I wish I could take credit for this but I can't. I saw it in the "Letters to the Editor" column of my local newsweekly and thought it was so great I just had to pass it along. Entitled Rare Moment Of Sense it reads as follows:
It's so rare, given the basic tenor or most arguments in politics today, but every once in a while someone says something so remarkable that it's worth noting, without any comment at all. Such a situation took place on March 1 in Annapolis, Maryland, where a hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was taking place.
The far-right was doing its usual best to frighten, anger and intimidate the witnesses who dared disagree with them. Then Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, testified as to why the amendment should not be passed.
At the end of his testimony, one of Maryland's most insane ultra-far-right-wingers, Republican senator Nancy Jacobs, stood up and shouted, "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?" To which Mr. Raskin replied, "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
Remember that line, folks, and use it. It's priceless.
Go ahead mr. burner, take credit for it anyway because you brought it to us here! And yes, it is f'n brilliant.
I am bothered by the lesbian couple in Mass. that are now getting divorced after being the "poster-girls" for gay marriage in that state. The worst thing would be for this to be the start of a trend. (like having babies) Now everyone will want to get divorced. I hope they at least go through the divorce process instead of just "splitting up" like that famous "bodybuilder" couple a few years back who claimed they were married.
TyAn even bigger problem is that the majority of the folks that use the bible to uphold "their" beliefs have never even read it. Which means they are upholding someone else's beliefs. Which makes them liars.
Today a decision should be made regarding gay marriage in New Jersey. It'll be interesting to see what happens, especially in light of the progress that has been made in NJ this past year. Who'd have ever thought that New Joizey would give G/L domestic partner benefits to many municipalities without gays having to fight tooth and nail for them? Except for the fight that was waged last year and early this year by and for Lieutentant Laurel Hester. Her battle for justice helped so many people.
Hopefully, progress will be made today. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
The court decision gives the state legislature 18 months to come up with something, be it marriage, civil unions, or something else. Gov. Jon Corzine, being the typical politician who believes in "cya" has said he believes in the "traditional" definition of marriage, prefers "civil unions" for gay couples but... get this... would not veto gay marriage if that's what the legislature sent up to him. Well, at least that's better than Gov. Arnold who vetoed the first legislation passed in the U.S. that would have allowed gay marriage.
BTW ... and this bothers me on its face, but I'll wait till I actually see it before I comment ... gay activists are already using Lt. Laurel Hester's name to lobby the NJ legislature. I sincerely hope she is not being "used" in the worse sense of that word. We'll see.
Bush Renews Attack On 'Activist Judges' Following N.J. Gay Ruling: The president said the ruling " ... raises doubts about the institution of marriage. I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman ... I believe it's a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.''
I must be missing something in "...a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families ..." . Appears that G.W. forgot to mention the preservation of high lawyers fees, bottlenecked court calanders, and the U.S. "sacred" divorce rates exceeding 50%
Last Edit: Oct 28, 2006 7:25:57 GMT -5 by flblue09
By now most of you have probably heard that Connecticut's Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry. With this posting I'm sharing with BluePride members an email I received from Andy Humm, of GAY USA. There is a link to the text of the CT decision as well as links to info on the anti-gay referenda in AR, AZ, CA and FL
The Supreme Court of Connecticut has just ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Congratulations to our brothers and sisters in Connecticut, which joins Massachusetts and California in recognizing same-sex marriage at the state level. Our federal government continues to deny recognition to legal same-sex marriages.
Here is the PDF link to the full decision by the Connecticut high court:
We will discuss the Connecticut decision on NEXT week's show when our guest will be Alex Dobkin of Old Lesbians Organizing for Change (OLAC). As we noted, this week we are issuing a CODE RED ALERT on the California ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage because it is now leading in the polls. And we continue to urge you to support the efforts to defeat anti-gay ballot measures in Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas. Here is how to get involved:
Here in California, the Proposition 8 battle for gay marriage is still being fought... some say even more vigorously than before the official vote which took away our right to marry - a right which we previously had!
One side says "the people have spoken... get over it." Yet, in a "the times are a-changin" kind of cultural shift, an even larger area of social awareness than the one vital issue of Prop 8 is streaming through our windows in a prism of colors with our daily sunshine.
Appearing following an admittedly friendly San Francisco Chronicle article entitled "Gay is the New Black," in the reader comment section, the writer below presents what appears to me to be a valid statement. As of my writing, the reader approval-disapproval reviews give the comment 48 "thumbs up" to 20 "thumbs down." The writer cites legal support and articulates the case better than I...
... "To the person who wrote a previous comment stating, 'I believe there is now a concerted effort by the gay lobby to stick a finger in the eye of traditional Americans'...
I was almost buying the person's argument until that last sentence, which unmasked the real agenda.
Conservatives simply don't want to see gays in line next to them at the County Clerk getting a marriage license. Reminiscent of back-of-the-bus, separate toilets, not in my neighborhood.
Gays have no interest in harming straights, but Domestic Partnerships in lieu of marriage are 21st century Jim Crow.
The real fight here is not merely the legal rights a contract can convey. Very honestly, marriage is social and institutional approbation, which gays - as much as blacks earlier in our history - are seeking. Those who oppose gay marriage at the very core desire official disapproval of gays as once they openly did blacks in the public sphere. The argument is Plessy v. Ferguson, which enshrined Jim Crow, and Brown v. Board of Education, which eliminated it--nothing less."
The CARE is in the CARING. M.H. - Thanatology / Traumatology - MPH, MS, MS, LSPT, CT, FT, CPE
From what I have been reading, alot of black folk are offended that the gay marriage issue is being compared to the civil rights movement.
Some are offended. It's their problem. To them I say "Get over it!" Denial of civil rights whether for blacks, for women, for gays or for any other minority all have some things in common, some not in common. Those who do not recognize this fact choose NOT to recognize it ... for reasons that have nothing to do with the fight for gay civil rights.