in opposition to Jeffersonian Democracy. 4. Voting Yes is an unabashed ploy by cynical Republicans to get out their base. 5. Voting Yes is in opposition to the maintaining of a bright line between church and state. 6. Voting Yes could bring about a myriad of unintended consequences to unmarried heterosexual couples. 7. Voting Yes will continue to paint Virginia as a cultural backwater and an unfriendly place for the location of new high tech businesses. 8. Voting Yes will hardly benefit the thousands of children in gay families nor give hope to many
Read more

I Am Ashamed That Eric Cantor Is My Congressman

I understand that most don’t have the leisure I have, as a retiree, to follow issues, to stay tuned to political debates, to spend time and become involved in local politics. However, it is appalling that those fellow citizens of my 7th District in Virginia have such a knee jerk reaction to this current financial crisis such as to swallow the political rhetoric of Congressman Cantor and to not see this partisan politician for who he is. To see Congressman Cantor spotlighted on national news holding up House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s floor remarks and using this as the reason that Republicans failed to pass their administration’s backed financial crisis bill was nauseating. Cantor was playing politics. Cantor was petty. Cantor was being used by his party handlers to try and shift this failure to reach accord onto the Democrats for political gain. Cantor was seen as a safe spokesman who is from the brightest red district of a red state with little formidable opposition to push this mal
Read more

Yes Virginia, There Are Homosexuals – In Spite Of Mean-Spirited Marriage Amendments

You don't need to be a lawyer to write a marriage amendment apparently, but you could use some common sense. A high school student could have written a better amendment than the proposed Virginia marriage amendment. And if it weren't so poorly written, this topic wouldn't be the subject of debate and discussion all across the Commonwealth. Just using words like "approximate" and "qualities . . . of marriage" for example --- these words mean something different to every one who reads them. At least, you will have to admit that for a constitutional amendment to our Bill of Rights, this language is far from ideal. And more importantly is not easily and consistently communicated to the general populace. But why tiptoe around this. Delegate Robert Marshall has admitted in interviews and debates that he seized onto this quest after Lawrence v. Texas and his homophobia and obsession with sodomy (overlooking that oral sex within heterosexual couples is sodom
Read more