Same-Sex Marriage General Discussion Thread - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-24-2012, 11:18 AM   #166
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,982
Local Time: 08:44 AM
REALLY? They'd be better off asking Kim K. OK, let me get this down..Democrat who can't keep it in pants =amoral country hating marriage destroyer. Republican who can't keep it in pants=victim of biased librul media patriotic savior of marriage.



NOM wants Newt to ‘save’ marriage? Hilarity ensues | Pam's House Blend

By: Alvin McEwen Sunday January 22, 2012 4:12 pm


Of all the stories spinning about Newt Gingrich’s victory in the SC Republican primary, the strangest has to be the congratulations he received from the National Organization for Marriage. From the NOM president Brian Brown, courtesy of the organization’s blog:

It is now clear that the Republican Party will nominate a candidate who is strongly committed to preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” Brown said. “We have succeeded in making the preservation of marriage a key issue in this race, and we will continue to do so throughout the primary season, and into the general election against President Obama.”

NOM is dancing in the streets because Gingrich was one of the candidates to sign it’s silly “Marriage Pledge.”

However, NOM seems to omit the simple fact that Newt Gingrich is a man with sordid history of marriage rivaling that of Henry VIII of England.

In all honesty, it is not known whether or not NOM has commented on Gingrich’s three marriages or the interesting stories coming from those three marriages such as:

He cheated on his first wife with his then second wife.

He cheated on his second wife with his now third wife. And this was going on while he was pursuing the impeachment of Bill Clinton chiefly because of indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky?

He also allegedly wanted an open marriage with his second wife because he felt that there was ” more than enough Newt” to go around.

And I won’t even mention the ugliness about the divorce proceedings during the cancer of his first wife.

The fact that NOM wraps its homophobic talons around Gingrich regardless of his controversial marital history speaks to the further lack of integrity of the organization’s message. And makes one wonder does NOM really want to preserve marriage or keep it away from those allegedly “dirty homosexuals” regardless of assurances by former NOM head Maggie Gallagher that NOM is not interested in being anti-gay?

I mean come on. Are gays and lesbians really putting marriage in danger or does the danger truly lie with the fact that some folks – one who shall remain nameless – can’t keep it in their pants.

It’s obvious that if Gingrich is interested in, as NOM claims, preserving marriage as the union between one man and one woman, he seems to think that he is exempt from the rule.

And it’s even more obvious that NOM’s silence regarding his, shall we say, indiscretions is signalling that the organization is turning a blind eye to his past behavior.

I knew NOM was fake, highly hypocritical, and full of empty platitudes but DAMN!
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is online now  
Old 01-24-2012, 11:20 AM   #167
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:44 AM
we've moved from "activist judges" to "activist legislators." soon, it will be "activist citizenry." and then there's the whole "rights of religious people to discriminate against people they don't like" will come up. i spend a good amount of time on anti-gay blogs, and the newest line is that if you are a married hetero in a state that has marriage equality, then you are not actually married any more because you no longer belong to an exclusively heterosexual legal arrangement, that filling in lines intended for "Party A" and "Party B" instead of "bride" and "groom" has suddenly caused your marriage to evaporate and, yes, you guessed it, it's the gays who are the real bigots and bullies.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 11:29 AM   #168
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,671
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen
REALLY? They'd be better off asking Kim K. OK, let me get this down..Democrat who can't keep it in pants =amoral country hating marriage destroyer. Republican who can't keep it in pants=victim of biased librul media patriotic savior of marriage.

NOM wants Newt to ‘save’ marriage? Hilarity ensues | Pam's House Blend

By: Alvin McEwen Sunday January 22, 2012 4:12 pm

Of all the stories spinning about Newt Gingrich’s victory in the SC Republican primary, the strangest has to be the congratulations he received from the National Organization for Marriage. From the NOM president Brian Brown, courtesy of the organization’s blog:

It is now clear that the Republican Party will nominate a candidate who is strongly committed to preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” Brown said. “We have succeeded in making the preservation of marriage a key issue in this race, and we will continue to do so throughout the primary season, and into the general election against President Obama.”

NOM is dancing in the streets because Gingrich was one of the candidates to sign it’s silly “Marriage Pledge.”

However, NOM seems to omit the simple fact that Newt Gingrich is a man with sordid history of marriage rivaling that of Henry VIII of England.

In all honesty, it is not known whether or not NOM has commented on Gingrich’s three marriages or the interesting stories coming from those three marriages such as:

He cheated on his first wife with his then second wife.

He cheated on his second wife with his now third wife. And this was going on while he was pursuing the impeachment of Bill Clinton chiefly because of indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky?

He also allegedly wanted an open marriage with his second wife because he felt that there was ” more than enough Newt” to go around.

And I won’t even mention the ugliness about the divorce proceedings during the cancer of his first wife.

The fact that NOM wraps its homophobic talons around Gingrich regardless of his controversial marital history speaks to the further lack of integrity of the organization’s message. And makes one wonder does NOM really want to preserve marriage or keep it away from those allegedly “dirty homosexuals” regardless of assurances by former NOM head Maggie Gallagher that NOM is not interested in being anti-gay?

I mean come on. Are gays and lesbians really putting marriage in danger or does the danger truly lie with the fact that some folks – one who shall remain nameless – can’t keep it in their pants.

It’s obvious that if Gingrich is interested in, as NOM claims, preserving marriage as the union between one man and one woman, he seems to think that he is exempt from the rule.

And it’s even more obvious that NOM’s silence regarding his, shall we say, indiscretions is signalling that the organization is turning a blind eye to his past behavior.

I knew NOM was fake, highly hypocritical, and full of empty platitudes but DAMN!
Who needs the Onion when reality is this funny?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-24-2012, 11:33 AM   #169
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 02:44 PM
It's perfect because, obviously, Gingrich is a double blow. "Sanctity of marriage" - haha. "One man and one woman" - hahahahaha.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 03:39 PM   #170
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,266
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i spend a good amount of time on anti-gay blogs, and the newest line is that if you are a married hetero in a state that has marriage equality, then you are not actually married any more because you no longer belong to an exclusively heterosexual legal arrangement, that filling in lines intended for "Party A" and "Party B" instead of "bride" and "groom" has suddenly caused your marriage to evaporate and, yes, you guessed it, it's the gays who are the real bigots and bullies.
Funny, I have absolutely no memory of my parents ever having to change any information on any forms they filled out for whatever reason after same sex marriage became legal in my state. None. At all.

Between that new anti-gay line and the people at NOM wanting Newt to actually "save marriage", I just have two questions:

1, how fucking stupid are these people? Seriously, it's a wonder they can dress themselves each day.
2, how has the pro-gay rights side not overwhelmingly won the fight against these idiots a long time ago?

Quote:
“For some people, this is a simple issue. I envy them. It has not been simple or easy for me.
I really fail to understand how this issue is that complicated for some people. She says it's generational to some degree-I dunno, my parents never had an issue with supporting letting gay people get married, let alone do anything else. Truly, honestly, of all the issues in the world, this is not one that needs to be debated and questioned to death.

But still, I'm glad she is going to support the legislation.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 04:48 PM   #171
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:44 AM
I work with forms
it is usually applicant and spouse
I have never, ever seen the term bride and groom
I have seen husband and wife, used sometimes


and if it is property title vesting, on the Statement of Information they ask for marriage dates, and former marriages, with divorce dates.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 06:34 PM   #172
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
trojanchick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Feliz, CA (between Hollywood and Downtown LA)
Posts: 8,090
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
you can't make this up:
LOL. And love the new userpic.
__________________
trojanchick99 is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 06:37 PM   #173
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:44 AM
indeed, one can't go to pieces at the death of every foreigner. we'd all be in a state of collapse every time we opened a newspaper.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 07:44 PM   #174
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
N.J. Legislature to introduce bill legalizing gay marriage | NJ.com

what's interesting is how this might play out politically, and how Democrats see this as an opportunity to actually damage Chris Christie, who will no doubt use this to prove his conservative credentials looking towards 2016, but that's dangerous territory -- kicking gays is increasingly likely to alienate the moderates Christie would have to court to ever win a national election, even if it means making him a little less, erm, "regional" to the base.
Looks like he's trying to punt to a referendum instead and spare himself the trouble.

Newark Star-Ledger, Jan. 24
Quote:
Gov. Chris Christie called today for the Legislature to put on the fall ballot a voter referendum on whether to legalize gay marriage, which Democratic lawmakers have made a top priority. If successful, the referendum would amend the state Constitution and trump the current civil unions law. He urged all Republicans in the Legislature to put the matter to voters, but promised to veto the measure if it came to him in the form of a bill.

"I think this is not an issue that should rest solely in my hands, or the hands of the Senate President or the Speaker or the other 118 members of the Legislature," he said. "Let's let the people of New Jersey decide what is right for the state...Let's make sure that political maneuvering is not what judges this and let's make sure this is not someone just trying to have fun and create a campaign issue," he said. "The institution of marriage if too serious to be treated like a political football...I would hope the Legislature would be willing to trust the people the way I'm willing to trust the people," Christie said, reiterating his personal opposition to gay marriage. "I think it's the institution of marriage and it's bigger than just a word, it's hundreds of years of tradition both legally and societally and religiously and that's what I stand up in protecting."
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 01-24-2012, 09:54 PM   #175
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Looks like he's trying to punt to a referendum instead and spare himself the trouble.


yup. he's giving himself coverage from the wrath of the base for 2016 while at the same time trying to appear moderate to the middle.

i do wonder if people realize just how much the goalposts have been moved. aren't these 118 people in Trenton voted into office to do exactly things like this?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-25-2012, 01:32 AM   #176
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:44 PM
^ I remember one thing I found rather jolting about the Proposition 8 post-election struggle was the frequent use by SSM opponents of rhetoric to the effect of 'violating our Constitutional rights as Americans to vote on fundamental values of our society,' etc. I'm sure most of them were just repeating a line they'd been sold without actually understanding its meaning, but whoever put it out there surely knew full well that the US Constitution doesn't grant anyone the right to a referendum on anything, much less guarantees that courts won't annul referenda results they find unconstitutional where state constitutions do provide for them. This "activist legislators"/"let the people decide" strategy reminds me of that.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 01:48 PM   #177
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:44 PM
I didn't realize he'd used this analogy.

Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 26
Quote:
As we reported, Christie said: "The fact of the matter is, I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South...It was our political institutions that were holding things back. I don't think there's anything necessarily so special about this particular issue that it must be handled by a Legislature. Why would that be?...I don't understand how anybody could argue with letting the people decide this issue."
It was state legislatures that were holding desegregation back? Voter referenda (voters being whites only, of course) would've sped the process up? WTF is he talking about? And why the hell would someone personally opposed to same-sex marriage invite such a comparison in the first place?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 02:00 PM   #178
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
I didn't realize he'd used this analogy.

Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 26

It was state legislatures that were holding desegregation back? Voter referenda (voters being whites only, of course) would've sped the process up? WTF is he talking about? And why the hell would someone personally opposed to same-sex marriage invite such a comparison in the first place?
There is a train of thought (not altogether illegitimate) that says that, had citizenry had the chance to vote on the issue of abortion (for example), there would have been more of a national consensus on the issue, one way or another, via the whole idea of "changing hearts and minds via state/national referenda". I see the point. Had citizens been forced to go to the polls and vote for or against their black neighbors, to look at the civil rights movement in the sixties, would change have happened faster? Did a legislative act undermine the need for Americans to have to change their minds? Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have. It's a somewhat useless train of thought to pursue as it applies to the past, but it's a useful question to ask for the future.

The question is whether an issue is so important that it's worth ignoring "the will of the people" (and, in the mind of some, overriding the notion of democracy) because of a greater moral question that cannot be ignored.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 02:47 PM   #179
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:44 AM
don't people vote for their representatives? isn't that why we have a representative democracy and not mob rule?

how would Mississippi or Louisiana vote today if the question of interracial marriage came to a vote? what about in 1990? 1980?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-26-2012, 03:02 PM   #180
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,266
Local Time: 07:44 AM
It is funny how people often forget things like that. Our founding fathers were just as terrified of too much control by your average everyday citizen as they were by the idea of the government being too powerful. Add in the idea of people they didn't see as "citizens" getting their rightful power and boy, did that leave them tossing and turning at night.
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com