| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/19/2008 11:53:13 AM · #451 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, when's the last time I called my elected representative about anything? That's probably my bad on many fronts.
We all have issues which are near and dear to us. I'm afraid this one is low on my priority list. That's life. My family heritage is 100% Mennonite. Mennonites are pacifists. When is the last time you advocated to have "The right to refuse to kill" added to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? When's the last time you've even thought about it? I'm sure the answer is nearly never and that doesn't bother me in the least. |
I hope I don't come off too defensive here, but you're completely wrong. I strongly believe in and advocate for the right of theose who refuse to kill to not be forced to do so by the government. I am a pacifist, though not by way of any religion. I personlly wish to never kill or be forced to kill. I have written my elected officials on a number of occasions on this very topic, despite never being truly worried about being drafted or used to kill. I've made the government quite clear on my position that registering for the draft should be elminated and we should move to an absolutely and unconditionally volunteer military, even though this has never impacted my life directly apart from registering for (and then destroying) my selective service card.
In fact, I have NEVER hit someone in anger. My 'fighting' technique consists of clinging on to a heavy object and riding things out. Imagine how much fun that must be when three high school rednecks in your drafting class try to pull you away from your desk to beat you up for being a 'fag'. It only makes you that much more pathetic in the eyes of those trying to project their manhood by preying on those weaker than themselves. I only mention this to assure you that my stance on non-violence has been tested, and my actions are indeed aligned with my ideals.
I have even written my government supporting the right of religious groups to set up displays on public and government property, as long as the same accordances are afforded to ALL religious groups who ask for it. Why would I do that? I'm not religious. I celebrate secular holidays like Xmas. I do it because it is what I feel is RIGHT, despite not being directly involved. I do it because I believe the free expression of ideas isn't just for people who think like I do.
That may sound like it's in direct opposition to my request for people to stop debating so much and stick to reality instead of hypotheticals. It's not. My request is just that, a request. If you'd all like to continue playing devil's advocate and endlessly circling around the same hypothetical arguments, be my guest. Just know that for someone who has been the target of such debates for decades, and who has seen the same pointless canards trotted out over and over for public display only when it's convenient to rile up a voting block, it can be very frustrating and upsetting when there are so many non-theorhetical ways in which people could engage this issue. It overwhelmingly feels like we're being used as a tool not for our own sakes, but to further the agenda of others. "What ifs" are no longer good enough in my mind.
DrAchoo, you say it wouldn't bother you in the least if your incorrect assumption about me were true and I did not stand up for issues that don't directly involve me, or to put it another way, are lower on my priority list. Perhaps I am different from you in this regard, but I find your attitude very depressing. In my opinion it is exactly this complacency that allows issues like the one we're discussing here to continue. I truly believe that the world would be a better place for all if everyone felt empowered to participate in their own government and used a little of their time to make their will clear when presented with an issue. We live in amazing times. It is a simple matter to join advocacy groups and have these topics delivered right to your inbox for you to address on a daily basis, with hundreds of other people digging them up for you so you don't have to. Anyone should be able to easily tap into a broad range of topics that concern them. Sure, it still takes time to educate yourself on the issues to avoid thoughtlessly buying in to one side's position over the other, but there is really no excuse for not having your will heard on any issue anymore, when the lowest bar you need to hurdle is a few button clicks.
Edit: I'd like to address my use of the word redneck. Some might call it just as bad as the "poorly educated, rural, conservative whites" calling me a fag. However, I'm not the one beating up other people to act out my beliefs, so I reserve the right to express my disdain using stereotypical shorthand.
Message edited by author 2008-10-21 13:20:01. |
|
|
|
10/19/2008 12:15:05 PM · #452 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The 1996 DOMA seemed to have odd bedfellows. It was passed with wide support (86-14 in the Senate) and signed by Clinton. I'm curious if mousie or whomever above was a "Silent Witness" whether they also advocate for the rights of polygamists as they are likewise discriminated under this act and actually are afforded no rights even under California's Domestic Partnership laws. I've heard a lot of lip service to polygamy here, but who's called their representative to defend these folks? |
I have in fact advocated for the rights of polygamists, but my position on this issue is complex. I personally do not have any problems with someone choosing to share their lives with more than one person, but also feel that thse relationships are geometically more complex than simple pairings and fraught with new dangers, so the responsibility side of any such contract needs to be made that much stronger.
Also, current law covers a contract between two people. That it why it 'works' for gays as well as heterosexuals. If we were to allow legal polygamy, we will need new laws to govern these contracts, since existing marriage law can not cover the range of issues that arise from such groupings. One 'simple' alternative, and the one I favor, is to allow what is today considered bigamy, and instead of having a single contract that describes the relationship in total, separate marriages for each permutation of pairs involved. However, I'll freely admit that this is an end-run around the issues of contract law, and I'm no law expert, so I have no idea if this sort of arrangement is technically workable.
Regarding domestic partnerships, they are not transitive. Marriages are, and mandated as such at a federal level. States agree to recognise marriages performed in other states. If I leave California, I am still married. If I were merely a domestic partner, those rights end when I leave my state. Marriage rights are equal rights, domestic partnerships are not. |
|
|
|
10/19/2008 12:45:20 PM · #453 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
That may sound like it's in direct opposition to my request for people to stop debating so much and stick to reality instead of hypotheticals. It's not. My request is just that, a request. If you'd all like to continue playing devil's advocate and endlessly circling around the same hypothetical arguments, be my guest. Just know that for someone who has been the target of such debates for decades, and who has seen the same pointless canards trotted out over and over for public display only when it's convenient to rile up a voting block, it can be very frustrating and upsetting when there are so many non-theorhetical ways in which people could engage this issue. It overwhelmingly feels like we're being used as a tool not for our own sakes, but to further the agenda of others. "What ifs" are no longer good enough in my mind. |
I guess I'll repsectfully disagree with you about this. It's no good to emplore your elected representatives unless you can also change the hearts and minds of the other people that they represent. They are elected officials and at the end of the day care about being re-elected. It's one of the many flaws of our system, but it's the reality we need to work within.
It may seem like empty debate to you, but to me it's an honest and earnest attempt to pursuade someone of what is right, in the hopes that they will turn around and do the same. |
|
|
|
10/19/2008 02:06:31 PM · #454 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
I guess I'll repsectfully disagree with you about this. It's no good to emplore your elected representatives unless you can also change the hearts and minds of the other people that they represent. They are elected officials and at the end of the day care about being re-elected. It's one of the many flaws of our system, but it's the reality we need to work within.
It may seem like empty debate to you, but to me it's an honest and earnest attempt to pursuade someone of what is right, in the hopes that they will turn around and do the same. |
I have no problem with debate. If I did, I would not be here. What I take issue with is the sort of debate we've seen over the last day, a big old "what if" about the right of brothers to marry. That is not a discussion of real issues, or my issue. It is a diversion. It does not further the debate.
I would LOVE for this debate to continue. I just want people to try to stick to what is, not what ifs. How does existing law effect real people today? What is the real harm to religion, today? Massachusetts has had legal gay marriage for years now. There should be PLENTY of fodder for informed debate based on analysis of the actual results of this legal decision. Case in point, the appearance of "King and King" in a school library. Where's the debate about the difference between 'teaching' and 'making available in a school library'? Why don't I see anyone discussing whether it was the legalization of gay marriages that actually got that book onto the shelves, or merely the existence of gays in society, married or not? In my opinion, gay (or gay-friendly) teachers and parents have much more to do with that than leagalizing gay marriage itself.
Where's the debate about the woman who refused to shoot a gay wedding in violation of state business law? In my mind, she's not operating as an individual, but as the business she created when she signed a contract to gain the state's permission to operate, and that's where the issue lies. These sorts of things can be readily discussed, but people don't seem want to get into details, they want to lob huge, shocking, hypothetical bombs at each other for visceral effect.
You can debate many things. We could debate what to do about the things we like and don't like just as easily as we can debate why we like and don't like them. Again, I'm not calling for the end of discussion, but for the end of a style of discussion that is inherently insulting and invalidating for a whole class of people. I know I'm treading on thin ice here, but I was never trained in debate, so let me try to clarify.
I see a real difference between comparing homosexuals to incestuous brothers versus calling out religion on it's history of violence against peoples they do not agree with. The difference in my mind is that the former discusses a hypothetical, and the latter discusses hitorical fact. They both might be inflammatory and insulting to a class of people, but I am not an incestous sibling, and religions have behaved poorly for millennia. One attempts to paint an ugly picture with an unfair comparison, the other does not. I personally bring up religious violence when I engage in these debates, but it's always an attempt to show, specifically, why I feel I need the protections that marriage provides, and why I feel that certain classes, including homosexuals and even some non-Christian religions, need to be elevated to a protected class when the majority thinks poorly of them. There is real history informing my opinions. THAT is the sort of stuff I want to see debated.
Another fantastic topic for research and debate: The true history of marriage, and how marriage is viewed globally in different cultures. For example, how marriage evolved from societal bonding via the trading off of family members to cement power and property agreements to today's romatically driven pairings, at least in Western cultures. Start with informed discussion about its legal history, how these changes have effected society as they occur, and ONLY THEN use this information to try and predict the outcomes of current changes in law and culture. I feel like most religious folks are woefully misinformed about where the origins of their so-called traditions truly lie, and that the best way to change opinion is not to project hypotheticals, but to come to concensus on what has hapened before, since many of people's biases are based on their impressions of the past, NOT the future.
Likewise, I LOVE it when people mention that some churches DO perform gay weddings, but rarely do I hear that concept thorougly investigated in terms of the government's establishment of religion by codifying the views of particular churches while ignoring that others may differ.
Perhaps I overstated my case when I asked to hear about what people will do to bring their vision to reality, and for that I apologise. Unfortunately, overreactions are sometimes what you get when a person feels like the world won't be happy until they simply don't exist in any meaningful sense.
Finally, I've like to pointedly remind everyone just how wonderful it is having my relationship compared to an incestuous one. It ranks right up there with felons, pedophilia, and animal rape. This has indeed been a parade of horribles.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2008 02:15:38 PM · #455 |
To be completely candid and undermine myself a bit here, one huge reason I would like the debate to focus on the things I've suggested (and avoid hypotheticals) is that I truly beleive this gives my side an advantage. I feel that history, the real, researched history of humanity (and not the history many people are taught) is on my side. I guess the cat's out of the bag!
It's not just disgust, it's tactical. Sue me! |
|
|
|
10/19/2008 04:22:44 PM · #456 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
To be completely candid and undermine myself a bit here, one huge reason I would like the debate to focus on the things I've suggested (and avoid hypotheticals) is that I truly beleive this gives my side an advantage. I feel that history, the real, researched history of humanity (and not the history many people are taught) is on my side. I guess the cat's out of the bag!
It's not just disgust, it's tactical. Sue me! |
To tell you the truth, I sort of wonder the same thing.
I have spoken of some genuine work I've done, as has my church, my daughter has been assaulted for our beliefs, I've offered up links to actual groups that ARE doing work in this area, and have pretty much been categorically ignored as far as any response whatsoever......including mentioning what was the crux of the original issue....can gay couples ever hope to get married legally, religiously, and in the eyes of the goobermint?
Don't get me wrong, I don't need any validation here, I get it any time someone encounters me at a rally and either spits on me for being a fag-lover, or a festival attendee looks me in the eye and tells me that they're grateful for my efforts.
My church has really opened my eyes to a plight of friends of mine, whom I've know for years and never had a clue about the inequities simply because they never complained, and I didn't know.
Now I do......so I act accordingly, and have found what a stupid, uphill battle it is.
Dealing with people like Michael Marcavage and his Repent America crew is just f*ckin' scary. Some of the street preachers that protest gay events are just raving lunatics, but this guy is lucid, he's a lawyer, he's intelligent and educated, and he's just the worst nightmare come true for gay rights because he knows inside and out how to work the system.
If you really believe that it's an equal rights issue, and about non-discrimination, then answer the call to do the right thing, and DO write your congressman, DO go to a gay event, and stand up for the belief that ALL citizens have the right to be married to one another. I'm betting that Pennsylvania is not the only state that has advocacy groups, and there are never enough people.
I'd be curious to know if the people engaged here in debate stand up for their beliefs with action.
Do something because it's right......the heck with what anyone says, just do it.
Message edited by author 2008-10-19 16:27:23.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2008 05:18:38 PM · #457 |
I've read through bits and pieces over this and it hasn't gotten anywhere past where we started from some 10-12 pages ago. But some new topics came up. For your reading pleasure:
on incest
on the Supreme Court banning the criminalization of interracial marriage in 1967
on marriage in general
for those wanting colonial marriage information, here's something
"In Colonial America, hand-fast marriages (Handfasting) were allowed in several of the Colonies. These marriages were not done in church; instead there were public verbal commitments made between the man and the woman, and then they consummated it by having sexual relations. If the woman did not become pregnant within one year, the marriage was considered annulled. If she did become pregnant, the relationship would automatically become a fully-recognized marriage. "
more colonial marriage information
about marriage licenses
about why Christians shouldn't get a state license to marry
Honestly, One side will never agree with the other and this won't change for a while. Of course, we can keep on trying. It took about 45 years to get the racist marriage policies off the books; it might take a few to get the sexist ones off too. |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 11:41:18 AM · #458 |
And I forgot to mention... I'm now married in both the eyes of the law and in the hearts of our new family!
It was such a trip seeing my cousin's kid dancing with my husband's sister and thinking "Oh wow... they're related! And we did that!" And hearing my mom leave the message "Hello Eric, this is your mom..." on his cell phone... amazing!!!
I'm still in a daze. :)
Pictures soon! |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 12:07:29 PM · #459 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
And I forgot to mention... I'm now married in both the eyes of the law and in the hearts of our new family!
It was such a trip seeing my cousin's kid dancing with my husband's sister and thinking "Oh wow... they're related! And we did that!" And hearing my mom leave the message "Hello Eric, this is your mom..." on his cell phone... amazing!!!
I'm still in a daze. :)
Pictures soon! |
Congratulations! |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 12:08:15 PM · #460 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
And I forgot to mention... I'm now married in both the eyes of the law and in the hearts of our new family!
It was such a trip seeing my cousin's kid dancing with my husband's sister and thinking "Oh wow... they're related! And we did that!" And hearing my mom leave the message "Hello Eric, this is your mom..." on his cell phone... amazing!!!
I'm still in a daze. :)
Pictures soon! |
...you forgot to mention!!!!
Awww,  Mousie, I was wondering when you were going to get around to announcing your family celebration of your wedding. Well, double congratulations to you both.
Oh, yes. Pictures please, soon!
:-)) |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 12:14:29 PM · #461 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
And I forgot to mention... I'm now married in both the eyes of the law and in the hearts of our new family!
It was such a trip seeing my cousin's kid dancing with my husband's sister and thinking "Oh wow... they're related! And we did that!" And hearing my mom leave the message "Hello Eric, this is your mom..." on his cell phone... amazing!!!
I'm still in a daze. :)
Pictures soon! |
WOO HOO!!! Congrats! |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 12:39:55 PM · #462 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
And I forgot to mention... I'm now married in both the eyes of the law and in the hearts of our new family!
It was such a trip seeing my cousin's kid dancing with my husband's sister and thinking "Oh wow... they're related! And we did that!" And hearing my mom leave the message "Hello Eric, this is your mom..." on his cell phone... amazing!!!
I'm still in a daze. :)
Pictures soon! |
Congrats! Any honeymoon plans? |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 01:17:41 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
And I forgot to mention... I'm now married in both the eyes of the law and in the hearts of our new family!
It was such a trip seeing my cousin's kid dancing with my husband's sister and thinking "Oh wow... they're related! And we did that!" And hearing my mom leave the message "Hello Eric, this is your mom..." on his cell phone... amazing!!!
I'm still in a daze. :)
Pictures soon! |
Congratulations!! I wish you both a happy lifetime together! |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 02:21:39 PM · #464 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Mousie:
And I forgot to mention... I'm now married in both the eyes of the law and in the hearts of our new family!
It was such a trip seeing my cousin's kid dancing with my husband's sister and thinking "Oh wow... they're related! And we did that!" And hearing my mom leave the message "Hello Eric, this is your mom..." on his cell phone... amazing!!!
I'm still in a daze. :)
Pictures soon! |
Congrats! Any honeymoon plans? |
Are you kidding??? We only had three months to plan the wedding before the Nov. vote, let alone a honeymoon! NOW we can start thinking what to do after the fact. For now we're just lazing around the house. :)
Thanks everyone! I really mean it! |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 02:34:25 PM · #465 |
Mousie, about bloody time! :D
I congratulated you a week early because you got me all confuzzled with one of your posts that sounded like it was LAST Friday, but I guess I have some spare congrats left for this week ;)
I truly am so very happy for you and Eric, and I wish for you a true marriage in EVERY sense. :) |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 02:42:13 PM · #466 |
| Well while you're lazing around the house, upload some pics somewhere, would ya? And congrats!! I was wondering if we'd ever get around the rhetoric to the good stuff. :-) |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 02:49:15 PM · #467 |
| It's wonderful to have a gay marriage thread with an actual marriage in it. Congratulations! |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 03:06:18 PM · #468 |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 03:09:04 PM · #469 |
| Cheers! I hope you have a wonderful life together! |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 03:44:24 PM · #470 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Mousie, about bloody time! :D
I congratulated you a week early because you got me all confuzzled with one of your posts that sounded like it was LAST Friday, but I guess I have some spare congrats left for this week ;)
I truly am so very happy for you and Eric, and I wish for you a true marriage in EVERY sense. :) |
Same here.
Congratulations to you two. Hope it went as you planned and I wish it lasts forever and ever. :D |
|
|
|
10/20/2008 03:48:36 PM · #471 |
Congrats, Mousie! If y'all want to visit P'town for a honeymoon, I got a guest room here on the Cape :-)
R. |
|
|
|
10/21/2008 10:26:57 AM · #472 |
I don't have the professional pictures yet, but I've turned my mom into a camera junkie (yay!) so she took some of her own. I'll be sticking them both up on Flickr (linked from the photos) over the next week or so. Feel free to add me as a contact if you'd like to follow along! :)
Here it is folks! This is what they want to take away from Eric, me, and all 61 of the people who celebrated our wedding with us. Look at the face on my new aunt Erika, who officiated for us, and for whom I owe a lifetime debt of gratitude. Think of the joyous tears my weepy dad and brother shed all night. Remember that it's not just about a gay couple, but about two families becoming one.
It's about love and respect as much as it is about legal responsibilities and protections.
So respect my new family, no matter what your church may think about me personally. It's not just about us anymore. It's about them too.
Please don't let us down.
|
|
|
|
10/21/2008 11:03:00 AM · #473 |
^^^^^^^^^^^ .wow.
Congratulations to you both, Mousie!! May you have a terrificly long life together. |
|
|
|
10/21/2008 11:06:42 AM · #474 |
| Congratulations to you both! |
|
|
|
10/21/2008 12:39:57 PM · #475 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Remember that it's not just about a gay couple, but about two families becoming one. |
Gee....
I wonder if all the people who oppose the idea ever thought of this.
If the two families are okay with the couple, who are strangers to object? |
|
