;)
Sunday
Nov092008
You Can Get Anything You Want
Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 3:50AMI do protest, I never injured thee,
But love thee better than thou canst devise,
Till thou shalt know the reason of my love:
And so, good Capulet,
which name I tender as dearly as my own,
be satisfied.
You know what happened next? Tybalt, blinded by self-righteous rage, killed innocent Mercutio. And then Romeo caught up with him later, put a sword through him and tossed him in a fountain.
And everyone lost.
Why? Because Tybalt got it into his head that the status quo could never change, that the way things were are the way things should always be. He chose to ignore everyone around him and go right on ahead hating blindly, without reason. And that person always ends up with blood on his hands.
Proposition 8 passed in California. They passed similar amendments in Arizona, Arkansas and Florida, too. The very day we finally make one large step in the direction of progress, we take what is certainly the largest step backwards I've had to witness in my lifetime. I am at a loss for (kind) words. I don't even understand how this got put in front of the voters in the first place. Do we really legislate basic human rights based on popular consensus? Last time I checked, family was a basic human right. Maybe I was wrong.
Either way, I will await the results of the court appeals that have been filed, and I will channel the excessive amount of unmitigated outrage I feel towards a 52% of Californians, Arizonas and Floridians into something tangible. If I lived in California, I could do this:
And you can bet your ass, I would be, kids in tow and all. But I don't live there, and I think part of my unbelievable levels of anger right now are coming from the feeling of helplessness, that feeling that they've got us by the balls. I hate that feeling, don't you? Well, the more I thought about, the more I realized that I could do something, that I should do something, that I HAVE to do something. So I'm doing something.
I'm boycotting California, Arizona, Arkansas and Florida.
Ultimately, what it comes down to, for me, is that these states saw fit to remove any veiled semblance of the separation of church and state. They let the mormon hierarchy the catholic hierarchy and those Focus on the Family (censored) buy their way into politics. Which is fine, if those organizations want to give up their tax exemptions and play ball, but since they want to have their cake and eat it, too, and those states let them, they can, well, they can fuck off and die for all I care.
I've been tossing this around for a few days. I felt like maybe it was just as wrong to say, "Hey! Let's punish a whole group of people for the choices of a few!" But I can't think of anything else I can do. I can write strongly worded blog entries, I can scream at the CNN website, or I can put my damn money where my mouth is. I can say No Means NO. I can tell those states, who's revenue comes primarily from tourism, that this tree hugging liberal fag-hag thinks what they've done is morally reprehensible and politically unconscionable.
So there will be no trips to Disneyland or Disneyworld for us, there will be no drives to the Grand Canyon, there will be produce bought from any of those states. I'll shop locally, I'll be happy with the little beaches I have right here. I'll keep checking this list to see if there are any specific organizations I can boycott.
I have no allusions that little old me could even put a dent in the budgets of these states, but maybe if enough of us do it, and if enough of us talk about it, and enough of us fight for it, maybe they'll notice. Maybe they'll hear us. Maybe they'll see that what they've done is wrong, that it hurts people, that it shouldn't be legal. And maybe they'll take it back. Either way, I won't have sat idle and watched my friends hurt. I'll have done something. It's like some other dirty hippie once said:
And if three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out? They may think it's an
organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said
fifty people a day walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and
walking out? And friends, they may thinks it's a movement.
And that's what it is.
(Photo stolen from the FlickR set of Greg Starr. I totally asked first.)
Reader Comments (66)
(Censored) yeah. If I hop on the bandwagon, am I just a bandwagon jumper onner? Cuz really, besides the audacity for it to even be put to vote, I'm a Vancouverite - people are gay and they get married. So?
So far, no winged monkeys, pestiliance or horsemen have shown up. So far, I live in one of THE BEST neighbourhoods to raise a child in, and it also happens to be well know as THE Gay Neighbourhood. She sees men holding hands, wearing matching rings. And knows a little girl at playgroup who has two mommies and two daddies that have never been divorced AND is adopted from Africa. So far, it seems like people being allowed to love each other in exactly the way they want to, legally, unoppressedly and without owing any church OR state an answer, is the best solution to every single ail in the world.
But besides that, ya, I'm totally not buying those (censored) oranges anymore. Genius.
Zoeyjane wrote..http://mommyismoody.com/2008/11/09/on-obsession-not-the-parfum/" rel="nofollow">On Obsession (not the parfum)
I fully understand your desire to boycott, but as a CA resident, and as one of the people who feels that we had it in the bag until the Mormons swept in, it seems more to the point to boycott Utah. And check out DOMA while you're at it - they have an agenda, and that agenda is to amend the constitutions of the other 20 states that at this point have a chance at equality, or who are actually PRACTICING it (MA, CT). Evil in the works, I tell you! I don't have the luxury of boycotting California, but I'll tell you now, I'm boycotting f***ing Utah.
*stands up and applauds*
You, my lady, fucking rock.
You. Me. Zoeyjane. I think we gotz us the starting of a movement...
Kelley wrote..http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MagnetoBoldToo/~3/447064184/" rel="nofollow">Glad he ain’t my president and the voices and I had another meeting. Sans donuts. Dammit!
Come to Connecticut. On election day, we Nutmeggers decisively said FUCK YOU to a constitutional convention that would have opened up the opportunity to roll back gay marriage (we've only had it for a month) and reproductive rights.
It's nice here. After you've spent 45 minutes seeing all there is to see, you can hop over to Massachusetts, another state that is threatening the very moral fabric of our country and the institution of marriage by letting The Gays get hitched.
patty wrote..http://blog.wingdangdoo.com/2008/11/whats-at-stake/" rel="nofollow">what’s at stake
Could NOT possibly agree with you more. I just flew out to California a couple of weeks ago to watch my sister marry her best friend and the love of her life and now that marriage is in danger of being declared not legal. Who has that right??
Mrs. Who wrote..http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/IKnowWhereYouCanFindIt/~3/441687046/try-it-tuesday-olay-total-effects.html" rel="nofollow">Try It Tuesday: Olay Total Effects Cleansing Cloths
Son........what'd ya get? I didn't get nothin'...........I had to pay $50 and pick up all the garbage. Kinda hard for me to boycott my own state.........what with that sales tax thing........oh and the money they take from my paycheck...........so count me out. At least as far as Californ....i...a is concerned. Peace, Mike.
Have to represent AR on this one (Arkansas not Arizona). What was put in front of us as voters was nothing to do with gay marriage. It had to do with foster children living with unmarried partners. Yes, that could be a gay couple, but...that could also be some white trash hooch who has a different live-in every two weeks or so.
It was a hard decision on which way to vote. I'm all for same sex couples being parents. I'm not all for unmarried hetero couples becoming foster parents. They lumped the whole thing together so while it was a win for some little girl who might get molested by her foster "uncle" it was a loss for those gay couples who could provide a loving home for kids in need of it.
Call me backwards and hillbilly, it won't hurt my feelings
ashley wrote..http://darlingcompanion.blogspot.com/2008/11/problem-with-my-boobs.html" rel="nofollow">The Problem With My Boobs
There's an online petition of people showing solidarity against Prop 8 by taking pictures of themselves with their wedding rings on their middle finger.
We're up to 112 and there's a flicker pool. It's pretty awesome. You can see them http://www.diaryofamodernmatriarch.com/2008/11/let-freedom-ring.html" rel="nofollow">here.
AndreAnna wrote..http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/DiaryOfAModernMatriarch/~3/445534754/i-guess-its-evident-i-like-martinis.html" rel="nofollow">I guess it's evident I like martinis
Yeah...I'm from Arkansas as well and yes while it was veiled as a law saying unmarried couples adopt or foster children call it what it is. It was aimed at same sex couples and I for one was infuriated. Not to mention that even if all it was was the unmarried couples who are we to judge. In the fine print it said the couples would all be fully checked out before given the child so NO "white trash hooch" would have gotten the child to start with. Sorry didn't mean to jump on Ashley.
My own family and friends voted for this law because what those people might inflict on poor children. "Don't they have it bad enough" they said. "Why make their life harder". I so don't get it, how does living with people who love and care for them make their life harder..yeah I get some backward hillbilly offspring might make fun of them, but if they live in a supportive loving environment wont' they learn how to deal.
Okay I could ramble for days. I'm all for the boycott but alas it would be a little hard for me to boycott my own state!!!
Meredith wrote..http://paparrazimomma.blogspot.com/2008/11/not-so-wordless-wednesday.html" rel="nofollow">Not so Wordless Wednesday
Wow, who knew it was legal for foster uncles to molest children in Arkansas? Congratulations, Arkansas, for passing this essential law! I mean, I can't think of any other way to protect those children!
I have been reading your blog for a few months now, and I love it! I love that you believe everyone should have equal human rights, and all the other views you have expressed. I live in Michigan, have a new family myself, and in an essence, not only believe if we stick together on this, can you imagine what else could be done!Like Obama says "It's time for a change"! Well, I am with you, lets start with gay marriage. Everyone should be allowed to have a family, regardless on your sexual orientation. Thanks again for all the blogs.....Peace out! :)
I think that is what is so infuriating. California also lumped in other laws along with this one, such as churches that wouldn't perform marriages for same sex couples would lose their tax exempt status. I'm sorry, but that is WRONG, the same as refusing tax exempt status to a church that will perform such unions.
What makes me so very angry is the legislatures that did everything they could to ensure these propositions wouldn't pass. They made sure that even some people who support gay rights felt they couldn't vote no.
That being said, I absolutely join you in your boycott. If you have to manipulate a proposition in order for the majority to vote your way . . . you can say goodbye to my money.
Honeybell wrote..http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/girS/~3/L361H8OEXCw/they-see-me-rollin-they-hatin_08.html" rel="nofollow">They See Me Rollin', They Hatin'
Picking a comment above (not picking on the the comment at all, it's just to illustrate a point):
'I love that you believe everyone should have equal human rights'
As opposed to what?
Xbox4NappyRash wrote..http://xbox4nappyrash.blogspot.com/2008/11/notes-from-post-surgical-desert.html" rel="nofollow">Notes from a post surgical desert
I voted no here in Florida and I'm disgusted to be in the minority. Totally disgusted. I even had an argument this week with a yes voter. If we get a redo, he says he will now vote no as well.
Good luck to all in reversing this national discrimination.
Hockeyman wrote..http://hockeymandad.com/?p=202" rel="nofollow">Technology
I had no idea the laws were written in such twisted fashions. Obviously, those who wrote it KNEW they wouldn't pass with the wording making it into more than just a gay rights issue.
It is depressing to know that there are bigots in our country so high in the government. That we keep electing people that don't represent the majority of our nation's beliefs.
tracey wrote..http://tracey-justanothermommyblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/quiet-3-year-old.html" rel="nofollow">A Quiet 3 year old
Remember Amendment 2 in Colorado in '92? Yep, we're on the bleeding edge of hate here. Yay us. However, it was over turned. And even though we're the home of FotF we've not try to bring back a hate prop. Want to do something? http://www.jointheimpact.com/
Catherine wrote..http://pinkasparag.us/2008/11/09/crack/" rel="nofollow">Crack
"Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog. And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry, 'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American
blind justice."
Marge wrote..http://wheremytruthlives.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/doing-everything-in-my-power-to-make-it-so/" rel="nofollow">Doing everything in my power to make it so
Dammit, I guess that means there is no hope of ever meeting you!
I would boycott AZ if I could, but I kind of need my livelihood, ya know? And the Disneyland trip has been planned for a long time.
My vote was never counted (provisional) and the conspiracy theorist in me can't help but wonder how many other NO on 102 provisional ballots weren't counted.
We voted this law down in 2006 and if anything, this state has gone a little more blue, so it makes me wonder. They say it's because they changed the wording, but I don't buy it. Something else was at play. Namely, the Mormon Church. I am all for revoking their tax exempt status. I have nothing against the Mormon Church, but I have something against the Mormon Church doling out rights.
(Or any other church for that matter, but I believe the Mormon Church was the biggest sponsor.)
I am just sick over this whole thing. HOW DARE THEY say the majority has spoken. That mindset evokes images of slavery and a time before women had rights.
(censored) bastards.
Natalie wrote..http://www.startingfromhere.com/2008/11/interpretation/" rel="nofollow">Interpretation
I live in California and I was really surprised that Yes on 8 passed. I thought it was incredibly dishonorable how many completely false and fearmongering the Yes on 8 commercials were here.
One of the saddest was a commercial featuring a young girl telling her parent she had learned that boys could marry boys and girls could marry girls in school.
Here is the commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4
All I could think of was: What if that girl likes other girls? What if she feels completely alone and scared? If that was my kid and she was feeling like that, what a blessing for her to know that she had a place in our society.
And of course, the other side of that coin: Now there are probably lots of girls growing up who will see that commercial and believe who they are is shameful and should be hidden.
I just don't understand how someone could be on such a hateful and hurtful crusade.
anne nahm wrote..http://annenahm.com/?p=738" rel="nofollow">Next Stop, Tangent City
Um hi. I'm from California (DON'T SHOOT!). I voted NO ON PROP 8 (sorry for all the caps but I'M REALLY MAD). I'm in disbelief that the proposition passed. I don't understand people shouting at us to "protect traditional marriage." So should I show up to my wedding with a dowry (who wants some goats?)? And should that marriage be arranged by my parents? I should also probably be about 15 years old at my wedding. THAT is traditional marriage.
Its infuriating to hear the arguments aganst gay marriage. How would straight marriage be marginalized by gay marriage? The scary gays aren't coming to your house to take away your marriage license. And people are worried about their children "learning" gay marriage in school? What if your child is BFF with another child who happens to have gay parents?
"Mommy, Katie has 2 mommies but she told me they can't get married. That's so sad, why not?"
"Well sweetie, I voted to take away their rights to protect you, wasn't that thoughtful?"
"Um, Mom...it doesn't have anything to do with me."
LIVE AND LET LIVE. MARRY AND LET MARRY.
I haven't read the particulars on the other states. It appears that many were tricked into getting voting yes in California over concerns about their churches, concerns over what could be taught in their schools, etc.
Still, I find it all absurd and scary that in today's day and age in California of all
states--Proposition 8 passed. I strongly hope that it will be overturned at some point, but it appears that amendments can over rule the California State Supreme Court.
I need to research this issue because frankly I don't understand how all of this works and exactly what the amendment said. My brain is fried from issues with Harley at his new school and trying to get everything in order and on track.
One Mom's Opinion wrote..http://onemomsopinion.blogspot.com/2008/11/political-wrapup.html" rel="nofollow">Political Wrapup
Mr Lady,
I wrote about this the other day on my blog, specifically in regards to folks like Ashley and Honeybell above. (And, NO, this is not an attack.) There are some folks who disagree with me, but I do strongly feel that we need to stop letting the government of the USofA "marry" anyone.
I think when we call something by its' religious name, we allow the whack-jobs organizations you mentioned (Oh they're churches? Not whack-jobs? How the fuck can anyone tell the difference? The arguments they use are the same arguments they made to keep women subservient, without a vote. The same arguments used to show why Blacks were inferior...you know, anything that challenged their control of things.) to play on the "traditional religious views" of a large portion of the populace.
Let's call it something else, besides marriage, for EVERYONE. Call it Civil Unions, shit, call it "permanent dating" if you want. Let’s make it so NOBODY gets married by the government, and EVERYONE gets the same Civil Rights...you know: tax benefits, shared insurance, end of life visitation, etc, etc. THEN if someone votes on something like Prop 8, they can't hide behind their religion, and what it defines as marriage, but will have to ADMIT they are prejudiced and don't believe everyone is owed the same Civil Rights in America.
Sorry for the rant.
miko564 wrote..http://themonkeyandscratch.blogspot.com/2008/11/stuff-that-works.html" rel="nofollow">Stuff That Works
I, too, am from California and did all in my power to fight Prop 8.
Though I am devastated people read the words "take away the right" and checked yes, I am comforted by the fact that Prop 22 in 2000 passed with 61% of the vote, and Prop 8 passed with 52%. That's a big change.
The majority of old people voted yes. The majority of young people voted NO. My generation grew up going to schools that taught us to respect people and their rights. We celebrated civil rights leaders. We had words of the month like tolerance, compassion, and dignity. We know the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Things are changing and they WILL continue to change.
Great post. I can't believe this happened in the same election.
This is serious stuff and I share some of the other concerns of your other readers. The Mormon and Catholic Church funding of Prop 8 is deeply troubling. I think one of the problems in California is that huge organizations can write big checks to these propositions and get them on the ballot then pay for huge media buys. If these people when out and had to get $100 contributions to fund them, it would be a tough fucking road to hoe.
Also, I agree with miko564 that how we define what is a marriage and a union is confusing and some people want to be married and some people don't give a shit they just want the bennies. I think having a scattershot approach is HELPING the anti-equal rights community. Finally, if anyone who reads this blog thinks that the current Supreme Court is going to bless any sort of gay unions or marriage, they have their heads way up their ass. This should NOT go to the current supreme court right now. I know people are pissed (I live in CA and I'm pissed!) but going to the Supremes will set his back to the stone age.
Thanks for the boycott list Mr. Lady. I'm going to keep it in my back pocket.
BTW I'm at 15,000 words.
Punditdad wrote..http://punditdad.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/5-things-liberals-like-me-should-do-next/" rel="nofollow">5 Things Liberals Like Me Should Do Next
Totally with Miko as well. I wrote a post voicing this and called my fictional proposition, Prop 143.
Natalie wrote..http://www.startingfromhere.com/2008/11/interpretation/" rel="nofollow">Interpretation
Awesome post. I'm going to link you tonight in my weekly wrap up. My sister did some research and go the names and amounts of entities and people who put money towards pushing prop 8 in Cali. http://shaunna.typepad.com/shaunnas_soliloquies/2008/10/putting-where-your-hate-is.html
i say boycott each and every one of them that caqn be boycotted.
phhhst wrote..http://phhhst.blogspot.com/2008/11/wicked-weekend-birthday-bonanza.html" rel="nofollow">Wicked Weekend Birthday Bonanza
Also, has anyone else read the numerous articles reporting that the vast majority of ethnic minorities who turned out to vote for Obama (YAY) also voted yes on proposition 8 (BOO). As Jon Stewart said on his show last week "the oppressee becomes the oppressor!" WTF?
People are surprised it passed here? Really? I so wasn't. I knew it would pass in California. I knew we would elect Obama and that 8 would pass. There was SO much hate and misconception being thrown around out here. And people are just not that smart.
I do know this. It isn't over. Of course I am angry about it, but I know it's not over. It kinda makes me sad that the amount of energy we are putting in NOW is exactly the amount of energy we should have put in to begin with. The YESers did and they won. We're protesting 1000s+ strong and we will be heard, however we should have dont that prior to the vote. And we didn't. But we are trying to fix things now.
So does your boycott include blogs? Because that would kinda suck. I voted No if that changes your mind...
And yea, fuck these oranges.
Miss wrote..http://justmiss.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/saturday-street-fair-vol-1/" rel="nofollow">Saturday Street Fair Vol. 1
Yea I can't believe how California could be like that. My BFF protested as she is supposed to be married to her significant other and bought her fiance gorgeous diamond engagement ring from www.idonowidont.com and plans to get married one way or another regardless of prop 8.
I respect your point of view on this topic. I respect you. This is my comment, and yes, it opposes yours.
As I recall, Romeo was a male and Juliet was a female. As you know, if they were the only two people on earth rather than their other decision, there would be a very high probability they both could produce offspring. Okay, that’s a family.
Now should Romeo fall in love with Tybalt and Juliet with Rosaline, neither couple would be able to make babies. Then, they would have to cross-over for awhile. Okay, that’s not a family, that’s a tribe.
At issue here is gender versus sex. I am a male by sex, but by gender I could be several things all at once, except a polygamist. Even though polygamy is Biblical, it would land me in jail. Gender preference is not a strong enough case to be defined as a family. That is absent a couple reproductive parts and an impossible association anatomically.
Now I do not judge gender preference and certainly not sex. Homosex is an abomination to God. I am not God. God judges, not me. But, I’m not all together willing to blur the meaning of being able to call myself a biological father because I have a Y to share with an X. That’s a basic human right. You know the math, 2 Y’s and 2 X’s do not a baby make. Thus far, science has not been able to get the same two to work in humans in making babies anyway. So we’ll have to remove sex from the equation and call it something else until 2x's can reproduce.
Soooo, a gay couple does have rights. They can contract. The can buy a house together, incur debt together, make other contracts. As you know, California is a community property state. Just by marriage, assets and liabilities are shared 50/50. Here in Mississippi, my wife cannot own anything I own unless I put her name on the deed.
I think what needs to be called for here is another legal definition. There is a LOT of legal crap to figure out here. We have defined this as a union thus far, but maybe that isn’t the right wiggle and walk. All of the presidential candidates agreed they did not want to change the definition of a family either – in the classical sense.
Should gay people be able to raise children together? Yes, but we need to call it something else, not a family. Should gay people make good adoptive caretakers? Oh hell yes. Remember my wife is a mental health therapist and works with kids abused and neglected by bio mothers, fathers, step mothers, step fathers and on down the line of relatives, grandparents and aunts. Just because a person is gay, does it mean the children will not be able to choose between believing in Jesus or not? Oh heavens no, you yourself claim to be an atheist.
But, one must be careful the door these things open. One might in their zeal deny her daughter the basic right to call her Mommy. Your brother might be able to one day take your children legally and become their mother. I’m also not comfortable with creating a market for babies. I think we become real wrong when we start making babies for sale to gay couples wanted to adopt. We have come a long way since slavery – and try all your might to argue the opposite. Women will be selling their offspring into the bondage of childom to people who have no biological connection. That’s just like adopting pets.
Romeo and Juliet got caught up in a blood feud; it really didn’t have anything to do with status quo.
I'm sorry you're upset and not coming down to America. I'd love to meet you one day. That's on my Bucket List too.
Audubon Ron wrote..http://ducksmahal.blogspot.com/2008/11/hell-on-wheels.html" rel="nofollow">Hell on Wheels
Ron,
Ah yes, the "they can't make babies as God/Nature intended” argument. It's many forms always pop up in this debate. The problem is, the only people who should make it in America, are the Amish or Christian Scientists, who reject modern society.
My guess is Ron, that there are many things that you do, that Adam and Eve couldn't do. So by your definition, God wouldn’t want you to do them, since he didn’t build you that way.
Every time you get on a plane you are insulting God. If he wanted you to fly through the air at 500 MPH, he would have built the capability in.
Don't go to the doctor, Ron. Each medication you take, every surgery you receive, is an abomination. If God wanted you to survive heart disease, he would have made your heart stronger. God built your head, so he MUST want you to feel the headache, so stay away from the aspirin.
Using your bible for reference; don't have sex with anyone else but your wife (God, I hope she's your first), even if you divorce or she dies.
Don't play football with your friends or kids, touching the skin of a dead pig makes you unclean.
Speaking of your kids, the bible DOES say you can sell your daughter into slavery, so as long as she hasn't played football, and she doesn't work on the Sabbath (punishable by death according to the bible), you can make some money.
I AM being sarcastic, obviously, Ron (and stealing a little from the Dr. Laura letter). I just don't know how you can use "part of the book" to make your decisions about life, but ignore the rest.
If it's the word of God, how can you ignore even the parts that seem abhorrent in modern society (slavery, subjugation of women)? Who are you, or anyone else who believes, to decide which parts you will believe or not? Just wonderin'.
miko564 wrote..http://themonkeyandscratch.blogspot.com/2008/11/stuff-that-works.html" rel="nofollow">Stuff That Works
While I'm sure Jenny's sarcasm was appreciated, the foster system in Arkansas is not the best. My close friend's mother is foster mom and she has count em 10 foster kids in her house.
Obviously Jenny is not taking the issue of child abuse very seriously, my post was a bit light as well, but this sort of thing does happen, too frequently for it to be ignored.
It was unfortunate that the act was veiled the way it was. I agree with Meredith that is was probably pointed more towards same sex couples.
Sorry to have to reply again but I got a bit irritated.
ashley wrote..http://darlingcompanion.blogspot.com/2008/11/see-what-happens-when-i-dont-spend.html" rel="nofollow">See What Happens When I Don't Spend Money Immediately?
Miko564, thank you for your remonstration, be it ever so gentle.
Since you asked and challenged my logic, I have a few responses.
I never said it was a “Biblical” issue other than the Bible says it’s an abomination. I was also very careful in pointing out that I don’t judge. God judges. My point was with American law and to some degree social mores. That’s the only form I used.
With respect to airplanes and flight, God said in Genesis to got out and subdue the earth. That was a command. The Bible is silent on airplanes but says I can use the earth to make one.
God also said all the plants are mine to use and the animals to use as I need, even as medicine. He said that after Noah landed the Ark. That includes marijuana, but marijuana is against the human law where I live.
You are correct, God hates divorce and no, I’ve been married twice. It does say that a divorce is permissible if one of the partners defiles the marriage bed with adultery. Well, can’t unscramble scrambled eggs but it does give me the allowance to repent and be forgiven. So Jesus as my Savior (attorney) has that covered. Gay people have the option to repent and be forgiven too. Actually, if they accept Jesus as their Savior they are also covered anyway. But if you really want to be technical about it, I have two wives, my current wife and my ex. They cannot have another man nor I a woman unless I marry her. That’s in the Bible too – but not in human law.
I don’t play football. I repented from that and golf. Football was easy. But, touching dead pigs is a Jewish law, I’m a Gentile. It’s a Mosaic thing. In other words, that’s what Moses did to you. I gave up golf because I worshiped to the golf Gods every time I hit a ball close to the green and would use the Lord’s name in vain when I hit an errant tee shot.
The commandment says “Remember” the Sabbath by keeping it Holy. We all mess up on that one because the Sabbath is really Saturday. Moses made it punishable by death. The Commandment says it’s a sin against God. We can thank Constantine for that one. But Jesus said, nonsense, if your friend’s horse is in a ditch, help it out and do good works on the Sabbath. It only takes one sin to go to Hell BTW and we were born sinful before we made any choices. That’s in the Bible too. God doesn’t grade on a bell curve. The Bible also says I can have my child stoned at the City Gates by the elders if they disobey (or don’t honor their mother and father). If I stoned anyone I would be put in jail. That’s a human law. I would never sell my daughter into slavery, mostly because I don’t have a daughter, but I might consider it if she had a hard time being nice to a boy long enough to get her married.
I know you’re being sarcastic and actually I think pretty clever and thank you for this opportunity to answer your questions, but I think Dr. Laura is as cute as can be but have no use for her otherwise, but you may listen to her. She’s Jewish incidentally, not a Gentile. Now, hold on, I love Jewish peep, no buts about it. She also doesn’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah. That’s also in the Bible that He is. Now if you want to go Jewish on me I often read the Code of Jewish Law by Rabbi Solomon Ganzfried, so look out.
I assure you, I haven’t ignored any of the Bible, both old and new Testament, but I never asserted the Adam and Eve argument in this issue. I’m looking at it as a legal definition.
Incidentally, the Jew custom is to release slaves every seven years. That’s the Year of the Jubilee. We might consider work a form of slavery or even an indenture. I think I covered subjugation of women in my recent post, A Wife of Noble Character (Proverbs 31).
I believe it all. I have studied it for many years. It is what God wants me to know, but it isn’t the whole story. That much I’m sure of.
Audubon Ron wrote..http://ducksmahal.blogspot.com/2008/11/hell-on-wheels.html" rel="nofollow">Hell on Wheels
I won't censor my comment. Sorry. FUCKING HELL California. FUCKING HELL. I can't say that I expected different from Arizona. Or Arkansas. Or Florida. But OH Mah Holy FUCKING Hell California. You are supposed to be the new frontier (screw Alaska...look what they produced) - the one place that embraces peoples' right to live and let live.
Thanks for http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonorRoll.html" rel="nofollow">the link Shan. I'll be checking in to help....
Ree wrote..http://hotfessional.com/2008/11/09/its-turned-to-all-snow/" rel="nofollow">It’s Turned to All Snow
The bottom line here is that the decision was made to take away rights. That's not what I know of America.
And as for Audubon Ron, one would understand, from your arguments, that an infertile woman (hypothetically say one who had a hysterectomy as an adolescent because of a tumor) has no right to get married because she cannot bring forth a child.
The problem with religious arguments is that often they paint with such a definite and broad brush that they apply to too many individuals.
SciFi Dad wrote..http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TalesFromTheDadSide/~3/447320543/buddytv.html" rel="nofollow">BuddyTV
SciFi Dad: Not at all, she wouldn’t be able to have a family. That's what we're working with here, the legal demarcation. I never said a gay couple shouldn't have a child to raise nor did I say they couldn't have a binding relationship. Just don't call it a family. Instead of the religious debate, let's work on what we call it and how legally we can make it stick. Then we can send it to states who have ratified the definition of family to exclude gay couples. This is a state by state definition. Let's be lawyers for a minute. I think were missing the boat. Gay rights needs validation. So how do we validate it to be inclusive of human law, because it will never measure up to God’s law.
Audubon Ron wrote..http://ducksmahal.blogspot.com/2008/11/hell-on-wheels.html" rel="nofollow">Hell on Wheels
Audubon Ron: Continuing with my hypothetical woman sans uterus and other internals, is now married (for fun, let's say it happened in your church or place of worship). Furthermore, let's assume she and her husband adopt a child.
Are they a family, or are they part of the "something else" that requires renaming?
SciFi Dad wrote..http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TalesFromTheDadSide/~3/447320543/buddytv.html" rel="nofollow">BuddyTV
I don't go to church. I consider ALL American churches apostate. She would be considered as primary caregiver.
Audubon Ron wrote..http://ducksmahal.blogspot.com/2008/11/hell-on-wheels.html" rel="nofollow">Hell on Wheels
OK. So by your definition then (I am merely restating what I interpret from your answers): a family is comprised of a husband, wife, and one or more biological children? If that is the case, may I ask: is your faith Christian in basis? (I am guessing yes, since you refer to a supreme being as God and not Allah or Yahweh.)
Let's just go for the argument that you are, in fact, Christian, shall we? OK? OK.
Mary and Joseph: married. Jesus: Mary's son, but not Joseph's. Therefore, by your definition, Jesus was not raised in a "family" but rather in this yet-to-be-named "something else".
Also, may I say, your tone implies that a "family" is somehow superior to this "something else" we are debating, so you're kind of coming down on your own saviour, aren't you?
SciFi Dad wrote..http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TalesFromTheDadSide/~3/447320543/buddytv.html" rel="nofollow">BuddyTV
My daughter and I both voted against the amendment in Florida, unfortunately we were outnumbered. I'm equally, if not more disgusted with my home state.
While I’m sure Jenny’s sarcasm was appreciated, the foster system in Arkansas is not the best. My close friend’s mother is foster mom and she has count em 10 foster kids in her house.
Obviously Jenny is not taking the issue of child abuse very seriously, my post was a bit light as well, but this sort of thing does happen, too frequently for it to be ignored.
It was unfortunate that the act was veiled the way it was. I agree with Meredith that is was probably pointed more towards same sex couples.
Sorry to have to reply again but I got a bit irritated.
I AM taking the issue of child abuse seriously. I think every bit of money, time, and energy that went into passing that ridiculous proposition should have been dedicated to eradicating abuses of the foster care system. Instead, your state used all of those resources to ban an entire segment of the population who could have been loving caretakers from ever having that opportunity. Ask the social workers in Arkansas whether they would rather have all that money in their budgets to protect kids. Instead, the money is all spent, and what are they left with? Some good and some bad single foster parents kicked out of the system. Some good and some bad married foster parents still in the system. And then there are all of the single and pay people who would have made excellent parents who now have fewer rights than they did on Monday.
Ron, I grudgingly admit you seem pretty clever yourself...lol. Also, I tried my hardest not to make any personal attacks, and you replied in kind. Thanks.
I think you are almost completely wrong and misguided, but you actually came to the same sort of conclusion I did, albeit from a totally different direction.
I think semantics are holding us back on this issue, and first and foremost we must assure equal rights under the law, then we can argue terminology.
It was nice to disagree with someone without it devolving (That would be the opposite of evolving though...what term can I use to indicate the opposite of "Intelligent Design"? Sorry, more sarcasm...lol.) into name calling.
Ron, I have no problem giving the definition of "marriage" back to the church (so long as the state does not recognize any marriage performed by the church) and calling civil unions what they are (I've been "civil unioned" myself, twice), but to give the definition of "family" to the church as well? Nope, that one I can't agree on. If a woman who is partnered with another woman gives birth to a child, we can't call that a family? Last time I checked, marriage was the only word that was up for grabs by the church.
Maybe I am just missing something and that was not your intention; your opinion is obviously well thought out and I have to admit that you lost me at times (not hard to do), so forgive me if I'm putting words into your mouth.
For some reason, Ron can't get a comment to post here. We're trying to figure out what's going on.
And THIS is why our Founding Fathers did not create a direct Democracy and allow citizens to vote directly on anything.
I'd like to see someone sit down with a little girl who is being raised by two mothers, look that little girl in the eye, and tell HER that her living situation is not a family. Because that's about as un-Christian as it gets in my book. (I'm speaking AS one, by the way.)
Driving home from a great weekend visiting my mom, we rode down the California coast and as usual I was awed and inspired by the beautiful sunset over the water. I am always humbled and reminded of how small we are but at the same time reminded of how big an impact we have on this earth both in actions and non actions.
I love living in California. It's beautiful here. It's diverse. I can be at the beach in the morning and the mountains or desert by evening.
I was opposed to Prop 8 as is my Catholic, church going, God fearing mother. For me the lesson here was "he with the deepest pockets wins" and the religious parties involved in pushing the Prop 8 agenda have very deep pockets indeed.
I'm sorry my state has caused such controversy, strife and anger. I'm angry too. But leaving here is not an option and I am not my state. Thanks for the list of contributors, I'll definitely check it out.
Where *can* I marry you?
Deb on the Rocks wrote..http://www.debontherocks.com/2008/11/somebody-wins-somebody-loses.html" rel="nofollow">Somebody wins, somebody loses
As an AZ resident with a flock of 6 hens, it was imperative that we redundantly reject gay marriage, because, whoa, what a slippery slope! Everyone knows why the Easter Bunny hides his eggs. The shame! My eldest animal is a dog and as such would accept attention from any pervert. We won't even get into what a slut for attention my pussy is. I'm just saying animal rights are important to me and I've heard allowing people to marry, inherit, adopt, visit, make health care choices, and so forth will lead to all sorts of inhumane activity.
What we are going to do next is redefine marriage so that infertile couples can't get married. Since they can't procreate there would be seed spilling all over the place. Ick! No one wants to see that! Who else can we deny the benefits of marriage based on arbitrary notions of families, partnerships, blah blah blah? This could be fun! I love being the privileged class.
In the past we had the civil rights movement and today we have a president elect who is black. Unfortunately we still have a long way to go for the civil rights of all our citizens before we can truly be a free nation.
Chris O wrote..http://mycatatemybrain.blogspot.com/2008/11/my-daughter-is-super-hero.html" rel="nofollow">My Daughter is a Super Hero