Say Anything Blog

Schwarzenegger said he would leave the contentious issue of same-sex marriage to voters and the courts
. . .
“a constitutional issue,”

I thought these were the more interesting portions of his press release.

People who hate the idea of equal rights often use “gay marriage will lead to polygamy/bestiality/incest/dogs and cats living together/insert Pat Robertsons worse nightmare here” argument.

Of course, those who fought tooth-and-nail against legal interracial marriages 50 years ago used the EXACT SAME arguments and tactics. They were wrong then---and they’re wrong now.

People in same-sex relationships are denied legal benefits including inheritance, social security, adoption rights, hospital visitation, immigration rights and shared medical insurance. In fact, according to the bipartisan Government Accounting Office, there are 1,049 specific benefits, rights, and privileges unavailable to GLBT Americans for absolutely no other reason than they are GLBT Americans.

Either you support equal rights for ALL Americans, or you don’t.

I do. You don’t. Hiostory will judge us both accordingly.

In order to really understand this issue, you should read this book.

In fact, according to the bipartisan Government Accounting Office, there are 1,049 specific benefits, rights, and privileges unavailable to GLBT Americans for absolutely no other reason than they are GLBT Americans.

Opponents claim that gay people can get those same benefits through other means, such as power of attorney, contracts, etc.  I have yet to hear them answer the question, though, that if all of these benefits are already available to gay people, then how can there be an objection to creating a master agreement that covers all of them?

Ever heard of the law of unintended consequences?

Yes; the unintended consequence of straight marriage is that gay people want to get married too.  That is, after all, where the slippery slope begins.

I don’t think the consequences are unintended, for one.  The slippery slope begins where you knock out one of the requirements for marriage, that is, a man and a woman.  Then the other requirements, like not being too closely related, only two spouses to a marriage, not animals, etc. are also called into question.  Maybe PETA would like animals to be given the same “rights” as humans, so that they should be able to be married also, not only to each other, but to humans as well.  It’s OK to have requirements for things, in fact, the requirements usually define what the thing is.  Marriage is no exception.

1) Some, but nowhere near all, of these benefits, rights, and privileges are available through other means.

2) Those other means involve hundreds of man-hours and tens of thousands of dollars to obtain.

I’m not familiar with the laws of California and can only assume that what these legislators tried to do was technically legal, but from an ethical point of view it is a borderline act of tyranny for these arrogant legislators to try and overturn the referendum.

I posted a bit ago explaining what happened here…

When Prop. 22 was passed, it altered the section of the Family Code that dealt with marriages being recognized from other states. Through poor writing or forgetfulness or something of the like, they forgot to also edit the section of the Family Code that dealt with marriages created within the state. In other words, I think this legislation would make it so that same-sex unions would NOT be recognized from other states but WOULD be recognized if they remarried in California.

Apparently, the argument that so-called gay marriage is just the first step down a slippery slope.  The recent civil union threesome in the Netherlands, I believe, is the first blip on the radar screen.  Through the “rights” smokescreen(a typical liberal tactic), one can see the real goal: deconstructing Western culture through the destruction of marriage.  This is just the beginning, if the Leftists have their way.

Opponents claim that gay people can get those same benefits through other means, such as power of attorney, contracts, etc. I have yet to hear them answer the question, though, that if all of these benefits are already available to gay people, then how can there be an objection to creating a master agreement that covers all of them?

Ever heard of the law of unintended consequences?

And BTW, I tend to favor gays getting married if only because I don’t buy the argument that allowing them to get married would result in the destruction of western culture. I’d much rather have a child raised in a home with two lesbian or gay parents than one be raised in a home where either spouse is cheating on the other.

But you can’t just snap your fingers and write up a law that legalizes gay marriage without considering the impact it could have on polygamists or people who want to marry their pets.

And on the flip side, MI, you could argue that if gays are wanting to get married so they could have the same benefits as married couples, why can’t they accept the compromise of Civil Unions?

You get all the benefits you want without having to worry about that damned law of unintended consequences.

And on the flip side, MI, you could argue that if gays are wanting to get married so they could have the same benefits as married couples, why can’t they accept the compromise of Civil Unions?

If it were truly a compromise, then all couples, straight and gay, would get civil union licenses.

Through the “rights” smokescreen(a typical liberal tactic), one can see the real goal: deconstructing Western culture through the destruction of marriage. This is just the beginning, if the Leftists have their way.

I never thought I’d say this to anybody, but you smoke entirely too much reefer.

The slippery slope begins where you knock out one of the requirements for marriage, that is, a man and a woman.

No, I’m with modern instances. The slippery slope began when the government created the institution of marriage

MMMMM, man-on-falafel . . .

No reefer here, just the facts.

The government didn’t create the institution of marriage; people did.

Governments, of course, consist solely of extraterrestrial humanoids.

Further, the U.S. government SANCTIONS “straight marriage”; in the terms of tax cuts and such. THAT started the slippy slope that would eventually lead to bestial marriages and man-on-falafel unions.

The government didn’t create the institution of marriage; people did.

Then what is government doing sticking its big nose in it?

in order to create alliances between tribes or families.

Gay marriage would accomplish this.

I’m straight and married, but have no intention of having children; why should I be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage but a gay couple who is in the same position (no kids) is ineligible? 

Better yet, if the purpose of marriage is to legitimize children, why shouldn’t a gay couple who has kids have access to the same benefits afforded to straight parents?  If marriage provides certain protections to children, why should the children of gay people be afforded those same protections?

The government didn’t create the institution of marriage; people did. It was created a long time ago for several specific purposes, that is, the legitimization of children and the acknowledgment of the responsibility for their upbringing, and in order to create alliances between tribes or families.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, bob, but straight couples can be childless. And gay couples can raise great kids.

Leaving aside the distasteful practice of telling ANY child that he or she is not legitimate, your logic is completely circular---

“Marriage was created to legitimize children, which are children born outside of marriage, which was created to legitimize children, which are children born outside of marriage...” and ‘round and ‘round we go!

The government didn’t create the institution of marriage; people did. It was created a long time ago for several specific purposes, that is, the legitimization of children and the acknowledgment of the responsibility for their upbringing, and in order to create alliances between tribes or families.
So-called gay marriage does none of those things, which are necessary in maintaining the fabric of society.

Don: I didn’t say that having children was mandatory, so that point isn’t relevant. Of course, the marriage comes first, then the children. I thought you might know that.  If the marriage takes place after the children, then, by definition, they would be illegitimate.  Simple logic, not circular.

MI:  Government adopted what was already in existence before big central governments came into being.  Marriage is a pretty primary human activity.
So-called gay marriage doesn’t accomplish alliances between families and tribes.  It tends to be divisive.
It’s not the only reason for marriage, children aren’t mandatory.  Throughout history, people tend to get together, and the heterosexual ones tend to have children.  Marriage is a way of celebrating this normal human activity.  Gays are probably less than 5% of the population, so they aren’t a big factor in this part of the deal.  Also, the alliance thing and the children thing are related.  Here’s how it works:  a man from one family and a woman from another family get married and have children.  This creates a relationship between the two families, because of the grandchildren.  Gay couples can’t produce their own children, so this type of relationship wouldn’t exist. Adoption doesn’t create a blood relationship. In the old days, of course, this was mostly about land, but such is the fabric of society. 

Dave:  Not all governments are people-centered.  Most of them are run by some sort of ruling class, which usually behaves like extraterrestrial humanoids.  Good point.

Throughout history, people tend to get together, and the heterosexual ones tend to have children. Marriage is a way of celebrating this normal human activity.

Homosexuals tend to “get together” as well, and for them it is a normal human activity.

Gay couples can’t produce their own children, so this type of relationship wouldn’t exist. Adoption doesn’t create a blood relationship.

How does this address the fact that gay people do raise children, and that those children deserve the same protections that marriage brings to straight families?

MI:  I didn’t say it wan’t natural for homosexuals to get together, nor did I imply it in any way.  It just isn’t marriage, for the previously stated reasons.
This is a backward argument.  If a gay couple has chosen to have children, either through adoption or the turkey baster, then the rest of us are obligated to be responsible for their actions.  Their protection would be to not take on children in the first place, or to provide for the child in light of current conditions.

Gay people can avail themselves of every single marriage right as any other american citizen — sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

Have you thought of an answer to my question yet?

If this is really about right, then I have a solution.  The gay couple wanting to get married signs up as husband and wife.  It’s a lifetime commitment, to be either a husband or a wife, and they will have the same rights, then, as any other husband and wife.  Then it’s a marriage for real.  What do you think?

Gay people can avail themselves of every single marriage right as any other american citizen—sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.  Men are still men, women are still women, and children and family are the natural result.  There is no other way.

MI: How does this address the fact that gay people do raise children, and that those children deserve the same protections that marriage brings to straight families?

These children have, and deserve, their own mother AND fathers—or as close as can be provided when that would be impossible.  So who is denying these children the same rights and protections?  The adults who choose to deny them a mother or a father, because of their own sexist bias. 

They’ll get little sympathy from me—equality is right there in front of them, yet they refuse to embrace it, and allow their kids to suffer.  As if sexual orientation has anything to do with the matter.

MI:  The answer to your question is that the gay parents are responsible for any reduced protection, not all the rest of us.  Their choice, their consequence.

Speaking of parental responsibility, this will warm your heart.

Yep, insanity knows no bounds.

So you still can’t answer my question?  It’s been, what, a few months now, and you still haven’t come up with a response?

Speaking of parental responsibility, this will warm your heart.

Ew, that’s right in my back yard...like 20 minutes away from me.

Followed the link; that’s definitely child abuse, dude!  Where is CPS when they are really needed?

Speaking of parental responsibility, this will warm your heart.

What question was that, MI?  You mean this one?

How does this address the fact that gay people do raise children, and that those children deserve the same protections that marriage brings to straight families?

Well, seeing as how the parents of these kids are not married, it doesn’t address it at all.  Which is the same as any “straight families” that choose not to marry.

Sphagnum, do a good deed and call Social Services.

Little late for that now…

5 days?  that’s not too late.  Besides, you’ve got a news article listing both fathers names, and photographic evidence that these children are being exposed to obscenities.  Make the phone call—you’ve got nothing to lose—but these kids sure as heck do.

Check me if I’m wrong Sandy

Any man can marry any woman (provided they aren’t brother and sister etc) if they both are willing to.

Don Myers said, Either you support equal rights for ALL Americans, or you don’t.

There are equal rights now in regards to the marriage issue.

I do. You don’t. Hiostory will judge us both accordingly.

History will record that a some people came forth to change a millenia old definition and then threw a hissy fit that they were questioned.

Speaking of parental responsibility, this will warm your heart.

It will be interesting to see how these kids turn out.  I give em 100 to 1 odds against having a “normal” life.

I think the real question about so-called gay marriage is:  Why do it?  Can anyone say that it benefits the vast majority of those who aren’t gay?  The burden of proof is on those who want to change the definition of marriage.  I also don’t think it’s really a civil rights issue.  There are very few, if any, heterosexuals who will talk about a right to marry.  To us, it might be a duty or a responsibility, but not a right.  I wonder what percentage of the gay population wants to get married.  We are talking about a very small tail that wants to wag a very large dog for its own amusement or whatever.  It’s a very small special interest group.

Thats a good bit of perspective, robert108.  As if anyone were preventing gay people from marrying anyway, anymore than straights are prevented from marrying.  You are correct to sense an underlying motive that is more anti-marriage than pro… There are two distinct visions of marriage waging battle here, and by definition, one must prevail while the other must be destroyed.  We traditionalists have been on the defensive—and losing ground—for a long long time.

Seth, you are far too generous. 100 to 1???  Two little blonde twin girls with no mother (their mother was rented out like an illegal-immigrant housemaid, to do a job and then leave forever) growing up in the Castro district of San Francisco (that’s ground zero of the AIDS epidemic, and a mecca for sodomites, for the uninformed), under the care of two men who don’t really like girls all that much, but have a certain weakness for hard men in tiny bits of leather.  And as if that weren;t enough, at least one of her dads is a psychiatrist.

Please pray for those poor little girls.  Courtney Love is starting to look like Debbie Boone, by comparison to the challenges they face…

You know, when I first read that story, I thought it was in the City of Folsom, not on Folsom St. in San Francisco.  I was rather confused because i was amazed that I had not heard of so many freaks gathering in Folsom in any of the local news.  But if it happened in SF, that makes more sense.  And that’s not 20 mins away, its over 2 hours…

Makes me feel much better now.

Ah, I see, Sphagnum. Just this past summer I visited the town of Folsom (I have family there), and.... well, it didn’t seem like THAT kind of town.

Thurmond and their ilk were not just racists but fools for not realizing they were going to be left in history’s dustbin. Schwarzenegger is making the same mistake, and kudos to Angelides for being unafraid to point this out.” [IMG] Conservative Say Anything writes, “the larger issue here is not whether or not the bill is necessary or effective but rather the fact that California’s elected legislators attempted to pass a law that was clearly in direct conflict with the interests of their constituents.”

Who are we to judge others for their beliefs. Gay people should have he same rights as others, including the right to be happy and enjoy life. if they’ry not harming anyone else, then why do so many oppose them??

No one has the right to be happy or enjoy life.

What Dave meant to say is that everyone can be happy and enjoy life, no matter what sexual orientation you are, even if you’re gay.  No one is stopping you!  Go! Be happy!  Enjoy life!