Skip to main content

View Diary: GOP Sunday Villagers jump ship on marriage equality opposition (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Newt Gingrich talked about marriage (29+ / 0-)

    and nobody fell off their chair laughing?

    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

    by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:34:23 PM PST

    •  Mary Matalin. Think of who she's married to. n/t (11+ / 0-)

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 07:38:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  civil union (8+ / 0-)

      This is why I am so disappointed that we did not call the civil union bluff and disengage marriage from superstition.  If churches want to live in the illusion that marriage is between one man and one women while marrying adulterers like Gringrich, Reagan and McCain, who have, in the language of the bible, multiple wives, then let them do so.

      We should have fighting to change the law to make civil union the only legal connection for two people.  If two want to be united for the purpose of taxes, land, money, and hospital visits, let the go to the court house and fill out and sign a form.  If they want to have a church wedding after, or instead, they can.  But the only way to be legal is to personally go and file a form.

      The churches, with their willingness to promote adultery, encourage the destruction of families, and discriminate against the sins they consider unfashionable, have abdicated any moral authority and instead wallowed in a life of hypocrisy.  They deserve no respect from moral, law abiding, civil society.

      Unfortunately, many people still  relish their superstition, and are willing to inflict arbitrary harm to secular society to maintain those belief.  Let me be clear, I was raised in protestent church, protestent to the point that it rejected even those catholic mandates that most other protest churches accept, and it is still an important part of my life.  But my church integrated early, married homosexual couples, and imposed safety protocols for children adult interactions even before it was fashionable to so do. But given that so many churches are fixed on hate, it would seem to be better to separate, as much as possible, civilization from religion.

      •  you thought they thought the gays (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Steveningen, bythesea, ExStr8, sfbob

        we destroying marriage now.

        Imagine the reaction to proposed registration to wipe out existing marriages for all heterosexuals.

        We should have fighting to change the law to make civil union the only legal connection for two people.  

        "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

        by Scott Wooledge on Mon Dec 10, 2012 at 08:32:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Totally agree (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ssgbryan, Khun David, DesertMac, NCJan

        "Marriage" is a religious construct and should be left to the churches, temples, and mosques.  Look at France, where they passed a national civil union law (PACS= pacte civil de solidarité) in 1999, which was intended to extend equal protection to gay couples but was left open to all couples.  It's become so popular that now more than 90% of all couples who "se pacsent" are heterosexual, and the number of PACSs issued will probably surpass marriage licences in the next 2-3 years.  

      •  if you want this (civil unions for all) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scott Wooledge

        never stop fighting.

        •  They'll have to keep fighting. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It's politically impossible.

          "The marriage fight is over when we say it's over, and it's over when we win."—Dan Savage

          by Scott Wooledge on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 10:19:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yeah, well (0+ / 0-)

            It's always incumbent on us (the gays) to accomplish this (civil unions for all) - because it's the word "marriage" that is the sticking point and in order to placate the religios we gotta choose a different word for our family arrangement then everybody would be happy, and non-religious hets could take advantage of civil unions, too, which they're supposedly dying to do - this argument gets repeated nearly every time same sex marriage comes up and I always think - If civil unions are so important to You (you who tell Me they are so important I should put aside my desire to be recognized under Existing law and create a whole new parallel system of laws) then WORK FOR IT yourself. Lead the charge! And stop telling me to do all your work.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site