On Monday December 12 Mitt Romney sat down at the Chez Vachon restaurant in New Hampshire next to Bob Garon, a sixty-three year old gruff looking army veteran wearing a Vietnam veteran hat and plaid jacket. After introductory pleasantries, Bob Garon asked Romney whether he supported the repeal of the same sex marriage law in New Hampshire and whether he was in favor of the military denying spousal benefits to same sex spouses. Romney said he did favor the repeal and the denial of benefits, because “marriage is between a man and a woman”. It was ironic and sad to see Mitt Romney tell an army vet who had served his country that the vet’s spouse deserved no federal benefits because Mitt did not approve of the marriage. Mitt is approximately the same age as Bob Garon, but arranged to avoid military service for himself. Apparently the irony was lost on Mitt.
Of course, Mitt Romney is not alone among Republican Presidential candidates in his views. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, as well as Mitt Romney have all signed the National Organization for Marriage pledge to support a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and to appoint judges who will oppose gay marriage. Joining this group are a majority of the Republican members of Congress, the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, many Protestant churches, Islamic organizations, Orthodox Jewish organizations, etc.
After centuries of turmoil, and enormous suffering, the US has finally recognized that members of all races and genders are entitled to equal civil rights. It is shocking that now Republican candidates for President, a majority of the Republican members of Congress, religious and secular organizations, are openly devoting their efforts to denying civil rights to another minority group. The “pro-family” Republicans are devoting their efforts to ensuring that a minority group is denied the ability to marry and form families. The “anti-government” Republicans are devoting their efforts to insert the federal government into the most private of relationships. How would these righteous Republicans, religious devotees, and “pro-family” activists react if the federal government decided it should have the right to judge and dissolve their marriages?
The facts are that gender preference is overwhelmingly biological in origin and not amenable to change. In this regard gender preference is like skin color. (In contrast, Republicans support the notion that employees should be able to refuse to perform almost any function they wish if they state that their refusal is based on religious beliefs. Whatever one thinks of the merit of such a position, religion - unlike skin color and gender preference - is a voluntary choice that people make. If one advocates granting protections for individuals’ voluntary choices, one should certainly grant protections for factors over which individuals do not have control.) Same sex preference has been present in all societies for all of recorded human history. Although estimates vary, approximately five percent of individuals are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Gay individuals overall function just as well as straight individuals in the workplace and in the community. Same sex couples are just as effective as parents as heterosexual couples.
Although some heterosexual individuals at a visceral level may react negatively to same sex relationships, it does not take much in the way of academic virtuosity to understand that some individuals are just as attracted to members of the same sex, as heterosexuals are attracted to members of the opposite sex. The general public is ahead of the Republicans in this regard, a majority now favoring same sex marriage. There is a strong correlation with age in terms of attitude to same sex marriage, with younger people being much more accepting. This suggests that some individuals’ “visceral” aversion to same-sex relationships is, at least partly, a learned attitude. It also suggests that over time the societal attitude will continue to swing to a larger majority supporting same sex marriage.
Hillary Clinton delivered a powerful UN speech on the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifying gay rights as human rights. She was correct. President Obama, while doing more than any previous US President to support gay rights, still has not voiced his personal support for same sex marriage. US Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos who had testified in opposition to the repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy of the US military, now states that the repeal has in fact gone extremely well and from a military perspective was a non-event.
Allowing gays to marry will not in the least negatively affect my marriage or the marriage of any other heterosexual couple. That certainly has been the experience in Massachusetts – the first US state to institute same sex marriage. While same sex marriage has no adverse effects on heterosexual marriage, the absence of same sex marriage - and the rights normally associated with marriage - is devastating to those involved. The adverse effects on gay families include not only lack of public recognition of their families, but also very practical matters such as tax benefits, pension benefits, health benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc.
Individuals who are not in favor of gay marriage should marry someone of the opposite sex. Let other individuals make their own choice and form their own families.
The hostile attitude to gays and same sex marriage is, at its core, simply bigotry. The same bigotry that over the centuries – depending on circumstance - has targeted women, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Africans, Asians, Native Americans, Hispanics, Irish, Poles, Italians, etc.
State anti-miscegenation laws banning marriage between blacks and whites were struck down by the US Supreme Court only in 1967 in Loving vs Virginia. This decision is now universally accepted as correct; anyone who would publicly oppose this decision in the current time would be appropriately labeled as a bigot. Given this history, it is inconceivable to me that a prominent group of individuals and organizations in the US would currently band together to target another minority group and deny them the most basic of civil rights – the right to marry and form families. When the history of our time is written, these individuals and organizations will go down as the bigots of our era alongside the haters of previous generations.
I stand to support Mitt Romney in stopping same sex marriage. The bible does not ever say man to man or woman to woman. It is Man and wife. I am a male veteran and I am married to a WOMAN. So if a veteran is married to the same sex, the spouse should not get any benefits unless it is opposite sex.ReplyDelete
Since your statement is influenced by your belief in the infallibility of an instrument of Religion, it should not be used as an excuse for your bigotry. Not every American citizen holds that belief.Delete
which version of the bible are you reading? Can you trust something that's been rewritten every time a new version of the religion has come about? It wasn't until the 1960's that someone wrote the bible to say same gender relationship is wrong. That the story of Sodom and Gamorrah changed from all women cities to men having sex with each other. Please please you should read the obvious differences in early translations to English and current versions. Don't you think after translating it to English, it shouldn't have to be translated anymore? If the stories were the same as they were on first translation, people wouldn't be so bent out of shape over same sex preference.Delete
penguins who mate for life, endangered or not, have a 10% gay population not giving birth to their own chicks but have adopted an abandoned or stolen chick. To argue that 5% of human population being gay is unnatural, please take a look at nature again and ask yourself, why would God allow animals to choose who they want to live with for the rest of their lives but humans cannot? Why aren't we allowed to marry our best friend if both parties are consenting? The more we learn about sexual health and diseases, the easier it is to be safe and responsible with the freedom of love.Delete
I have never seen on the news "God kills homosexual"
what I have seen on the news, "Man kills homosexual."
All the harm that has ever been done is because of Man. Not God.
Anonymous, Why is it necessary to win the right to do something, when from all biological evidences and common sense it shows and tells you that same sex relationships in a sexual relationship is wrong. Marriage is a sacred covenant between one man and one woman and thus cannot be replaced with a covenant between two men or two women. It is also wrong to compare penguins with humans. Penguins belong to the animal world, while the human race has been created to govern this world and make sure that this world runs well. And it starts with the inter relationships between humans. Platonic friendship between same sex partners is fine, however when one oversteps the boundaries which God has established where it comes to marriage, immediately problems and and decay of the normal relationships kick in.Delete
Why do you need to win the right to do something? Simply that what you try to do is wrong. If we start to call -wrong-, "right", we have already lost the case.
Gravity cannot be annulled because we sit down and discuss that we annul the law of gravity and then decide that we join hands and jump from highest possible floor of the Empire State Building.
Common sense tells you that those who do, will fall to a certain death. The difference between the consequences of trespassing the law of gravity and and the trespassing of God's instituted laws concerning marriage and same-sex sexual relationships takes more time. When 5000 male men are locked up on an island without any females for 50 till an hundred years will tell the truth about procreation and multiplication. That island will not have survivors because the inability to procreate for same-sex couples. The same would go when we would reverse the issue and exchange for that matter the all males for females. This without discussion on what God's Word says. Please wake up and smell the coffee.
Addition to the foregoing, placed on May 1, 2012 concerning the comparison between the law of gravity and same-sex marriages. I would like to let you know that I am a Caucasian and happily married for 33 and a half year with an Afro-Caribbean woman to show also that color of skin has nothing to do with gender matters. And thank God we have been able to produce another human being through our marriage relationship and speaking about coffee, his skin complexion is coffee with milk.Delete
Your religion tells you that marriage is between a man and a women, BUT you should not uphold your religious beliefs on others. People have NO CONTROL over who they fall in love with and want to spend the rest of their lives with. It is WRONG to deny the same benefits and rights to same sex couples. They pay taxes, defend our country, and are wonderful citizens. It is time that you open your eyes and stop the hatred and bigotry.ReplyDelete
2 homo's do not make a family.....!ReplyDelete
Thank you for this example of bigotry.Delete
And there a PLENTY of straight parents that are HORRIBLE at it! And if you if you insist it is just about makeing kids then how many do you have, do you use birth control? The Bible doesn't allow that either!Delete
I'm not for, or against, same sex marriages. In reference to miltiary service, I don't want any individual stationed with me in combat, if they don't want to be there to begin with. There's enough individuals such as myself, who will glady go fight in a war. Some people are just not cut-out to accept danger. So therefore, I don't care who didn't serve. In fact, I've met some good people who never served, but are outstanding citizens.ReplyDelete
Just because he served his country doesn't mean anything! There are people younger than me that wear the VietNam hat and medals and talk about their ordeals, and I was too young for VietNam. He probably was a no-body and didn't do crap but is trying to bring a name for himself. Marriage is for one man and one woman, not gay bangers. If this gay guy wants to make a name for himself, he should get into politics and work from there. Stop using the military service you nasty old gay man.ReplyDelete
Thank you for this example of bigotry.Delete
Bigotry is also biological in origin and is related to the predation instinct. It derives from the structure of the brain and actually represents a means of stimulating the pleasure centers as a result of diminishing irrational fear and/or developing power and control over others. One might also look at the genetic histories of bigoted individuals to see whether there is a line of bigotry-related descent. Other than that, intentional "hate-mongering" (sometimes referred to as "entertainment" in the media) is a sociopathic form of manipulation engaged in for a number of reason (e.g., since it works, it is profitable).ReplyDelete
Is anyone asking why the real issue here is not being addressed? What is "marriage"? Could it be because the word was chosen to manipulate discussion by extremist individuals in order to justify bigotry and disrupt government? If is a religious bond, then the government should have no role in it and the individual religions are free to make their own rules. If it is a matter of legal and secular rights, then call unions legalized by government authorities "civil unions." Never use the word "marriage" in relation to government-performed unions-- limit its use to religious ceremonies. The two can *occur* simultaneously but they are not synonymous.ReplyDelete
The fact of the matter is that homosexuallity is immoral and an abomination to God. If you call disagreeing with the fact that agreeing with Gods word "bigotry", it doesnt mean that you are right just because you believe it...as you said in your openning statement. Since homosexuality is immoral according to Gods Word it doesnt mean that these people are bigots because they dont agree with homosexuality and therefore dont support same-sex marriage. It just means they believe Gods Holy Word, as it is very specific, and is in fact a tremendous influence in the writing of certain parts of the constitution we fight to protect. Just because your gay and in the military doesnt mean you have the right to be married to your same sex battle buddy. You cannot justify homosexuality as a reference to a gender or race because it is neither, homosexuality is a sexual preference and doesnt fall within the boundries of being protected under any human civil rights laws in my opinion. Again, homomsexuallity is not a particular race or gender, all this particular movement is interested in as far as im concerned is to further undermine the very moral social fabric of this nation to send us into an even deeper era of moral decay and apparently to seek monetary compensation for being morally deviant and as a way to force their particular secular views on society. Again, just because you believe Im wrong doesnt mean youre right...just reitterating your very enlightneing point," However, because we believe something to be true or judge it to be true based on "common sense", doesn't make it true." just saying.ReplyDelete
I would say it like this, lets go with the stated fact that homosexuality is an abomination to god. My question comes to this, what does god have to do with the laws or the rights of every American? We do not base our laws and our freedoms on the bible, the Koran or the Torah. As much as i love to hear people go on about this fantasy that the US was founded on Christian values, the founding fathers made it plainly clear that the US should never allow religion to be recognized by our government. Abortion should be an abomination to god to but that doesn't mean anyone has the right to take woman's right to chose away. If we want to get to the basic premise of religion as the dictator of morality and what should and should not be allowed in our legal system, lets take a look at the basic premise that God gave man free will and the ability to make his own choices and live or die with them, that being said, are those who would deny fellow Americans their right to pursue happiness actually going against gods will to allow for these freedoms? Taking another persons rights or limiting them is not for men to do but for god to judge and deal out his disposition. Funny how so many people think they are helping god when they have forgotten that God doesn't need anyone's help.Delete
My daughter has two godfathers who happen to be homosexual and have lived together for 40 years. They pay their taxes, have worked all their lives and are now retired. They see absolutely no need to be married, because, living in Germany, they have, at last, the same civil rights as a married couple. They see marriage as an institution that is useful (if no longer essential) in raising children and believe that the special concessions that attend it are appropriate to that purpose. They see no such need in their own case and are rather embarassed at the whole idea of marriage, just when it is falling so badly out of fashion.ReplyDelete
And it is not bigoted, Anonymous, to be uncomfortable at the idea of gay marriage. It is bigoted to use the word so casually against anyone who disagrees with your position.ReplyDelete
In the Federalist Papers Publius often referred to the mischevious nature of man. They (Hamilton, Adams, and one more I forget) were correct ... as evidenced by this blog. I not only think people are born with their sexual preferences--or lack thereof--predetermined but Science is demonstrating the truth behind my belief given differential brain structures found in hetero/homosexual men and women.ReplyDelete
Although Cohen is correct to observe that "religion" is a choice whereas "preference" is not, people still retain choice over what they believe. The problem, and source of conflict, arises when individual(s) decide that the choice they make is the one another should follow. This conflict is resolved, however, when individuals make their own choice(s) and keep them to themselves. That dictum, by the way, is the definition of freedom.
I find it very interesting that we are so concerned about a hand full of Gays that want to celebrate their commitment to one another! We ignore all the laws Moses wrote down-but the ones that suit our purposes! Jesus Himself never said a word about Gay People! And yes, there were certainly Gay Jews at His time! He could have condemned them-but He didn't! Gay Marriage, or what ever you want to call it, has NO bearing on Straight Marriage! With 50% of marriages ending in divorce, and another 50% of those eligable to marry-but prefer to live in sin, we are destroying marriage ourselves! Why are we picking on Gay People? Because the Republicans see an easy prey! Gays are a minority-how much better to pick on them! This way they avoid talking about the REAL issues killing this Country! I haven't seen any words of enlightenment from any of the Republican candidates when it comes to real solutions to our problems!ReplyDelete
People suffer. They turn to the Bible for solace. They continue to suffer, then they feel okay since they believe they will be floating on the clouds. When you're dead, you're dead. The dirt is on top. The soul? Fiction or non-fiction? The gays live, the straights live. Let 'em live. The Repubs anti stand? Another cheap politico attempt to gain votes among the intolerant. Amen!ReplyDelete
In this entire conversation, I hear a lot about, "Bible, God, Jesus." Is the United States founded on the concept of Human Rights or Christian Rights? Who are we, the electorate to tell fellow Americans, "Nah bud, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, your a No Go at this station?" You know about 150 years ago we fought a civil war that was every bit a test of our souls as American and a test of our ideals that our founding fathers had enshrined in the Bill of Rights to prove it was or was not worth the paper it was written on. It took us another 100 years to put most of that ghost of intolerance and racial supremacy if not behind us at least as not part of our social system enforced by law. I could care less if the guy who asked the question of Romney was a vet or not but I personnaly don't have the inclination to marry another dude but then again, 2 consenting American adults choosing to join in a union recognized by the state, cant see what that has to do with me? Legally, who said people cannot pursue happiness here in the US of A? I know it want our Founding Fathers, so if its a religious thing, people this is simple. Christians, you don't want gays getting married fair enough, don't marry them in your churches, Jews don't like it either, hey say no at the synagogue but remember, the state has no right to recognize any religion therefore these people want to join in a union, you have a Justice of the Peace, a representative of the state, want to call it married or a civil union, who cares? I as a vet fought for all Americans rights, gay straight, whores, pimps, cops, teachers, bums, black, white, Asian , Muslim, Jew, and Christian. Who is it to say that after all our sons and daughters have given their last breath in the defense of our great nation, we have people who would like to do what the enemies we have faced on the front lines were not able to do, take one Americans freedoms? I would say it pretty clearly, god does not have anything to do with this, that's just an excuse that people use to hide behind, you are no different than the Taliban or Al Qaeda, you just don't have the balls to fight. Those of you who have taken the oath and put it on the line and can sit and say that its ok to deny these people their rights, what do you think you were fighting for? Whats the difference between these dirt bags we are dusting over here in Afghan land and the ones that wear suits and carry bibles around at home? They are the same people just on different ends of the rifle butt.ReplyDelete
As much as i believe that every individual has a right to make his choice.I also share the position that such choice comes with great responsibility.when we fail to realize that the ideas of civility hangs on a balance.funny enough this an issue which the worst of political friends (Jews and Arabs)are united.Then the question why such social alliance? It is not religion but a common defense to a balance that hold humanity "MARRIAGE".Just as every nation has a right to excessive C02 emission he comes term that such act does him no good on the long term .The union between man and woman grease the existing cycle of humanity.when we choose to tamper with it, generation to come will pay a price for our own ill conclusion.That in itself is selfish,beyond that such unique attribute is one we human share in common with most living things .we cannot limit such ecstatic union to just humanity,even though humanity stands as the core of global existences.As humans we do not objectify ourselves because that is what differentiate the line between we and the rest.when we cannot control our attraction we forget our place in the pyramidal structure.Richard you hold the fortress for same sex under the veil of civil right, tomorrow would u hold the same position if certain individuals choose to marry animals? please!!! Richards i hold glued to my stance just as i have stated the letters of civil right give room to a young lad to take drugs(cocaine)but that very spirit of civil right contradict and the latter stands supreme.Torn between the demons of poverty and civil unrest in Africa many given the opportunity will dine on the table of modern slavery in an attempt to hold on to a future but the law betray such right.A material circumstance not only in Africa but you and I see such shades every where.RICHARD to separate the law from the deity of morality,The law has no nucleus and we gradually slip into a state of toga all in the name of liberality.ReplyDelete