< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://www.manifestcontent.net/" /> Manifest Content .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Side of M@


M@'s Links of Interest
  • Fark
  • Universe Today
  • NRO
  • The Onion
  • Warring Factions
  • Opinion Duel
  • Deviant Art
  • Communists4Kerry
  • Hitchens Web
  • Cagle's Cartoons
  • Word Detective
  • Victor Davis Hanson
  • RatherBiased
  • RatherGate

  • Other Things M@ Likes

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    M@'s Blogs of Note
  • The God of Typing
  • Michelle Malkin
  • Junkyard Blog
  • Instapundit
  • Punditchick
  • Evan Coyne Maloney
  • Protein Wisdom

  • M@ has a Blogroll

    July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2005

    "The slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts" ~ George Orwell

    "An effective way to deal with predators is to taste terrible." ~ Unknown

    Listed on BlogShares

    Wednesday, September 22, 2004

    he thanks god

    this is something. what, i'm not sure. he's your bush. not mine. never mine. just keep that in mind, m@.

    and i'm pretty sure god can pronounce abomination correctly. and also, it looks to me from watching the video in the link that god is about two blinks of his eyelash away from striking mr. holier-than-thou-perpetual-foot-in-mouth disease dead with a heartattack, based on his labored breathing. :/

    posted by kimberley at 1:20 PM   16 comments links to this post


    At 3:57 PM, Blogger M@ said...

    Oh come on now, this has nothing to do with Bush. Don't even act like this guy is in the news for any other reason than that he said something incredibly stupid.

    As a regular person I think his comments are wrong and stupid on many levels. As a conservative, I feel exactly the same way. To me the issue of gay marriage has nothing to do at all with hate of gays or anything fundamentally wrong with gay people. I get riled up when people point to a fully outed MORON to characterize the argument.

    That's like saying Michael Moore is the spokesman for the anti-war movement. There *are* rational and good people who might agree with him in principle, but they sure wish he wasn't the guy holding the microphone. And the people I'm talking about don't necessarily have to have the same reasons that Moore gives to back up the principle that is agreed on.

    The kooks *should* be held up with ridicule when they do kooky shit. To me this is nothing more than exactly that. Leave my Bush out of it, please :P


    At 4:00 PM, Blogger M@ said...

    BTW, yeah I watched the video too and thought "Is God about to strike this man down?". I was kinda hoping, even though it would have hurt my "Even if there is a God, what the hell does he care?" position.

    At 8:07 AM, Blogger kimberley said...

    he thanks GOD that president bush has declared that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. why has bush declared marriage a sacred instution between a man and a woman? where does bush get off? who died and made it his right to declare anything sacred? hetero couples do a pretty bang up job defiling the sanctity of marriage on their own. something swaggart himself is a monument to given his conduct with various and myriad prostitutes & whores...but i guess that's okay because they were all women and he's all man. i call bullshit. bush and his "man and woman only" rhetoric gives license and credibility to crackpots like this simply because he's in office. he should use his power for good, not unabashed evil.

    At 2:15 PM, Blogger M@ said...

    Well remind me again how the government started marriage and that it's always only been a secularly defined thing that *would* have been open to gays all along if only the church hadn't patented it...

    To say that Bush is unabashedly evil is to skip over a lot of the meat of this debate. Am *I* unabashedly evil? I am happy to joke and laugh about what a boob Swaggart is, and if you think Bush is too I'll argue that he isn't. But now I'm unfairly in the position of arguing *for* evil, in your eyes. But I'll try anyway, 'cause I dig you like that.

    Bush didn't declare marriage anything. He reaffirmed it as such. States are passing laws declaring it. The Congress passed the DOMA declaring it. It's always been that way. The state only sanctions (recognizes) marriage between a man and a woman because they wanted to *encourage* men and women having a responsible and traditional nuclear family. For lots of other convenience reasons as well (probate, court testimony, etc.), but mainly because the state found it beneficial to subsidize people who will be raising children. Just suddenly redefining marriage to include gay couples is a bit ad-hoc.

    The state didn't come up with marriage, and it is not a civil institution. It is a state sanctioned CHURCH ritual. To call it a "sacrament" is not a misnomer at all. Civil unions (which hardly anyone vocally objects to) accomplish every bit of parity between gay unions and hetero unions that you define the denial of as "evil". Imagine me saying I must have all Jewish holidays off, because the Jews get it off.

    And also, why shouldn't there be polygamy? Those people love each other. Why not brothers and sisters, if they love each other. They might really love each other, and be happily married! What about A 50 year old man and a 15 year old girl? To keep their love apart is WRONG! Or, not. In all cases you presumably have consenting individuals, and in all but one you have consenting adults. So what's wrong with those? Is it evil to keep brothers and sisters from marrying too?

    Again: Swaggart is a boob, preaching to boobs. My arguments are from a rather secular point of view, and I don't thank God for Bush doing much of anything. I tend to agree with him and others on this, but I am anything except a religious gay-hating nazi that wants to suppress "rights". The fact that no one has a right to gay marriage and no gays are prevented from engaging in hetero marriage tells me that the "right" is only a right to have the state recognize who you love, no matter who it is. Which isn't a right. It's a "right" that has been pulled out of thin air, in my opinion.

    Civil Unions. You don't hear a lot of people trying to argue against that, because there aren't many good arguments against them. Funny then, that there is hardly any activism to achieve that goal. Instead it's an argument of "anyone who stands in the way of love between two men is evil". I just don't see it that way.

    Cheers n lewd glances, you hetero thing you

    At 2:58 PM, Blogger kimberley said...

    "...the government started marriage and that it's always only been a secularly defined thing that"

    "The state didn't come up with marriage, and it is not a civil institution. It is a state sanctioned CHURCH ritual..."
    i'm sorry. i'm confused. it seems to me you're contradicting yourself. or the government is. someone sure as hell is. because on one hand they're saying marriage between a man and a woman is the only way to go in the eyes of god yes lord praise jesus. it is a "state sanctioned church ritual" which was originally "patented" by the church. then on the other hand they're saying that there must be a clear separation of church and state. rip those ten commandments out of our courthouses and city halls. no praying in schools. one nation under bleep for fuck sake. god does not exist unless they need him to materialize long enough to keep gay couples from marrying and then he's conveniently pulled out of the closet to keep them in. and civil unions are so much rubbish. you try fighting the family of your dead lover for custody of the child you raised based on civil union laws. or try convincing the state you're entitled to half the property you were sharing. or try convincing your employer you're entitled to bereavement leave. insurance? alimony? child support? social security benefits? the list goes on and on. civil unions aren't worth much in the end.

    i realize we're getting off track. this isn't supposed to be a same sex marriage argument. it was me taking a swing at your boy. and you getting your knickers in a twist because you know i'm right. but if you'd just see things my way this would go *so* much more smoothly!

    At 3:29 PM, Blogger M@ said...

    I don't think I'm contradicting myself. I think it is pretty obvious that marriage is something that religion (in most cultures, not one specific church) came up with, and our government sanctioned it because it was a good cultural idea.

    I also don't see why you pooh-pooh civil unions. All examples you give are precisely the things that a civil union would grant gay couples. In essence, extending the same *state* benefits of marriage to a gay couple. Or a secular hetero couple. Are you arguing that hetero common law marriages don't provide for these things? That is a civil union that is unrecognized by the church. However, for the purposes of the law such as you mention, the state finds it beneficial to account for it. I'm not sure why you are convinced that civil unions would be so transparently useless. I am not sure why the state should force religion to accept the states terms of marriage. I am not sure why the state can't still give those citizen benefits to gay citizens through civil unions. Presumably that is what a civil union would be written to address, so claiming it would have no teeth seems frivolous.

    The words you quoted me on there were sarcasm. The idea that marriage came from religion and not the state should be obvious.

    I should also point out that the populous overwhelmingly rejects gay marriage. John Kerry is against it, both as a Senator and as a presidential candidate. States all over have rejected the idea. The only places it has been able to find legitimacy is through activist judges who contort the law like a gymnast doing porno. Again, the popularity of defending gay marriage stretches fairly far across party lines. It isn't like there is a small group of Swaggarts pushing this and their evil puppets are just parroting their vile soundbytes. When there are referendums, people vote to keep marriage a hetero event. It's a smart political position to take, even for John Kerry. Why is that? Yes I know a majority supported slavery too. No one is denying any rights to gays here though. They are simply saying that marriage is not defined as just "any two consenting adults who commit because they love each other".

    It has NOTHING to do with hating gays or denying gays their rights. It has NOTHING to do wth hating gays or denying gays their rights. I can't say that enough. Supporting the defense of marriage does not make me a homophobe or a religious nut or evil.

    At 3:30 PM, Blogger kimberley said...

    and by the way, stop looking at my font like that, you fresh thing.

    At 3:32 PM, Blogger M@ said...

    haha, well stop using the font that makes my libido start hummin'

    Thats like wearing a t-shirt that has "stop lookin at my tits" written on it! no fair!


    At 3:34 PM, Blogger kimberley said...

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    At 4:02 PM, Blogger kimberley said...

    civil unions DO NOT WORK. they don't stand up in court. they do not protect the rights of the couple. they do not have the strength of a legally binding certificate of marriage. they are ineffectual. they are equivalent to throwing a placebo sugar pill at a malignant brain tumor and then shaking your head in wonderment at why the damn thing isn't getting smaller. *they* tell you they work. they say it's equitable. but it's all just a bunch of pretty talk. when it's time to put it into action the story changes drastically. they tell you they're willing to grant same sex couples civil unions in a heartbeat because they don't mean anything! and ask someone how to dissolve a civil union. i bet they tell you they're not quite sure how to go about that. why is that? because it doesn't MEAN ANYTHING! it's not a marriage. so you can't have a divorce. it's a placebo. it's a farce. it's a pacifier government throws in the mouths of gay & lesbian couples hoping to shut them up. civil unions are ineffectual and meaningless and the problem is that when trouble comes knocking, when your life partner dies or becomes deathly ill and you find yourself in the position of needing to make life altering decisions for him or her, you suddenly discover that the civil union you signed on for isn't worth the paper the judge is now using for toilet paper in his chambers. but by then it's too late. the state is already repossessing your house, your car, your child, your dignity, and your will to live. : |

    and if you think telling me, "well, john kerry is against same sex marriages as well" is going to hold any sway over me, i have one thing to say to you, mr. man:

    PAH! i can't stand him any more than i can stand bush. in fact, i think i like him even less. i don't get the argument, "the majority of the people are against same sex marriages." is that supposed to change *my* mind somehow? like magically because X number of people disagree with the fundamentals of the issue, a switch will suddenly flip in my brain, a bell will ring, and i will go, "EUREKA! now i, too, suddenly feel that same sex marriages are a moot point and no longer feel the urge to see that right afforded gay couples! i agree wholeheartedly with president bush and all like him who feel it is A-OKAY to withhold this privilege from gays & lesbians because X% of the population have said so!"

    is that how it works?

    At 4:04 PM, Blogger M@ said...

    mmm now remove your shoes too :P

    Cruisin' for a bruisin'

    At 4:13 PM, Blogger kimberley said...

    oh great. all this just for your arousal and sexual gratification. what about my stunning key points? what about my brilliant arguments and dead on debating skills? what about that?

    is it all just about the bare feet and heaving bosom? i mean, really??

    At 5:00 PM, Blogger M@ said...

    No, of course I wasn't saying that YOU should believe it because most people do. I was making the point that to claim that since Swaggart believes it, and Swaggart is a highly discredited source for moral judgement, then what he believes must clearly be false is a weak attack on the defense of gay marriage. It is a mainstream opinion and using Swaggart as a straw man gets you nowhere. We know he is a stupid shit, and we knew that a long time ago.

    Nor do I think Kerry's opinion of anything should sway you. I was using him to refute your apparent belief that this is somehow a Republican issue that is really only a cynical calculation driven by religious dogma. Marriage is wholly defendable from a secular point of view. When I argue that marriage originated with religion, I am not stating that since the bible tells us so, marriage is X. Hardly. I am stating that since marriage as a concept arose wholly separate from THE STATE, the state has little to say about what marriage is. Marriage is cultural, and therefore CULTURE should decide what it is. It seems that CULTURE is on George Bush and Jimmy Swaggart's (and mine) in this case.

    The state can certainly accomodate it within its legislation, and it has. It can also allow individual states and religions their berth to do so. And common law marriage was ONLY conceived of in order for the law to recognize that there are many legal ramifications (child custody and support, alimony, probate) that need to be accounted for in the ABSENCE OF A MARRIAGE. The teeth you claim won't bite already exist, and do bite.

    Divorce is one of those state-injected aspects of marriage that weren't generally considered a part of marriage originally, it seems. There didn't used to be custody battles because there was no divorce.

    I don't think using an example of how the state (beginning with kings deciding they wanted to divorce, despite what the church said) changed marriage bolsters the idea that the state will not otherwise be able to handle leaving "marriage" alone and accomodating reality through a state construct separate from it. It does this kind of thing all the time, and no one argues that common law was come up with out of the blue. It was the state recognizing that even without marriage, long enough committments produce REAL issues when dissolving them. The state merely recognized what ALREADY EXISTED and is BEING DISSOLVED: a civil union.

    I can't imagine a law stating specifically that gays are to be accorded the same rights as any civil union, such as x, y, and z that wouldn't be used by the courts to solve problems that come before it. Perhaps including gay unions in civil unions would actually *strengthen* the legal legitimacy of civil unions that you so quickly dismiss.

    I would think that the reason civil unions don't have the solidity you imagine they must have (equal to the dogma of faith, i guess?) is that the state does not traditionally want to meddle in religion. Its role in the case of committed relationships is to deal not with what marriage is, but the realities of relationships that have tangibles inextricably linked to them. Money, property and children.

    You say "they" tell me this and that about civil unions, but you offer no clear examples of why the other "they" (you) are correct. I am certain that civil unions deserve some skepticism, but I really don't see how you know exactly how civil union legislation for gays would written. I don't see an egregious failing of civil unions as they are applied now, but I am open minded to anything you've got to say about it. I just think that you are insisting wrongly that we can classify unwritten laws as summarily bad and wrong. What do your "they"s have to say about this?

    I also think that your argument that a civil union is not a marriage and therefore is somehow just a placebo is holier than Jimmy Swaggart thinks he is. This is tortured logic, isn't it? The fact that two men getting married is not a marriage according to the generally accepted cultural(from religion, but cultural) definition seems to be completely ignored when you say that unless a civil union is a marriage it won't have the same power legally.

    I have already touched on divorce but why when you imagine that a civil union act would be completely wrong do you leave out that since these types of things are the issues you are ostensibly trying to work out by just commandeering "marriage" that presumably they would be addressed in such legislation? Meantersay, you argue that since a civil union is not marriage, it's not the same. But simultaneously you argue that gay unions are to be considered exactly the same as marriage, when clearly two men marrying violates fundamental tenets of the concept of marriage as understood by nearly everyone. They are not the same.

    So instead of rationally trying to imagine a compassionate state that accomodates its citizens committed relationships while not infringing on anything religious, you try to distract me with barefeet and heaving bosom. For shame!

    Now c'mere, you naughty little bit. Let's have an uncivil union ;)


    At 11:11 PM, Blogger kimberley said...

    there are only a handful of corporations that offer any sort of domestic partnership plans for people entering into civil unions. imagine you entered into one, m@. think about it realistically for a minute. say you fell madly in love with some guy named ....i don't know, Bruce. and you and bruce enter into a civil union. and bruce isn't covered under any health insurance plan through the small mom & pop company he is employed with. now that you and bruce are "hitched" under the civil union, you would think it would be easy peasy for you to add him to the stellar health insurance you have through your company. but that isn't so. i would bet you have to jump through a million hoops, if not go through actual litigation to make it happen. in other words, these couples really end up getting nothing out of a civil union but a title. people still do it, sure. but it's not for financial or legal benefits. civil unions are so ineffectual that they were challenged as such in Massachusetts in November at the Supreme Court level in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health. the court ruled there that offering civil unions instead of civil marriage wouldn't cut it.

    these are just some of the things they lose out on:
    *rights under family laws such as annulment, divorce, child custody, child support, alimony, domestic violence, adoption, and property division
    * rights to sue for wrongful death, loss of consortium, and under any other tort or law concerning spousal relationships
    * medical rights such as hospital visitation, notification, and durable power of attorney
    *family leave benefits
    *joint state tax filing,
    *property inheritance when one partner dies without a will.

    and that's by no means all inclusive, as i've said.

    even those states with strong civil union laws, such as vermont, don't give same-sex couples the rights and benefits federal law provides to male-female married couples. same sex couples are not eligible for social security benefits, immigration privileges, or the marriage exemption to federal estate tax. civil union or no.

    as far as proof goes, you can look in any number of lawbooks and point to any number of cases. there are lawsuits as far as the eye can see in which partners left behind have sought justice:

    Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital of N.Y., 196 Misc.2d 440, 765 N.Y.S.2d 411 (Sup.Ct., Apr.10,2003). The New York court recognized a Vermont civil union for purposes of wrongful death benefits to the surviving partner.

    Brause v. Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743 (Alaska Sup. Ct, 1998)

    Rosengarten v. Downes, 802 A.2d 170 (Conn. App. Ct

    De Santo v. Barnsly, 476 A.2d 952 (Pa. Super. Ct) (two persons of the same sex cannot contract a common-law marriage);

    Vermont: Baker v. State, 744 A.2d 864 (Vt. 1999) (holding that while the Vermont constitution requires that same-sex couples be afforded the same benefits of traditional marriage, the constitution does not require the state to issue a same-sex marriage license);

    most of these lawsuits involve either child custody or what happened when the surviving partner went in search of rights to an estate after his or her lover's death. they were told, "nope. sorry. what you had doesn't constitute a marriage. who cares if you were together for 50+ years?"

    so. yeah. let's just canoodle. after all, i'm a woman and you're a man. what have we to worry about? did i mention i'm sans bra & shoes? : P

    At 1:34 AM, Blogger M@ said...

    You are making my point very well :) Please disregard if you're tired of reading about it.

    In order:
    You state that very few companies offer benefits and such to civil unions. This might be different if the stumping you guys did was for the right cause. Instead of attacking a fairly well entrenched traditional institution by interpreting this fact cynically you should work harder to legitimize civil unions. This should be done by lobbying local and federal legislations to pass proper laws. I agree quite easily with your position that a truly committed relationship, regardless of sexuality should be acknowledged and protected by the state. The corporations will not likely do this until forced to legally. It is a liability to their bottom line.

    The list of things that gays find themselves lacking seem to also be fairly common problems in the court system for heterosexuals. Indeed even married or divorcing heterosexuals. Married in churches, even. There are obviously some nits to pick and I am not saying that legally married people don't have a much greater advantage in that laws concerning these matters, and the legal precedents that are crucial in sorting them out, are well established. But to tell me that radically altering the meaning of marriage will suddenly solve all these problems is stretching. The laws concerning civil unions are exactly where a progressive movement should seek to make their progress. Judges cannot simply make marriage something different than it is by fiat. They exist merely to apply the law as written and interpreted.

    You also list several instances of judicial interpretations of the law that ended badly for someone because of the way the law is currently written. I generally discount any decision that a Massachussetts court arrives at on the face of it. But in this case it appears that the basis for their activism was a complaint of the shoddy work of legislators. Of course, Massachussetts has voted for, and the courts have upheld an initiative to ban same-sex marriage. One wonders why such a liberal state would be against such a thing...At any rate, this was a court battle that can't be summed up in a vaccuum.

    It is true that even in cases such as Vermont who have written good progressive state laws there is nothing federally set. But consider if Massachussetts could get its head out of its ass and write some strong civil union laws. And a bunch of other states, probably much of the south and midwest excluded. Let me also remind you that this is the *first* time this has really come up for national debate. Are you expecting this stuff to get sorted out tomorrow? Please. Granted that it's an important issue that should be addressed in its time but let's not just start tearing up the carpet cause it isn't a hip color in California. Frankly the movement seems to arise out of some sort of hysterical fear and misinformation. Check the poll numbers and see how the resistance drops when asked about how civil unions strike 'em. I'm sure there are people that will never go for it for bigoted reasons. But most of the same people that find it absurd and intolerant of you to demand that they completely devalue and reshape what marriage is are the same people that support Bruce and his partner having a loving and (more importantly) civilly backed union.

    The other cases you cite are also interesting. The first one seems to be an instance in which a state actually *acknowledged* another state's civil union laws and set a precedent of transportable rights under civil union. That is likely debatable on many levels, but it doesn't belong in your list. Perhaps there is more to the story than http://www.lc.org/misc/stcasessmarriage.htm gives but since you listed many examples I must be as succint as possible.

    your second case was a ruling by an Alaskan court that held that a compelling interest was necessary in order to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage. Perhaps this is so, but the people of Alaska amended their constitution to overturn it. I can't imagine that would be possible without large amounts of support for this from the citizens. This seems to be another case where it makes more sense to either a)recognize that it is not likely you can change everyone in Alaska's mind and you would probably find that another state would be better to live in if it's really that important to you (i am not arguing that it is not important) or b) work for proper legislation to address this issue. The courts are not the place to sort this out because they are at the mercy of laws and precedents.

    Your third case, rosengarten v downes, is similar in that the court in this case merely (correctly) interpreted a law stating that marriage is defined as 1 man and 1 woman meant that something between two men was not a marriage as defined by state law. Hard to see why this is a rebuke of civil unions. Further, overturning this law would absurdly make it legal for say, 2 men and 1 woman to have a "marriage". Perhaps the possible bad would be worse than the convievable good, in the court's esteem. This is another example of attacking a traditional institution in the name of progressiveness (and through an impotent channel-which you seem to imply by using this example that you feel the court should make up out of whole cloth the new way we do things) when really the progressiveness should be applied in state congresses to progressively create the concept of a valid civil union. Instead of accepting those institutions and forging your own, you insist that the two must be melded as if the former never existed as it was and the latter is the correct natural interpretation. This is exactly the same way "they" change Dread Pirate Robertses in and out, isn't it?

    Your fourth case, De Santo v. Barnsly, all I could find was that it held that two people of the same sex were not included in the current legal definition of civil union in that state. That seems to be counter to my vision, certainly. I was not able to find the decision to read, but this seems to also point more to the need for legislation that shapes the civil institution we both feel failed the plaintiff here. Is the wording in Pennsylvania civil union laws clear that civil unions are an exclusively hetero thing? If so, I am not surprised that the court ruled this way. I think this is wrong and if enough Pennsylvanians feel the same way that injustice will be corrected by legislators. There might be many reasons this court did not overturn this law instead of basing their decision on it, but this doesn't imply in any way that the only recourse is to attack marriage. It would seem absurd to conclude that changing the definition of "marriage" would be easier than changing the definition of "civil union".

    And finally, Baker V. state seems merely to have held that while the state constitution compels the state to afford benefits to a civil union that a marriage commands, there is no compulsion to issue a license for marriage to same-sex couples for marriage. This seems reasonable from my point of view: a civil union is not a marriage, but it should be dealt with by the state as similar. This does not seem to be persuasive evidence that the courts are enforcing draconian suppression of gay rights. It is evidence that there is no compulsion for the state to accept an arbitrary definition of marriage, and it even includes a clear affirmation that same-sex civil unions SHOULD have the same state benefits as a marriage.

    Your conclusion seems to imply that since most of these cases concern appeals by gay people that their sexuality is why they were ruled against. Certainly this is material in these cases as a legal matter, but I am guessing that there are lots of heterosexual couples who have been together for 50 years without marrying who are told by the courts "Nope. Sorry. What you had was not a marriage. Who cares that you were together for 50+ years?" The simple fact is: They are not marriages. It is absurd to claim that they are simply by fiat. It is unreasonable to expect that everyone accept a new definition and have the courts just rule it in to being.

    I don't think you've shown that courts are misapplying any laws, and I don't think you've shown that the only thing left to us is to topple marriage. I think you've shown some examples of where an assault in the courts on marriage has rightly failed and one instance where an injust civil union law should be changed to be just. None of this is good proof that marriage should include same-sex unions or that such a change could be more easily made than strengthening civil unions.

    I don't mean to say that I can't be convinced that you are right; your argument just seems weak. I do however, buy your premise that civil union laws do not hold the sway they should in court. Sorry, but this hasn't been in the public conscious for very long and there is a long way to go. I reiterate that this seems to be a problem with heterosexual nonmarried couples as well. Why isn't there a louder outcry for justice from this group? I don't ask because I expect you to know, or because I think I know. I just think that it is an interesting disparity.

    I think you're right. Canoodlin'.

    At 2:12 AM, Blogger kimberley said...

    You state that very few companies offer benefits and such to civil unions. This might be different if the stumping you guys did was for the right cause. Instead of attacking a fairly well entrenched traditional institution by interpreting this fact cynically you should work harder to legitimize civil unions. This should be done by lobbying local and federal legislations to pass proper laws. I agree quite easily with your position that a truly committed relationship, regardless of sexuality should be acknowledged and protected by the state.you're absolutely right. instead of allowing gays & lesbians to take part in an institution that is already established and proven, with all the kinks already worked out, we should lobby and fight and work really, really hard to recreate the wheel. instead of granting them rights to that "fairly well entrenched traditional institution" we should go to bat for proper legislation on a brand new institution, separate but equal to marriage. similar to, but not the same as, marriage. because god forfuckingbid we call it marriage. anything but that. spoken like true big government. congratulations, baby!

    my eyes are rolling right out of my head now. "WE'RE" not attacking the supposed sacred and traditional institution of marriage, m@. we're attacking a government that has the audacity and sheer vanity of self to think they have the right to withhold this basic human right from one group of people based on the archaic laws of a fictional piece of writing, i.e, the bible. yea, verily, what god hath joined together let no man put asunder. i'm sure he'll be very happy up there in his heaven because big government and this bigoted view is a match made in heaven.

    (yeah, i know i said i wouldn't respond anymore, but jesus h. christ. this is bordering on lunacy now.)


    Post a Comment

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link

    << Home


    The Other Side

    Blogger Philosophy 101
    Why do you have to be a nonconformist like everybody else?
    ~James Thurber

    Art & Literature Links
  • Bookslut
  • Digital Journalist
  • Artloggia
  • Getty Images
  • Musarium
  • Exquisite Corpse
  • Powell's Independent Bookstore
  • I, Orhan Veli
  • Wielding the Red Pen
  • Artcyclopedia
  • Luciferous Logolepsy
  • Wired for Books

  • Stolen Blogroll

    Escape Hatches
    Blogs For Bush


    For Free:

    We are living for free;
    The air is for free,
    The clouds are for free.
    Hills and dales are for free;
    Rain and mud are for free;
    The outside of cars,
    The entrance to movie houses,
    The store windows are for free;
    It is not the same as bread and cheese,
    But salt water is for free;
    Freedom will cost you your life,
    But slavery is for free;
    We are living for free,
    For free.

    ~Orhan Veli~

    powered by coffee, cigarettes & this guy, who works for peanuts.

    Powered by Blogger