piss off the religious right?

count me in, dear.

(Reply) (Thread)

I know you probably both know about this already, but it made me happy and I thought that I should at least spread the news in case people didn't know.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-LGBT-Pride-Month/

(Reply) (Thread)

New Hampshire signed today.

i can't support this, simply because I don't really support the government getting involved in marriage. let them all be civil unions, hetro and homosexual alike. but if it has to be marriage, gosh, go ahead.

I'm not for gay rights, I'm for human rights. I don't see why having a sexual preference that's different from the norm makes someone less than human.

(Reply) (Thread)

I can go along with that... and I'd be happier if they would stay OUT of marriage. But unfortunately that's not the case, so instead I'm going for letting them legislate me the rights.

But I appreciate that you're still willing to let your thoughts be known!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I predict Alabama to be one of the last states to pass any kind of bill on gay marriage. You know why mess with history since we are historically last on every list, like education, health care, etc.

(Reply) (Thread)

the final states will 'prolly be Texas, Arkansas, Utah ... y know. the fun ones!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I am much more of a mind to support everyone having civil unions instead of legal marriage, which should be in a church and no part of the law, I am supporting this and will put it on my car's ass because that's ultimately what will end up happening.

I just hope that I'm invited to your wedding. :)

(Reply) (Thread)

Okay, I am curious.

Now mind you, please consider that I am not being sarcastic nor argumentative, I am just trying to understand, and that can be misinterpreted in print (particularly given my bent for sarcasm and argument).

But the phrase 'legal marriage' kind of implies the involvement of the law, right? And extrapolating on that point, if legal marriages should only happen in a church, what about a synagogue or some other structure other than a church, seeing as how there are plenty of religions that don't necessarily do their weddings in a church, but said marriages are viewed as legally binding?

And going further, if legal marriages (according to the current interpretation of said state of union) should have no part of the law, then why are so many of our marriages not recognized, and why do so many lobby so hard to legally block them, claiming that it will destroy their religion should a marriage other than their own type (which, let's not forget our fave Prop 8 lobbyists includes polygamy) becomes legal in this country?

Again, this can easily be seen as sarcasm, and I assure you, I am asking this with an open mind and heart and an open hand, attempting to understand your statement and perspective. I'm glad for the support, but I would like to gain a greater understanding of the things I do not comprehend.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I don't think you're being sarcaastic or anything else. I kinda said it wrong. The bottom line is that I think that you should be able to marry any fucking person you want to marry. Period. The statement I made came from an article I read not long ago, and damned if I can't find it again, but here is what it basically said:

The person that wrote thi article (and i think it was an opinion piece) that the law of the land should not be "marraige", per se, but civil unions. The civil union should cover everyone, and that would be the legal thing that you would do to get the "marraige" type benefits, and then if you want to have your marraige, then you go to whatever church or whatever type place your religion has and have your marraige ceremony. So that everyone would have the same thing, it would cut out all of this nonsense from the religious people about the wrong people getting married, and then if you were a religious person, you could go have a marraige ceremony if you wanted to, but it wouldn't be necessary because the way to make yourself legal would be the civil union.

Make sense? I'll try to find the article again, but it's been a while since I read it, but I totally agreed with it.

Anyway, the reality of the situation is that we probably won't end up changing it to civil unions for everyone with the additional religious ceremony if you wanted it. It's been marraige for so long that it would be difficult to chage that. Because of that, I have to support the next best thing and that is marraige for everyone. I want my sister to be able to marry her girlfriend. I want you to be able to marry Wendie. Just because you don't have the right parts doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to gt married.

So...we on the same page now? I hope that makes more sense. By the way, Nadia is in town this weekend and we're going to the RenFest on Sunday. We would love it if you didn't have plans if you and Wendie could join us.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

It does make more sense, and trhanks for clearing it up.

Actually we will be at MonsterBash out at the Starlight on Sunday... maybe we'll seeya there!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I wish those things were on Saturday night instead of Sunday night. Since we live in Douglasville, it's just a tiny bit too far to be going out on a night that I have to get up and go to work the next day...and I have to catch the bus so I have to leave the house by 6:15. meh...I have early nights on sundays.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

a) Ditto on the Civil Union thing. (I think it should be based on "household", but there's probably other difficulties there.

b) High-five to another CREDO user! We can phone phor phree!

(Reply) (Thread)