Gay Marriage & Mass Stupidity
This is a great follow-on to my prior entry about the unbelievable arrogance of the Massachusetts state legislature. This is a piece by Bob Parks, candidate for State Rep in the 2nd Franklin District.
How does it feel to know that the very people you voted for think you’re as dumb as stones? If you didn’t think about that before, maybe now you should.
Hundreds of dumb Bay Staters went around and gathered tens of thousands of signatures to put the gay marriage issue up to us ignoramii to vote on.
On July 12th, our enlightened “lawmakers” on Beacon Hill were supposed to debate whether or not to place that constitutional amendment on the ballot to outlaw same-sex marriage in the only state where it’s now legal, and that, thanks to a well-placed judge. Well, as luck would have it, our legislature decided to delay dealing with the issue until November 9th, two days after the upcoming election.
But then again, we the people in Massachusetts are too dumb to figure out what they’re up to, right?
How would you feel if a group started gathering signatures for a ballot measure that would reduce your legal status? Protecting peoples legal rights should never be left up to a popular vote. That’s why we have the constitution and the courts to enforce that constitution. As for the end of slavery there was a vote. People voted with who they elected into office. Then the courts did not enforce the constitution. So the only other option was war.
If it was up to the peoples popular vote to grant legal rights to specific groups, you would still be considered legally to be “less than” every white Christian.
One last thing.
Just because you are now one of the “haves” instead or the “have not’s” don’t forget that when it’s ok for one groups rights to be taken away, it makes it ok to take your rights away.
Comment by John Newberry — July 14, 2006 @ 10:04 am
Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. And if gay marriage is approved, where does it all stop? When people are marrying their dogs? And what about the push back on churches? Massachusetts has already told the Catholic Church they can’t be in the adoption business because they don’t approve of gay adoptions. Are you next going to push them out of the marriage business?
Comment by sharilee — July 14, 2006 @ 10:51 am
Sharilee, it was the Catholic Church that decided to get out of the adoption business, not the other way around. If the Catholic Church wants to be in the adoption business, it’s more than welcome; the only criteria is that it can’t discriminate.
Comment by Brian — July 14, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
“If it was up to the people’s popular vote to grant legal rights to specific groups…”
I would ask John to remember that on August 26, 1920 that very process was proven to be fair and just as women were given the vote. And by whom I would ask? Men.
Comment by gopnews.blog — July 14, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
Brian, The Catholic Church was forced out of the adoption business because the government tried to tell it what to believe. Isn’t that what started this great country? People running for cover because the government tried to legislate religion? For all the whining the left tends to do about separation of Church and State, why doesn’t it apply when it’s the other way around?
Comment by sharilee — July 14, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
“When people are marrying their dogs?”
Don’t be stupid. Is a dog a person or can a dog sign a marriage license? No.
As for the 1920 women voting. Good one. The people did the correct thing that time. But how long did it take? And one victory does not make anything “proven”. You need to learn some more about how the government is set up. The courts are set up to protect the rights of all groups. The courts would protect your rights if the government tried to make going to a specific church illegal. Isn’t that nice…for you?
And now adoption
Adoption is the responsibility of the government. The Church chooses to help out as they see fit. The can chose to help or not to help. But if the chose to help they are now working FOR the government. Thus they must follow all the rules any other business would have to follow. If the church thought that a black and white couple was unfit to adopt should they be allowed to discriminate against them? I think not.
Just keep YOUR church out of OUR government. That’s the way it has to be. And remember the last time the church ran the government people literally got burned at the stake. And today if you look at the Middle East you see the results of governments being taken over by religion.
If you want a church run government move to Iran they have one waiting for you.
Comment by John Newberry — July 14, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
OK, John. I’ll revised my example. What about a man marrying a young boy? What about a woman marrying 4 men? Our genes are programmed for procreation which is the basis for marriage.
On the issue of adoption, I disagree that it’s just a government function. Churches and their congregations have been filling community needs since their founding. They are only as perfect as the current chiefs, but they have done remarkable work in helping the poor and downtrodden — more than any government group ever has.
The mistaken assumption here is that gays are being denied any rights. They aren’t. If they want to have access to their partners in the hospital, sign a health care proxy. If they want to leave their money to each other, create a will. If they want to adopt children, go to one of the many government agencies that perform that function.
I don’t want a church-run government and I don’t want a government-run church. The two need to exist side by side where people of faith are free to express themselves, just as people without faith are free to express themselves.
Comment by sharilee — July 15, 2006 @ 6:51 am
No one who espouses same-sex marriage ever answers the question, “What is so magical about the number 2?” If any two adults (for now) can marry, why not 3 or 4? Society has always recognized that the family (one man, one woman, x number of children) is the building block of society, until the grand social experimenters came along.
We were told 30 years ago that divorce doesn’t harm children…oops, they lied. Now we’re supposed to go along with another social experiment…I don’t think so.
I used to be a heck more tolerance, dare I say accepting, of gays before Fistgate and same-sex marriage came along.
No more. We’ve had enough.
Comment by Lynne — July 15, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
Marrying a young boy? A child has no ability or right to sign any contract, they are not adults. A woman marring four men, they tried that in Utah. It didn’t work.
About adoption.
If you disagree or agree has no barring on anything. If the church works with the government to help place a child in a safe home they must follow the same rules placed on every other business. That’s it. Now I know that the church isn’t used to following the rules, they are use to making them. But in this case… They are not the boss.
“The mistaken assumption here is that gays are being denied any rights”
You have no idea what you are talking about. Lets just cover the three examples you attempted to use.
1. When YOU have to go out and put together a legal contract just to protect your families rights if you end up in the hospital…. It will be ok for me to have to do the same. But today it’s not. You can be grated this right (among others) with a drive thru wedding in Las Vegas. I would have to hire a lawyer and jump thru hoops other don’t.
Separate but equal never works.
2. “Create a will”. If you die and your house goes to your husband it does just that without any questions. If I die and leave our house to my partner of almost ten years he would be taxed for the entire value of the house. This would not happen to you and your husband.
3. Adoption. See About adoption above.
The government and the church.
“The two need to exist side by side where people of faith are free to express themselves, just as people without faith are free to express themselves.”
Oh please! Your religious groups want the laws to reflect your specific religions belief system. All I want is to be free from religion. All I see is the church trying to legislate its beliefs into my life. Unacceptable.
Lets start legislating some Muslim religion beliefs into the laws. Would that be acceptable to you? What size burca do you need? Or maybe lets turn the clock back and remove the women’s rights. You would not be able to vote or own land. And your husband would be able to kill you if he wanted to and get away with it.
Now the marriage you are talking about is a religious ceremony that legally means nothing. The marriage I am talking about is a legal document issued by the government. If you like it or not they are different and must be treated as such.
If you want to “protect” marriage so much, outlaw divorce.
Once again keep YOUR religion out of OUR government. It’s that simple. If you don’t like that, think about some Muslim beliefs that could affect you and your kids. Then wait till they have the power to legislate your life to fit the Muslim image.
Comment by John Newberry — July 17, 2006 @ 12:50 am
As Lynne stated above, the fundamental problem is that gay marriage is simply the first shot in the larger “gay agenda.” Those advocating for gay marriage don’t want to stop with marriage. The game plan is to use that to then legislate a complete overhaul of America’s sexuality so that anything goes. The “gay agenda” advocates teaching kindergarteners about sex, it advocates the intolerably intrusive sex survey forced on our public school children (see my previous posts on this).
If you haven’t read it yet, read this book, then tell me what you think: “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo_Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom” by David Kupelian.
Comment by sharilee — July 17, 2006 @ 10:59 am
“Those advocating for gay marriage don’t want to stop with marriage.”
Those advocating for gay marriage want the rights of gay marriage. Yes, there are some extremists within that group that wish to go much farther to the point of violating everyone else’s rights with their intrusiveness, but I don’t believe in the act of suppressing the clear and equal rights of a group of citizenry in order to curb the separate objectionable actions of a sub-set of that group of citizenry. Address the sub-set directly on the clear basis of the rights that they are violating.
For comparison…
Some white supremicist groups are categorically assaulting non-white citizens. Answer: Restrict the rights of caucasion citizens to be out in public.
Some extremist Muslims are committing terrorist acts. Answer: Restrict Muslim religious practices in the U.S.
Some Christian activists are trying to suppress the rights of citizenry groups that disagree with their sense of morality. Answer: Restrict the practice of Christianity in the U.S.
Hmm. Nope. Those arguments don’t work either.
Comment by Thogek — August 4, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
Ever notice that in the debate about the role of government, and the Religious Liberty of individuals and groups, those who promote a completely secular society inevitably ask the rhetorical question, as John Newberry did above, “if you want a church run government move to” but when it comes to the move to where, they NEVER offer a Church-run government, they always offer a Mosque-run government.
Comment by JayG — August 5, 2006 @ 7:56 pm