The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Mike this is the same pizza place that had the line all day long. They have a "semi permanent" place in the short north where they have picnic tables and show old movies on the wall of a building.

They also have an amazing sauce named "F*ck Vampire Sauce" that is AMAZING!

So glad to see this and live in this city.

*Edit*

Just realized you said it was the place.... I will go back to my hole now

Well, good riddance to bad rubbish.

In what can only be described as me trying with every ounce of energy in my body to muster a tear, I simply cannot find any sadness in seeing the end to Maggie Gallagher's op-ed pieces running in a newspaper near you. (Gallagher is the founder and past president of the National Organization for Marriage, the lead anti-gay political organization in the U.S.). Starting on Wednesday, Gallagher's prattle will cease to be distributed by her syndicate and she will be moving on to "other projects."

Good riddance.

Of course, she couldn't leave without getting her last digs in and completely skewing a basic understanding of sex, marriage, and just about everything else.

She writes,

Every life is precious. It is better to care for your children than to kill them. Divorce hurts children; it also breaks apart life's most precious commitment -- a family.

How she ever became an expert on relationships is beyond me. What claptrap. In all my year's of pastoral counseling, the numbers were pretty even on the number of children who were hurt by divorce and those children who were liberated by divorce because they grew tired of hearing Mommie and Daddy scream at each other. And her flair for the obvious is vile. Of course divorce breaks apart a family. So does a fake relationship where the only thing holding two people together is a marriage license from a state.

Sex makes babies. Society needs babies. Babies need their mother and their father. Men and women need each other. We all need a strong marriage culture, whether we choose to marry or not.

Sex also forms bonds and provides communion between two people like no other. Sex is also for pleasure. Babies need a loving environment. Study after study after study has shown no discernible difference in the quality of upbringing if the parent are gay or straight. And while it is true that men and women need each other, men also need other men and women also need other women. In essence, we need each other! As for a strong marriage culture, that sounds all well and good, but we can't even define how we want marriage to look like.

On every key measure, marriage is weaker. The consequences are more obviously unsustainable, yet culturally powerful voices are less willing to engage, and the power of porn and Hollywood to create our norms for family life is more triumphant than ever.

No, on ever key measure, marriage is actually stronger. We now have committed gay couples solidifying their relationships with government-sanctioned contracts that build and create families and solid homes and nurturing couples. I don't even know where to start with the "power of porn" comment, and Hollywood is a little late to the game with shows like "Modern Family" since families like that have existed for some time. But Maggie never misses a chance to bring up the same scapegoats. You know, America would be so much better off if we just got rid of porn and Hollywood and returned to the days of coverture and when husbands could rape their wives with impunity.

Without a powerful ideal of masculinity that points men toward marriage and fatherhood, more and more young men are deciding the hard work of becoming marriageable is not worth it: Porn, beer, video games with the guys, freedom and fleeting sexual encounters are good enough.

This is absurd. Masculinity has never been defined in terms of marriage or fatherhood, and no one, not a single person on this planet, is obligated to enter into marriage for the sake of society. This woman is nuts.

Why should young men work hard to become protectors and defenders of women and children when American culture -- and women -- tells them they are not needed in either role?

Those poor, weak, cowering women who need men, Men, MEN to protect and defend them. Perhaps Maggie's next business card should read, "Maggie Gallagher - Sexist Pig."

The future belongs to those of us with enough hope to rebuild on the ashes of optimism, a new American civilization -- uniting sex, love, babies, mothers and fathers in this thing called marriage.

And with her last pen stroke, Maggie Gallagher proves once and for all that she is nothing more than a bigot, a woman who can't see beyond her own limitations and understand that the new American civilization includes gay people in "this thing called marriage."

Goodbye, Maggie.

You won't be missed.

Whatever happened to love your enemies PR?

Reminds me of Monty Python's the Meaning of Life: "Everytime they have sex, they must have a baby!"

Nomad wrote:

Whatever happened to love your enemies PR? ;)

Yeah, PR, how dare you speak ill of your enemies! Jesus certainly never would call someone a hypocrite, he would love his enemies! (Please ignore Matthew 21:13-36 here, where Jesus even calls the Pharisees - an arguable stand-in for the likes of Gallagher - snakes and vipers! That's some harsh indictment there, and I'm not being sarcastic about that)

I wonder if this attitude towards sex is something that is becoming more prevalent as a matter of acceptance of such cultural extremes represented by shows like the Duggars' show... what is it 19 Kids and Counting? Have they broke 20 yet? I would argue that seeing a couple that certainly seems to view sex as something to do every 9-10 months to get a new bun in the oven after the last one just popped out makes that view more acceptable to others.

What's amusing to this extreme is the lack of emphasis on Mrs. Duggar's health complications that are arising, at least by the family themselves. Based on what I've heard, any future Duggars run a pretty high risk of having the same complications and medical assistance as their last child did, hasn't stopped them from saying they are going to have more and more and more kids. Its ridiculous. Other species on the planet have been studied and found to use sex as a recreational activity (dolphins I remember, were one, but I can't remember what some of the others were) as well, and yet certain groups continue to go on and on about how there is only one purpose to it.

How can you forget bonobos!
IMAGE(http://www.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/bonobo.jpg)

Nomad wrote:

Whatever happened to love your enemies PR? ;)

I am more than happy to entertain some citations where the invocation of love requires the expulsion of criticism.

Several sources are now reporting that the SCOTUS will take up the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases on March 25-26.

How can you forget bonobos!

I knew there were more species, I just couldn't really do a Google search for that at work.

Demosthenes wrote:
How can you forget bonobos!

I knew there were more species, I just couldn't really do a Google search for that at work. :P

What could possibly go wrong with googling "Animals that like to have sex" at work?

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Nomad wrote:

Whatever happened to love your enemies PR? ;)

I am more than happy to entertain some citations where the invocation of love requires the expulsion of criticism.

My wife and I love each other so we never criticize each other.

Or at least we didn't, before the gays started marrying.

Yonder wrote:

My wife and I love each other so we never criticize each other.

Or at least we didn't, before the gays started marrying.

Destroying random heterosexual marriages is part of my and Rubb Ed's charm.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Yonder wrote:

My wife and I love each other so we never criticize each other.

Or at least we didn't, before the gays started marrying.

Destroying random heterosexual marriages is part of my and Rubb Ed's charm.

The other part of the charm is sporting a pair of handsome, gentlemanly beards.

Amoebic wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:
Yonder wrote:

My wife and I love each other so we never criticize each other.

Or at least we didn't, before the gays started marrying.

Destroying random heterosexual marriages is part of my and Rubb Ed's charm.

The other part of the charm is sporting a pair of handsome, gentlemanly beards.

My wife and I did that already thank you very much.

Farscry wrote:

Jesus even calls the Pharisees - an arguable stand-in for the likes of Gallagher - snakes and vipers! That's some harsh indictment there

IMAGE(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4485/gallagherq.jpg)

Hah! Good catch, HP.

So I never figured this out. Is it Gallagher who went on anti gay rants, or the brother who bought his act from the original?

God bless the U.S. Marine Corp.

After a horrible story erupted last year about Ashley Broadway, the same-sex, legal spouse of an Army servicewoman being denied entry into the Ft. Bragg spouse's club, the Marine Corp has sent an e-mail to all of its bases stating that all spouses clubs will admit legal spouses to the clubs, regardless if they are married to one of the same or opposite sex, or else those clubs will be kicked off Marine property.

Interestingly, the stance of the Marine Corp. is that not allow same-sex spouses into the clubs is gender discrimination.

Good for the Corp!

Apparently, in NOM's world, religious freedom is a good thing until the Episcopalians decide that gay marriage is okay. Which they did some time ago, but you know, now it's for real. Or something.

Washington's National Cathedral to Host Ceremonies for Same-Sex Partners (link to NOM blog)

You sort of have to feel sad for the people over at the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) these days.

First, they spent tens of millions of dollars in the last election and got nothing for it except three states that now have solidified marriage equality.

Then, gadfly Maggie Gallagher ends her syndicated column because, frankly, no one cares what she thinks.

But, that doesn't stop NOM from trying, and now they have a new tact:

Since we found some gay people who oppose gay marriage, we shouldn't allow gay marriage.

Oh, but it gets better. Maggie and Co. had to find this grand opposition to gay marriage by gays by going to... France.

Yup. NOM is now touting a video made by a self-loathing gay Frenchman who thinks... um... well... hmmm. I will let you read it for yourself.

Narrator: Your thoughts on "marriage" for all?
I oppose this proposed law. I believe it's homophobic. First off, I think society is giving this to homosexuals for the sake of society itself, but it's without meaning.

Even worse, another reason that I think this is homophobic is this: This law encourages homosexual couples to think they can copy and fit in the way heterosexual couples do. It makes them think they have to follow the example of man, woman, and child, without respecting sexual difference. It denies respect to homosexual couples in reality, with regards to their specificity and who they really are. Gay couples do not exist so that they can be procreative; one doesn't recognize that (if one turns these into marriages). Even if you present this to gay couples like it's a gift, it's still denying who they really are.

Narrator: But then, what about equality of rights?
It's not a question of equality. Equality isn't inherently positive. There are bad/wrong equalities. We call that conformism, uniformity. A lack of recognition to the realities of people. The gay activists who treat equality as sacred do not differentiate between equal rights and the equality of identity. Equality of the law, and equality of self-respect or dignity.

Narrator: Adoption?
In my view, all kids need more than just two parents who love each other. They need two biological parents -- mother and father -- who love each other. Nobody is speaking about that condition for the development of the child. It would be a condition where desire and nature are conjoined. Let's say a child knows of its biological parents but knows that its parents do not really love one another. That's a trauma that it will carry like a burden, all its life. When people talk about gay adoptive parents, they talk a great deal about the feeling of the parents toward the child, but they don't speak about the difference of sex which is "crowned" with love. That's central, that will be with one for all one's life. One must know that one had more than just a biological origin -- also, that one came from true desire. And one must know that the two are linked.

I don't even know where to start with this mess. Does one laugh or cry at a line like, "Giving gays equal rights is homophobic"? And I can't make heads or tails of his stand on adoption because it is meaningless blather.

It must be a sad and lonely time over at the NOM HQ.

Maybe Dan Savage will invite Brian Brown over for dinner again.

Narrator: Your thoughts on "marriage" for all?
I oppose this proposed law. I believe it's homophobic. First off, I think society is giving this to homosexuals for the sake of society itself, but it's without meaning.

Society: "I am so terrified of gays that I just have to give them equal rights!"

I don't even know if he knows what he means, this is so preposterous. And if society is giving a group of people who have been denied rights for the sake of itself... how is that bad again? I mean, ultimately, society is a collective construct. If society deems that giving a minority the rights they have been denied is good for itself, what is it that says otherwise, besides this sad individual?

Even worse, another reason that I think this is homophobic [size=8](we didn't even get the first reason, really)[/size] is this: This law encourages homosexual couples to think they can copy and fit in the way heterosexual couples do.

The idea that homosexuals are not capable of doing so is rather homophobic by itself, I'd say.

It makes them think they have to follow the example of man, woman, and child, without respecting sexual difference.

Record Scratch What? First off, no homosexual relationship follows the model of man and woman. And not even heterosexual marriage demands man, woman, and child. Finally, granting equal rights is not a form of oppression. Society can grant someone the right of freedom of speech and religion, and at the same time permit them to join a religion that limits their speech. This is not a limitation, nor a requirement.

It denies respect to homosexual couples in reality, with regards to their specificity and who they really are. Gay couples do not exist so that they can be procreative; one doesn't recognize that (if one turns these into marriages). Even if you present this to gay couples like it's a gift, it's still denying who they really are.

Notice here that he doesn't get to "who they really are," precisely because this is either a red herring with no real meaning, or he's simply avoiding stating his own obvious self-loathing, bigoted opinion.

Narrator: But then, what about equality of rights?
It's not a question of equality. Equality isn't inherently positive. There are bad/wrong equalities. We call that conformism, uniformity. A lack of recognition to the realities of people. The gay activists who treat equality as sacred do not differentiate between equal rights and the equality of identity. Equality of the law, and equality of self-respect or dignity.

This is just a load of rubbish. As I said before, granting rights is not a limitation. No one is proposing a law that says all gays must marry. We want the right to marry. We want the right to divorce. We want the right to be recognized as capable of forming a stable relationship that benefits society in the same way that every other stable relationship does. Despite the fact that non-married couples, homo-or-heterosexual, do not necessarily offer the same stabilizing effects, there is no penalty for them if they choose not to marry. A married heterosexual couple is given the option to explore either relationship because they have the right to do so.

Narrator: Adoption?
In my view, all kids need more than just two parents who love each other. They need two biological parents -- mother and father -- who love each other. Nobody is speaking about that condition for the development of the child. It would be a condition where desire and nature are conjoined. Let's say a child knows of its biological parents but knows that its parents do not really love one another. That's a trauma that it will carry like a burden, all its life. When people talk about gay adoptive parents, they talk a great deal about the feeling of the parents toward the child, but they don't speak about the difference of sex which is "crowned" with love. That's central, that will be with one for all one's life. One must know that one had more than just a biological origin -- also, that one came from true desire. And one must know that the two are linked.

Here is where the man reveals what a louse he truly is. He throws "gay" in there at one point, but taken as a whole, he clearly despises the idea of adoption overall. And clearly knows nothing of child psychology. Certainly, children need stability to a great degree at points in their lives, but studies are starting to show that as the stigma of divorce has evaporated, children in the midst of divorced families are not nearly so harmed as we once thought, and in fact some benefit from divorce in much the same way the parents do, as in, they are no longer amidst a relationship that isn't working. And he gets one last insult in to adoptive parents, saying that they simply can't have desired their adopted children in the same way a biological parent does. I would pay $20 to watch him say that to the face of an adoptive parent.

Is there a Mad Lib version of this speech. There are nouns, verbs, etc. but they do not seem to fit together. It is a bit like saying My sweet Aunt Greg likes to dive with bacon in his shoes.

KingGorilla wrote:

Is there a Mad Lib version of this speech. There are nouns, verbs, etc. but they do not seem to fit together. It is a bit like saying My sweet Aunt Greg likes to dive with bacon in his shoes.

I oppose this _____ law. I believe it's _____. First off, I think ___ is _____ this to _____ for the sake of _____ itself, but it's without _____.

you are so right...it's like a template for pundits.

It's pretty easy guys, all we have to do is completely eliminate all causes for a child ever being set up for adoption, then kids will always be with their biological parents as is required.

I recommend mandatory abortions for all pregnant women who either do not want to raise the child, or whose partner doesn't want to raise the child. In the case of one or both parents dying or becoming otherwise unavailable for child-rearing after the child has already been born, the child will obviously have to be put to death.

CheezePavilion wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Is there a Mad Lib version of this speech. There are nouns, verbs, etc. but they do not seem to fit together. It is a bit like saying My sweet Aunt Greg likes to dive with bacon in his shoes.

I oppose this _____ law. I believe it's _____. First off, I think ___ is _____ this to _____ for the sake of _____ itself, but it's without _____.

you are so right...it's like a template for pundits.

It is clumsily restating something Jimmy Carter already clumsily put when it came to the subject of interracial marriage. What Jimmy Carter said, without malice, was that he felt mixed race marriages ran a risk of diluting cultural and social ties, customs, foods from immigrants. What he got flack for was saying whites and other races should not marry. He did not really get across the message that preserving minority culture is important, and homogeneity in American culture is bad.

This seems to add in that element of malice along with the ham fisted wording.

Italy highest court. Constitutional Court of Italy, rules that same sex parents can raise children.

France 24 article wrote:

"There is no scientific certainty or concrete evidence but only prejudice" behind the idea that "living in a homosexual family is damaging for the growth of a child," the court's ruling said.

Italy don't have same sex marriage and adoption isn't allowed by gay couples. Just thought I'd keep you abreast, P Rev.

Axon wrote:

Italy highest court. Constitutional Court of Italy, rules that same sex parents can raise children.

France 24 article wrote:

"There is no scientific certainty or concrete evidence but only prejudice" behind the idea that "living in a homosexual family is damaging for the growth of a child," the court's ruling said.

Italy don't have same sex marriage and adoption isn't allowed by gay couples. Just thought I'd keep you abreast, P Rev.

How... did they study this internally then? O_o Or did they outsource their information from other countries?

Guess given the fact that one of the largest religions in the world is like RIGHT there, hard for progressive change to equal rights to occur there, but it's nice to see that ruling at least.

It would be common enough for courts to use research and expert testimony from other countries or jurisdictions.

Axon wrote:

It would be common enough for courts to use research and expert testimony from other countries or jurisdictions.

I know, that just seemed particularly amusing to me. Hopefully this will be a step towards equal rights in Italy.