Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Disappointments at Federal Debate on Same-sex Marriage

I am utterly repulsed by the bigotry and hatred being spewed by those pushing for an amendment banning same-sex marriage (and, Senator Brownback, yes, those who oppose same-sex marriage ARE by definition bigots ["bigot - one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ"], and your misuse of this word is probably a violation of the "English only" law for which you voted, and no, President Bush, you CANNOT " treat [every American] with tolerance, respect and dignity" in a debate about denying a class of Americans access to marriage -- the debate ITSELF is intolerant, disrespectful, and a denial of basic human dignity.) Anyone who votes for such a reprehensible act of bigotry and hatred forever loses the ability to get my vote for any office.

But, sadly, as always, I am much more disappointed by our "friends" and "advocates" in this debate. First, I am tired of the "President Bush is doing this to draw attention from the IMPORTANT issues facing this country, blah blah blah". Yes, I understand that he is trying to divert attention from his monumental incompetence and failure. However, same-sex marriage is a very important issue, and to imply or explicitly state that it is not is an insult to every binational couple cruelly separated by our immigration police, every gay or lesbian person refused admittance to the hospital room of their dying lover, every widowed same-sex spouse refused a place at the funeral. Furthermore, I am getting to the point of wanting to vomit everytime I hear one of our "friends" get up to say "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but I oppose this amendment."

TO BE PRO-GAY IS TO SUPPORT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. TO OPPOSE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS ANTI-GAY. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO WOULD DENY US OUR RIGHTS BY A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND THOSE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO WOULD DENY US OUR RIGHTS BY FAILURE TO ACT IS ONE OF DEGREE, NOT KIND!

I will vote for an anti-marriage, but anti-amendment (whether pro-civil union, pro-domestic partnership, or whatever) as the lesser of two evils, but never again will I give a penny to or lift a finger for any candidate who does not publicly and without hesitation support my right to marry the man of my choice. (Nor will a penny of my money ever go in the offering plate of any church that does not perform same-sex marriages, and "holy unions" and "commitment ceremonies" don't count!)

5 comments:

Rev. Thalia said...

I agree with you that the word "marriage" is essential. On my wedding ministry web site, I make it clear that I will use the word "marriage" for same-sex couples (assuming that they want me to)and (with the necessary pronoun changes) use exactly the same wording as I would in a wedding ceremony for a man and woman.

Paul Goings said...

May any three (or more) persons (of whatever sexes) enter into a marital covenant which they believe to be holy, according to the tenets of their faith?

If your answer to this is no, why are you not also a bigot, and what right do you have to impose your rigid views on the many loving polyamorous families of this nation?

Anonymous said...

'["bigot - one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ"]'

or perhaps ...

Bigot: One who redefines marraige to meet his own needs, but would keep the limit set at two because it's what he prefers...

I hope this law that would give you the right to marry the man of your choice will also protect his right to run away.

-Treat

Anonymous said...

"Utterly repulsed", "reprehensible act of bigotry and hatred", "wanting to vomit". You preach the gospel of love by hitting people over the head with it? How's that working for you?

Anonymous said...

This is very interesting site... film editing schools