What is WRONG with these fucking loonies? Are they familiar with the First Amendment? Did they miss the Civics class in which the separation of church from state was discussed? Did they suffer a fucking brain dislocation? For umpteen million fucking time! What God and the Bible say, or how you interpret what God and the Bible say, has jack shit to do with the law of the land! Is that a DIFFICULT concept to grasp? You CAN. NOT. argue against SSM on the grounds of religion! It is purely a legal and secular question. If you don’t like it, you’ll have to deal with it. Loving Biblical truth my ass; there are few things more hateful, more disrepectful of the intelligence and spiritual fulfillment of your fellow human being, than this sanctimonious “for your own good” bullshit! It’s not your problem.
Speaker of the House (MA state legislature) Thomas Finneran has also earned my ire:
Mr. Finneran, you are an arsehole, plain and simple. You clearly have no respect for the establishment of law in this state except as it serves your own purposes. Fuck you.
In an ironic twist, I find myself disgusted with the Democratic Speaker, and respecting our Republican Governer, whom I would just as soon not have in the Statehouse, otherwise. We may disagree on the issue, but at least Governor Romney has the integrity to commit to the law as it will stand on May 17. That means something to me, and I will remember it.
Look. “Protection of marriage” is simply a way of acknowledging that marriage in this country has never been interpreted to mean anything but a man and a woman. As such, people are threatened by what they see as the redefinition of the word.
It is for that reason that I would like to see a “civil union” type of thing with all the rights of married people, let people get used to that, and then press for the “marriage” title.
Baby steps here, guys. This is a gigantic change for people to swallow. First, get what you can to benefit yourselves. Then, go for what you want. The alternative is alienating the very people you need to help you get what you want, and then you have nothing to show for it. And that would be the suckiest bunch of suck that ever sucked.
I understand your position on that question - that’s not what my rant (probably weak, I admit) is really about, despite that first bit. Mostly, I’m incensed at the idiots carrying the biblical quotes and scriptural convictions for their position. It’s not an appropriate argument to make to a civil institution, and it outrages me that so many legislators feel that it is appropriate. I don’t mind it so much if people try to make a pure, non-religious morality debate out of it, or if they take the “tradition” stance. Those are positions that can be easily shot down with logic anyway. But you can’t argue with someone hiding behind a Bible (one more good reason for the 1st, IMO). That’s what bothers me.
The religious aspect is pretty much unavoidable. As much as law has tried to make the distinction between religion and government, the fact remains that the people in government are predominantly religious. Therefore, it’s virtually impossible to separate the two since religion has a dramatic effect on one’s worldview.
It’s because of that that morality laws are passed without even the merest mention of religion yet are clearly guided by religious beliefs.
Still, there’s a difference between a legislator being influenced by his religious upbringings, and a someone standing in a street with a placard explicitly demanding that her religious views be considered secular law simply because her views are religious in nature.
Quote:
“*No Hatred. Just loving biblical truth,” read posters held by some of the opponents of gay marriage who gathered on the Statehouse steps.
…
“Unfortunately, they believe we don’t like them,” said Maria Reyes, 51, of Boston, an elementary school teacher who came to support a same-sex marriage ban with the Hispanic Baptist Church in Boston. “That’s not the issue here. We need to obey God’s will.” *
“Yeah. It’s not that we don’t like them. It’s just that we don’t see the need to allow them the rights of, you know, *real * people…”
Actually, it’s more along the lines of “Y’know, we like you folks and sympathize with you, but we have to obey that mean old God, so don’t blame us for trying to restrict your lives. Blame God.”
I never understood why this is ironic - you’re not the only one saying it. Sure this place is predominantly Democrat but those are the same people filling the church pews and parroting the church stance. We’re not bussing them in from the Bible Belt on Sundays.
I live next door to a fundy baptist church. They don’t seem to put any signs up proclaiming their view of politics… maybe they literally read the whole issue where they’re supposed to obey the state, not make a Christian state. I guess Muslims and [these] Christians have that in common. Maybe we can all get along.
Men and women will still be able to get married. There’s nothing to protect.
Also, Grelby, I think people are talking big right now. Maybe the amendment proposed will make it so far as to even come to the streets. By that time, homosexuals will have been married for like two years. I don’t think the public will stand for removing people’s rights like that in 2006. Unless there is a federal constitutional amendment, IMO gays will be able to marry here come hell or high water. Good.
As a gay man who is fairly ardent on this issue, I agree that this would be a good process through which to achieve equality. That’s why i don’t find the “no marriage, but civil unions” amendment in Massachusetts all that bothersome.
But, of course, Bush’s amendment would bar civil unions, too.
Even this amendment isn’t final. It has to go through another vote by the next legislature, and then go to the people in 2006. By then, barring an extension of their self-imposed stay by the SJC, gay marriage (not just civil unions) will have been a fact for a couple of years in MA, and the sky is probably not going to fall. A vote against it then would be, and look like, an actual step backward and I’d bet it fails. Even if it doesn’t, civil unions with full rights is now already established as the minimum institution for gays, as of May 17 if not sooner. There’s no need to simply settle for it. The threat of continuing full discrimination is now gone - the people against even civil unions came to recognize that this amendment is the best they can get.