Why Can’t People Get Over Gay Marriage?

By Yul

California just handed conservative zealots another trivial pursuit – gay marriage – to distract everybody from the real issues in the presidential election.

Following Massachusetts’ lead, California admits that gay marriage doesn’t spell the downfall of the human race, putting those who love to dictate how everyone should live on the warpath.

Now they want to muddy the November election by adding a vote on amending California’s constitution to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples.

That means the presidential candidates will have to take sides and talk about it, wasting time they could otherwise spend telling us their plans to fix healthcare, get the troops out of Iraq, pull the economy out of the toilet and get inflation under control.

Yes, you read that right – INFLATION. The Bush administration gags on that word, but what else do you call prices on everything rising much faster than wages ever will?

And it’s not like heterosexuals have a lock on perfect unions, anyway.

For example, there’s that FLDS cult in Texas. Red-blooded geezers with more “wives” than they can count who are so inbred, the kids can’t tell you who their parents are.

And what about the heterosexual trailer trash crying for Maury Povich to figure out who their babies’ fathers are? Not to mention the lusty Jerry Springer crowd who get married drunk and wake up in bed with their in-laws.

Are kids raised by only one parent after a divorce – or torn between two battling parents – or trying to keep score as their parents take many whacks at matrimony – any better off than kids who grow up with two mommies or two daddies who actually like each other?

Face it. Even a cat like me can see that gay people aren’t hurting anybody. All they want is the same right to be treated equally under the law as other committed couples.

And before anybody starts throwing Bibles at me, you’ll first have to show me where it says you were assigned to keep anybody from going to Hell. If anything, your small-minded condemnation may be putting you on a faster track to Hades than poor souls who just want their loving relationships recognized.


18 Responses to Why Can’t People Get Over Gay Marriage?

  1. Unlike the abortion issue (which the right has no intention of doing anything about so they can trot it out every few years) the issue of gay marriage is something the right feels the need to act on now because they see the writing on the wall. They only have a small window of time left that they can muster enough support for these amendments at the 2/3 majority so simple votes on law cannot override them. Sadly, if we restrict the rights of some of our citizens we hurt everyone. Laws based on religious hate make us no better than the Taliban.

  2. Chris says:

    For a post that seems to be intended to condemn condemnation, you certainly do a lot of condemning others. There really isn’t a discussion to be had about any issue when names are thrown around, from either side.

    That’s why our political discourse today has ended up in the gutter. Most folk claim the high road while calling everyone else names. That doesn’t get us anywhere.

    I don’t agree with homosexuality, but for me to be labeled “small minded” because of that is absurd.

  3. catsworking says:

    Chris, Nobody’s calling you anything. And nobody’s asking you to participate in anything that goes against your grain. I never said I “agree with” homosexuality. I just recognize it as the reality it is and would like to see everyone live and let live and stop trying to control things that people do with their own bodies which are really nobody else’s business.

    I’d certainly get riled if anybody tried to tell me how to lick my butt, or told me I was going to Hell for doing it. There are some harmless behaviors that cats (and humans) are born to do, and ostracizing them for it doesn’t help anything.

    As time marches on, I’m afraid you’ll find the world’s on my side. I can’t think of a single step we tried to take backward (think burning witches, slavery, denying women the vote, Prohibition) that ultimately prevailed.

    It may not happen in our lifetime, but some future generation will look at all this silly hoo-ha about denying homosexuals rights and wonder what the hell we were thinking.

  4. Chris – You don’t ‘agree’ with homosexuality… so does that mean you feel that people you have a bias against should have less rights than you? Should it be ok to fire them without cause? Should they not have the right to leave their estate to a person of their choosing? Should they not be able to visit their sick or dying partner in the hospital? As long as it is two consenting adults who are you to judge others lifestyles? They might have a label ‘homosexual’ but they are people first.

    You may wonder why this makes me so mad. My wife and I had all the proper documents written up. Medical Power of Attorney, Wills, etc. We did not feel the need to get married. The religious hysteria and the passage of Amendment 1 here in VA caused us to question our attorney. Sure enough, our protections were in danger of being invalidated because of a fear of gays getting married. Based on that we felt the need to get married and protect our sons rights. If you you voted for that amendment than I blame you and resent having your religious beliefs forced down my throat. If you didn’t vote for it or didn’t support it then I apologize.

  5. catsworking says:

    Well said, Bookstore Piet. You have raised an angle in this debate that many who are so quick to deny gays equal rights have never even considered.

    If they faced losing their own spousal rights due to the fallout from such discriminatory legislation, I suspect they’d quickly be willing to start minding their own business and have others do likewise.

  6. Chris says:

    Bookstore, never once did I mention voting for Amendment 1 in Va. Not once.

    Cats, I didn’t say anything about denying gays equal rights.

    Both of you are proving my point. The “debate” here turned in to one of you insuating that I’m hysterical with my religous beliefs and the other saying that I’m trying to control what others do with their bodies.

    Books, anyone has the right to leave whatever part of their estate that they want to through wills and/or beneficiary designation forms…plain and simple.

    As far as the point you bring up being one that many have never considered, well that’s because frankly it doesn’t hold true. While in marriage, the estate is assumed to pass to your spouse if there is no other designation, any type of legal will or beneficiary designation form is more than enough to tell the probate court to whom your estate is to be distributed.

    Sorry that you feel that because I belive something is wrong, that I’m trying to somehow shove beliefs down your throat.

  7. We do not have the right to leave our estate to whomever we choose in this state. When our friend Jerry died a few years ago he left his estate to his partner Buck. His sister challenged the will and the judge ruled that the will was invalid as Buck had no standing as his partner of 15 years in the eyes of VA law. The estate was granted to his sister.

    When we contacted our attorney after the passage of Amendment 1 (part of the point of this post and gay marriage) the new law invalidates wills and beneficiary forms between people who are not married or related by blood.

    This is just one in along historical line of issues that people have used the Bible for to promote bigotry. It was just a few years ago that Jerry Falwell and his ilk used the Bible to promote segregation and deny blacks their civil rights (Jerry never changed his stripes and in the 80’s was sent on a ‘fact finding’ mission by Reagan to South Africa. Jerry said he thought it was a well run country and saw no problem with Aparteid). Before that it was women’s right to vote and pastor’s railed against that. Before that it was slavery. And on, and on.

    It really seems like many Christians (maybe you, maybe not) use their mythology to justify their bigotry. If they themselves really followed the Bible they would follow all the rules and not be ‘Cafeteria Christians’, choosing what rules they follow and what rules they want others to follow. I mean, when was the last time you cut your hair (a stoning offense), or wore dyed fabrics of more than one substance (poly-cotton blends will again get you stoned in the eyes of the lord…). Hey, let’s enanct more Biblical laws and allow people to sell their daughters into slavery (what is the going price?).

    I would have more respect for people if they just admitted they were bigots and didn’t hide behind some vague teachings that can be manipulated and used or ignored based on a whim.

  8. catsworking says:

    I’m not a lawyer and I’ve never dealt with a will, so I can’t engage in that debate. However, I am smelling some paranoia. Chris, I don’t think most reasonable people have a problem with anybody’s religious beliefs until they start trying to impose their dogma on others – especially through legislation.

    Remember separation of church and state, a policy this country used to follow?

    As for the name-calling, I did use the word “zealot,” in my post, but that’s not a “name,” as in “Sticks and stones… “It’s a noun for “a fanatical partisan,” according to Webster.

    And “small-minded condemnation” is an action, not a person. As they say in the Bible, “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.”

    I’m finding it interesting that my simply raising the issue has made you so defensive. I don’t care what you do, either, as long as it doesn’t discriminate against anyone based on a trait they were born with, i.e., homosexuality.

    Now, whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry in CHURCH, that’s another matter altogether and up to each faith to decide. Personally, I have nothing against that either, but I can understand how some faiths might want to single out and exclude certain members from full participation in their rites just to show God how “Christian” they are.

    Granting homosexuals equal rights as partners under the law has NOTHING TO DO with religion, yet many people persist in dragging the Bible into it as justification for not allowing it. I mentioned it myself only in a pre-emptive way to head off anyone being tempted to quote Scripture at me.

  9. Chris says:


    For you to use the maybe you, maybe not tactic when throwing bigot around is pretty ridiculous. Quoting Old Testament restrictions that were covered in the New Testament is also an old “intellectual” trick used to make Christians look like they are all slack jawed yokels.

    The simple point of this discussion can be boiled down to this. I view homosexuality as a sin on par with all other sins. Not worse, but on par. Homosexuals are not any worse/better than any of the rest of us because of what they choose to do in their bedroom, period.

    Whether you believe or not believe in Christ is your own personal thing. I do. I will not allow you to portray me as something that I’m not, a bigot because of that belief.

  10. Chris – Maybe/Maybe Not is necessary because I don’t know if you are or aren’t – I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you can answer this then. You use the Bible to justify your view on homosexuals. Explain to me how that is different than the white supremacists who use the Bible to justify their beliefs. Or those who condemn the Jews, those who don’t like Catholics, and those who subjugate women.

    I see it as a way to duck responsibility on your personal beliefs and a way to belittle other groups. It seems very easy to discriminate if you can simply say ‘but it’s in the Bible’.

    Please explain. We’re listening.

  11. Chris says:

    You didn’t read what I wrote. I wrote that a sin, is a sin, is a sin. I don’t put homosexuality higher or lower on the “sin list”. Without prosletyzing, we all sin every day. It sounds like the ONLY difference here is that I accept Christ as the covering of my sin and try to do the best I can. I don’t agree with homosexuality just like I don’t agree with stealing, or cursing, or adultery, or being an overall jerk. Does that mean I’ve never stolen, or cursed, or though impure thoughts about attractive women, or been an overall turd? Nope.

    I can’t speak for white supremacists, Jew or Catholic haters, or people that subjugate women because I don’t put myself in those categories. Sorry.

  12. But the supremacists say it’s a sin for the races to mingle. Others for the Catholics to pray to Mary. Others say it’s a sin if a women does not obey her husband in every way.

    I don’t see a difference between what your saying and what their saying.

  13. Chris says:

    Fair enough. We disagree I guess.

  14. Chris – That was fun. Next time over a martini. 🙂

  15. catsworking says:

    I’m glad you two were able to pull the claws back in before it got ugly. Interesting debate!

  16. Cat – Sorry about using your cat box to play. I owe you a fresh bag of litter. 😉

  17. Chris says:

    Amen to both those comments…oh wait maybe I should use another word! 🙂

  18. catsworking says:

    You guys are welcome to play in our litterbox any time. Slinging poop is what it’s for!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: