Jun 6, 2006

Republicans: Gays Threaten Marriage! All Others Can Marry Multiple Times, Cheat & Then Divorce!

THIS DESERVES ATTENTION: Most media missed this one, but, hey, that's why you read blogs! Cardinal Theodore McCarrick (Washington DC) said that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and that altering that definition would denigrate society... OK, so what? Well, he had the guts to say that it's the business of the secular state to allow same-sex civil unions! Wow! McCarrick said although it's not his ideal, the government needs to protect the rights of same-sex couples to care for each other or visit each other in a hospital. He said allowing civil unions would protect those rights! [here's the link]

When homosexual persons allowed to marry, all the other traditional marriages will fall apart at an alarming rate! No? If we let the “gays” marry each other then the traditional marriages will be worthless; so, some 50% of those marriages will fall apart and, god knows, how many will be held together not by love but by mere necessity. Marriage—the foundation of society, according to the President—isn’t doing well in these United States of America! Fortunately, this Republican Congress and Mr. Bush are coming to the rescue by proposing a Constitutional Amendment whereas homosexual persons will be allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex only! Nice!
Senator Rick Santorum [R-PA] delivered a passionate speech on the Senate's floor about moral values, riled against sodomy and all the other ..Biblical sins. I’m sure the theocrats were very pleased with Mr. Man-on-dog Santorum. He has often reminded us that if we allow two men to marry, then what would stop a man from marrying his ..dog?!! What would indeed?! I wonder, if those who want to merge our secular laws with religion—and let’s not hide behind the middle finger, they’re talking about Biblical law—are ready to tell us whether they have masturbated, had sex outside their marriage, and, if unmarried, they’ve remained celibate. I would like to see the so-called defenders of marriage resigning their posh seat in the Congress. I presume that all them sinners have already repented so they may not be stoned to death! [though I'm no expert on Biblical punishment]

A hedonist would say, “if it feels good do it!” I guess the theocrats and the political manipulators have something in common with the hedonists, because it may feel good to them to propose constitutional amendments that have nothing to do with reality and fixing a problem. Is marriage really being threatened by the homosexual community that wants same human & civil rights? Or, is marriage threatened by other forces, some of which are of our own creation? The political decisions we’ve made and the social order we’ve established carry many threats to marriage.

People are good and bad, make sound or imprudent decisions, and their character does affect the relationships they establish. But, what we, as a society, do to enhance people’s lives and help the married ones stay together in a healthy and stable family unit? The economic stress is one of the top reasons for divorce. Do we provide health care so the parents can be healthy to raise their children? Do we provide health care to the children so they’ll grow up to be parents themselves one day? How about day care? What kind of a social safety net do we have in our country? I think the answers to these questions reveal a lot about the root of the problem.

There are just too many wingnuts in our country that believe whatever feels good to them regardless of the proximity to reality. Many others fall into what the philosopher Immanuel Kant described as perpetual immaturity because they don’t like to think for themselves and let others tell them what to do. If it weren’t so, the likes of Pat Robertson, Falwell, Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, David Duke, would be in the margins of society, but they are not because they have millions of people behind them.

At any rate, recent polls reveal that, although 58% of Americans are against same-sex marriage (and civil unions), 51% are against a constitutional amendment and prefer to leave the marriage laws to the states. Yet, some 42% think that their marriage will be worthless if homosexual legal unions take place! However, there is a glimmer of sunshine in all of this as the majority of Americans under 30 years old would support a same-sex legal union!

Keep an Eye on those Queer Republicans
I believe that 50 years from now we’ll look back at this issue and as a nation will have the same reaction we have today regarding the racial divisions and the racial segregation of the past, ie. Florida’s state constitution (sadly one of many) that explicitly forbade the marriage between a white person and a negro (4th generation inclusive).

Obviously the issue of same-sex unions isn't a top priority in the agenda of Americans [only 3% see it as a very important issue], but the Republican demagogues feel that their only chance of surving in power is to play the cards of fear, race and thus motivate their very conservative base to come out and vote. This is a wedge issue! The Republican party has controlled all branches of government for the last 6 years and basically it has screwed up royally. They have no excuse for their failures and nothing good to show for. Fear and
confusion are their only hopes. Much of the rest of the country is more concerned about the war, energy costs, health care, federal deficit, terrorism, and education.

People can believe whatever they like, but religious dogma & religious laws should stay out of the secular state. A rational society with concerned and thoughtful people should debate the issues on their merits. A “divinely-inspired law” cannot be part of the public discourse. I mean, Zeus has given me a few a priori laws [and we all know that Zeus is the god of gods] but I prefer to follow those "laws" in my own domain, valuing my own relationships not by what others are doing but by how decent of a person I am!

Editor's Note & Addendum:

UPDATE: The Republicans managed to get only 49 votes in the Senate, but their leadership insists on bringing the failed amendment to the House for a vote! They know they've failed but apparently they think this issue has mileage with their conservative base. They're counting heads...

Louisiana Republican Senator David Vitter said of gay marriage: "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one." In other words, this catastrophy [<-please click on the link] pales in comparison. Yep, isn't rather obvious that most Republicans don't care to aleviate the human condition and truly enhance life--when it matters!


elizabeth said...

You are so right about how we will view this in hind-sight. Many of the legal arguements for gay couples being permitted to adopt stemmed from the overturning of laws that forbade inter-racial couples from adopting... can you imagine?

Andros said...

I think a loving home is better than no home or foster care for the children. When today's under-30 year olds will become the majority in this country, there won't be such a controversy for allowing same-sex couples to adopt kids.

Already there are states and countries that do permit same-sex unions and the social order has not collapsed!

As far as I know, no man has married another man even if he's not gay because he can do so in Massachussetts!

By the way, Massachussetts has the LOWEST divorce rate in the US. And, guess where the higher divorce rates are.... In the Bible-thumber world!

Geeshus said...

Ooooh, now you started with the Bible and religion--my expertise!

I don't know what Zeus tells YOU, but my Bible (the King James version) says that non-virgin brides should be killed, that bad-behaving children should be killed, that a man who has sex with a menstuating woman should be killed, working on the Sabbath should result in death, that though shall not wear clothes of unatural fiber, and that you shall not boil a baby goat (veal?) in its own milk!

keep the questions coming...

Samantha said...

Very interesting point about the lack of a strong safety net in our society. This obviously adds to the stress a family feels.

When Bush says that family is the foundation of this society how does his government help married people exactly? Healthcare? Day care?

Whose burden is this huge national debt? Whose young kids are fighting overseas? Their own amilies had to scrounge to buy them body armor!...

Like the flag-burning amendment, this is a wedge issue and is made to exploit the feelings of the gullible....

Grungie said...

It seems that the Republicans are listening to you! This afternoon, Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) announced on the Senate floor that:
"I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship!" WOW!!!!! Check this PROUD non-homo here

As of now, we're still waiting for Sen. Lindsay Graham to tell us whether he's a homosexual....

Anonymous said...

Here's a funny video, of a taxi-cub conversation about gays, bush, etc.

Tuli said...

Dear Andros:

I am a dissenting voice in that I am opposed to same-sex-marriage, just as I am opposed to different-sex-marriage. I am in favor of civil unions, but only those that are based on individual contractual agreements. Do most folks know that in New York the majority of State Sanctioned civil unions are among heterosexuals, probably not? It was a shock to me, but it is a fact.

I do not believe that the state should define our private relations. Now if someone wants to have a religious confirmation of their relationship, which is marriage, I think they should have that right. But that should not be a legally binding contract; it should be a private religious confirmation, not a contract with the state. Marriage, as it is currently enshrined and in its short history of egalitarianism, is a contract with the state and not between individuals. That is why we have such fuzzy and dysfunctional Domestic Relations Law applications and enforcement in this country.

That said, codifying this DOMA is repugnant and an insult to anyone who believes in Civil Liberties and the U. S. Constitution.

Rant over!

Andros said...


OK, language is very important, so if "marriage" means a religious ceremony, then I agree.... We should NOT force any religious institution to marry anyone who doesn't follow church doctrine.

You go a step forward in that no matter what happens within the church, if a couple wants to be recognized as such they must also do the secular state's ..paperwork regarding a civil union!

But, I am for civil unions, regardless of sexual orientation. As a matter of fact, a few years back I argued that the best way to approach "same-sex marriage" would've been to get the SAME legal rights as the heterosexuals REGARDLESS of the name used to describe such unions.

I believe that if two people want to be together as a couple, so be it. My relationship with my significant other is not affected by how others define their relationship. Further, as everybody knows, this close relationship is also contractual in the eyes of the law/state.

And, traditionally for most of human history, marriage was about property rights! Aahh, the "good ol' days" when women were considered ..chattel!

Thanks for your observations.

Tuli said...


So, I guess we agree. Or am I missing something? Yes, that chattel thing was too recent for me to disregard it. Not to mention the fact that only the aristocracy were allowed to marry for centuries! The whole “Love Thing” is such a recent bourgeoisie concept in the whole marriage legal/religious situation. But, then most folks don’t know history and that is exploited by the exploiters.

Regards as always!