In the weeks before the election, I noticed a growing number of my fellow citizens wearing Obama’s face on their t-shirts, usually in the spirit of socialist realism art. There’s not a politician alive who I admire enough to the point of worshipful adoration that I’d sport his likeness on my clothing or plaster it all over the wordsmobile (I do, however, wear my FA t-shirts with pride and enthusiastically tell people it’s a right-wing website when asked).
The only pro-McCain t-shirt I have seen in person was worn by a lone demonstrator in front of the house where an effigy of Sarah Palin was hung, supposedly in the spirit of Halloween. And even his didn’t sport McCain’s face on it.
I know that even in blue state California, here in the Los Angeles area, there were more than just a handful of McCain-Palin supporters. Yard signs and bumperstickers were more common; just not the t-shirts. And I’m sure a big part of that has to do with the intimidation factor.
There seem to be more loud activists on the left than on the right. Conservatives seem to not want to make a nuisance of themselves; but many liberals have no problem wearing their politics on their sleeves, on their t-shirts, on their cars. It’s apparently an automatic given that the whole world hates Bush; that’s why, in open public and broad daylight, they can say something derogatory about President Bush and feel safe in not getting called on it. Even amongst strangers.
The sad fact is, liberals, through the education system and through media and Hollywood pop culture, have been “allowed” to define and characterize conservatism. The Republican Party has been branded as the party of the rich; warmongers and war profiteers; racists and bigots. If you don’t believe in the alarmism of global warming, you are a “denier” and don’t care about the planet; if you believe in closing the borders, assimilation, and controlling immigration, then you’re against diversity and appreciation for the beauty of other cultures as well as anti-Mexican. And on and on, it goes…
I did not see one- NOT ONE!- “yes” on Prop 8 sign or button or bumpersticker. But I saw the “No” on Prop 8 placards around, perhaps even more than Obama signs. I thought it might pass, given that California voters had already “been there, done that” with Prop 22. What truly makes me livid about the issue, is how liberal activists once again are the ones who get to frame the debate. They’ve painted it as “the next good fight” in the struggle for civil rights and equality; and anyone who stands in the way is a bigot and a hatemonger, with backward religious beliefs and narrow-minded intolerance. Frankly, as someone rather agnostic on the issue, the bigotry and intolerance that I see is all coming from the self-righteous activists who won’t take “yes” for an answer and allow the majority rule to decide.
If you walk around with a “Yes” on Prop 8 sign the stigma is that you are a homophobic bigot and religious nut. You are the radical. Not the other way around. It’s also amusingly not funny to me that these activist bullies targeted the Mormon Church but not black churches when 70% of blacks voted “yes” on Prop 8. Ah, but I digress….
My post is actually about 14 year-old Catherine Vogt and her t-shirt experiment.
As the media keeps gushing on about how America has finally adopted tolerance as the great virtue, and that we’re all united now, let’s consider the Brave Catherine Vogt Experiment.
Catherine Vogt, 14, is an Illinois 8th grader, the daughter of a liberal mom and a conservative dad. She wanted to conduct an experiment in political tolerance and diversity of opinion at her school in the liberal suburb of Oak Park.
She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching “inclusion,” and she decided to see how included she could be.
So just before the election, Catherine consulted with her history teacher, then bravely wore a unique T-shirt to school and recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal. The T-shirt bore the simple yet quite subversive words drawn with a red marker:
“I was just really curious how they’d react to something that different, because a lot of people at my school wore Obama shirts and they are big Obama supporters,” Catherine told us. “I just really wanted to see what their reaction would be.”
Immediately, Catherine learned she was stupid for wearing a shirt with Republican John McCain’s name. Not merely stupid. Very stupid.
“People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn’t be wearing it,” Catherine said.
Then it got worse.
“One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed,” Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park.
But students weren’t the only ones surprised that she wore a shirt supporting McCain.
“In one class, I had one teacher say she will not judge me for my choice, but that she was surprised that I supported McCain,” Catherine said.
If Catherine was shocked by such passive-aggressive threats from instructors, just wait until she goes to college.
“Later, that teacher found out about the experiment and said she was embarrassed because she knew I was writing down what she said,” Catherine said.
How often do you suppose this happens in the classroom? Often, I believe. I work with a lot of kids and it sounds like liberal indoctrination is all too common. Outing oneself as belonging to a conservative Republican family, and the child is subjected to ridicule from the herd mentality of children who have been told Democrats are “the good guys” and Republicans are basically “evil and selfish”.
Scott’s own daughter experienced abuse by Obama bullies.
One student suggested that she be put up on a cross for her political beliefs.
“He said, ‘You should be crucifixed.’ It was kind of funny because, I was like, don’t you mean ‘crucified?’ ” Catherine said.
Other entries in her notebook involved suggestions by classmates that she be “burned with her shirt on” for “being a filthy-rich Republican.”
Some said that because she supported McCain, by extension she supported a plan by deranged skinheads to kill Obama before the election.
I’ve heard some deranged liberals accuse McCain of being a racist. Absolutely laughable, given one of the most under-reported items regarding Senator McCain is that he and Cindy have a Bangladesh daughter, Bridget, adopted from Mother Teresa’s orphanage. McCain did not politicize the touching story of how this daughter came into their lives, nor make an issue of his two sons currently serving.
And I thought such politicized logic was confined to American newsrooms. Yet Catherine refused to argue with her peers. She didn’t want to jeopardize her experiment.
“I couldn’t show people really what it was for. I really kind of wanted to laugh because they had no idea what I was doing,” she said.
Only a few times did anyone say anything remotely positive about her McCain shirt. One girl pulled her aside in a corner, out of earshot of other students, and whispered, “I really like your shirt.”
Whispered “out of earshot”…..
It’s time for conservatives to be more “activist” and to start fighting back more vocally and vociferously against the misperceptions and decades of slander against the Republican Party and conservative ideology. More importantly, we need to stem the tide of liberal indoctrination in our schools, when we turn on the tv, when we open up the newspaper, when we go out to see movies. If we don’t we will lose the culture war and we will lose the half of America that we believe represents the best part of America.
Hat tip: American Power for the story of Catherine Vogt.
Here’s the follow-up story.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
The follow up is interesting, too:
Problem here is, the liberal message is more “in your face” prevalent in much of our society, today. Turn on the tv, go to the movies, go sit in a classroom and open up your Howard Zinn textbook.
Do you have a return policy on the Flopping Aces Thong?Mine has been riding up on me.
Try wearing it backwards. Problem solved.
i was told to burn in hell for supporting mccain, i live in a rural pretty conservative area too. i was told that i would get what was coming to “people like you”, and i was curious as to what that was. maybe i get into heaven faster than the obama freaks, whatcha think? i saw and heard so much intolerance that i was sickened by it. so much for enlightenment, they really mean, just like us. poor child to have heard the things she did, i hope that cahnged the lib parents mind about their beliefs.
But it’s also true that if Catherine lived in a beet-red community and wore an Obama shirt, she’d get a similar negative, intolerant and ugly reaction.
He says this as though it’s fact. And he knows this… how…?
I blame the PUBLIC (socialist) school system in America, which Obama created in 2008.
I work in a public High School in LA. 85% of the students are African-American. Most teachers supported Obama in my school. Sometimes they asked me about my political position: “I cannot vote, but if I could, I would never vote for Obama”. The reaction was always the same: my answer was unexpected, as if it was inconceivable.
Well, I had two students that came to class one day with a T-Shirt of McCain-Palin. They are 16 years old and they have guts! 38 students in the class, most of them African-American, most of them Obama supporters, and they came to school with their white t-shirts supporting McCain & Palin.
One of them joined a group of Obama supporters that were protesting in the streets, and got a picture taken with his arm over one Obama supporter. The guy, an African-American, was holding a sign that read: “Like Bush’s economy? Hire McCain”. And he appears smiling, with his arm over this guy’s shoulder, with his McCain & Palin t-shirt. Now that one is his picture in his Facebook profile.
These boys are amazing! America need many of those.
Yeah I flashed on the irony of that statement as well. In a story where Kass presents how intolerant and assumptive the Obama supporters were, he then drops to that same level by assuming that the opposite, yet same would occur had the experiment been conducted in a “Red” state with absolutely no basis for his assumption.
Kass’ states he accepts student were conditioned by their parents, yet he fails to note the conditioning within our school system at large, as pointed out by Wordsmith with the link to the FA “election-day-in-an-asheville-nc-classroom” thread. NC was a typical Red state prior to this election. The media and celebrities also bear a lot of responsibility in attempting to use their positions to condition and indoctrinate viewers through propaganda to embrace their philosophies and to be intolerant to ideologies of Conservatives, Judeau-Christianity, patriotism/national pride, military support, and morality in general.
Oh please, lol.
I live in one of the most liberal cities on earth, and get plenty of laughs when I wear my “Sarah Palin’s Intern” T-shirt (I’m female, so it probably gets twice the laughs a guy would, given that conservatives are such rampant, public gay-haters.)
Conservatives are perps, not victims. They shouldn’t act like they are oppressed because of reactions to t-shirts.
#8, suuuure you do. Way to demonstrate liberal “tolerance” hypocrite.
From the follow up link:
I can’t speak for what school children today would do, but I can tell you that I never saw anyone behave that way towards Democrat kids when I was in school. But then, politics wasn’t that big a part of school life. We had mock elections in High School and did reports on campaigns, including debates but they were never nasty or ugly in the way this story describes on either side.
When I went to college the only overt comment directed at Republicans was made in my presence (yes, they knew who I was back then. I was the GOP leader on campus) by a Michael Moore type, he was that fat, political science professor who said to another student loud enough for me to hear “all Republicans are buffoons.”
P.S Over here in South Carolina, conservatives outnumber liberals and yet the libs still drive around with their cars plastered with idiot slogans and Obama stickers. No one bothers them at all. But people with McCain stickers have made reports of their cars getting keyed in parking lots.
I guess I’m a little confused by your reaction here. You think conservatives are perpetrators of what? Crimes?
Are you laughing at the story itself? The one John Kass wrote on young Catherine? Or are you laughing at the reactions and comments?
Maybe you see what you want to see when you wear that shirt or maybe you are lucky in not experiencing so many of the things that others have. I have been attacked verbally when I speak out about my conservative beliefs. I live in the reddest county in the country and still watch what I say around people I dont know. I have lost friends due to this election because we couldnt have real conversations. It was attack talk and I was the idiot and close minded.
So once again, whats so funny and what are conservatives accused of being perpetrators of?
Wordsmith, I really do agree with a lot of what you say here. There is really are many misconceptions the left have about the right, as you state, and we’d really solve a lot of problems if we just talked and got to know each other. And while I did wear my Obama t-shirt in support of my candidate, I could never wear his any other person’s face on my attire (well, except for Batman…)
Where I do disagree with you is on your position regarding Proposition 8. Why don’t we vote on people’s right to own guns? Or write dissent opinions on government policies? Because they are rights already protected by the US Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment states “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Furthermore, the California Supreme Court already ruled that this applied to couples wishing to be binded in marriage, regardless of gender. So why was this even put to a vote? It is my prediction that this will return to the courts, where the previous ruling will be upheld, and ultimately go the same route that interracial marriage did not too long ago.
As for the Mormon church, the argument is not against their religious freedom or free speech, it’s that they put their money towards a political cause, and should have their tax-exempt status removed. Personally, I think that this is an overall issue that needs to be looked at, as it is not unique to this church or this issue.
The subject of Homosexuality is a tough one, tied to people’s understanding, emotions, and religious beliefs. However, I don’t think that all those who oppose gay marriage see themselves as intolerant or homophobic, but many rather support civil unions. I think this will all work itself in time.
For instance, scriptamanent’s wonderful post shows that it’s the younger generation who are becoming more and more tolerant in every respect. So, we’re definitely headed in the right direction!
They have the same rights that I do: I can marry one woman, and so can they. Women can marry one man. Equal rights. 🙂
Isn’t this an example of activist judges legislating? By stretching their interpretation to redefine marriage to mean something other than what it is?
Regardless of gender? Do we stop there? What about regardless of species? What if someone wants to marry her brother? Discrimination against age?
California’s voted twice on this now. Do we do this every few years, until liberal judges and loud activists have their way, despite how the majority feel? Until liberal indoctrination from Hollywood and the NEA finally produces enough “progressive” voters?
The vote percentage is about the same as that of the presidential election. No crybabies over here.
This is where I disagree. I just don’t see how this is a civil rights issue. Even some blacks who are against gay marriage, take offense to the comparison.
Genetically, there is little difference between a black, an Asian, a Latino, a Caucasian. There’s a world of biological differences between men and women.
Point taken and noted.
I listened to one radio caller describe how he donated as a private citizen, his information was splashed on the Huffington Post, and now his business is being harrassed by callers and picketers.
I think that’s taking it to an extreme of political intimidation.
I think what would be helpful to the cause of those who are for gay marriage, is to at least respect the position of some who oppose them and seek to understand where and why they are opposed, rather than simplifying and caricaturizing the opposition as mere homophobia and bigotry.
I think Elton John has his head “screwed on straight“:
I think the argument shouldn’t be framed that there is an attempt to “ban gay marriage” but an attempt to protect the traditional definition of marriage as being that of one man and one woman. At least, that’s the conservative perspective.
Which is why I’m actually rather agnostic (but sympathetic to the conservative view) on this. But “we’re definitely headed in the right direction?” I don’t see scritamanent or my views as evidence of this. It could just be latent liberal indoctrination I’ve been hammered with in my college years and MTV-viewing. How do you know it’s progression in the right direction and not ultimately harmful to the fabric of society and family?
In the end, whether or not we call it “civil union” or “marriage”, is it really that big of a deal, one way or the other? These things only are as important as the weight we give them.
@Wordsmith: I agree with you for the most part. I do not agree with gay marriage, but that is because of my faith. We are supposed to be a country that has freedom of religion. So how can I tell someone that they can’t get married, because of my faith, when they may not share in the same faith? And it is not a big deal to you, or me, but to the couple that love each other with every ounce of their being, and can’t get married, it means a whole hell of a lot.
Now that being said, I do not condone the gay life style, but then again, I will not judge and teach my children to not judge those who live that life style. I also find it hard to believe that God would not accept someone who loved them and accepted Jesus into their heart, as their Lord and Savior, because they are gay. I know the bible says it is an abomination on man. But Jesus died for our sins, ALL of them.
I think that what someone else does in the privacy of their home, and if it doesn’t affect my life, I don’t care what they do, they are not hurting anyone. This issue gives me a headache, because it is not so black and white, and I can see valid points on both sides.
Explain that distinction to the ACLU.
Easy: Regardless of where your beliefs come from, secular or religious in origin, they are beliefs.
Have I brought my religious beliefs into the equation? No. Yet I’ve been able to articulate a position on why the institution of marriage should not be redefined, since the voters of California have spoken…..twice.
Oh, yeah: btw, I’m not a religious conservative.
And they should have compassion, respect, and empathy, even in disagreement. Intimidation, tantrums, narcissistic demands don’t win any sympathies or win arguments, though.
I recall hearing from the left, such mantra as “let the people decide”, “let the people decide”. Well, the people decided. And still, they won’t take “no” for the answer. If they don’t want to accept the will of the majority in the society, then maybe it’s time to leave the society? You either work within it, or you don’t.
That’s not the issue. Many center-right conservatives don’t care what goes on behind closed doors; nor opposed to civil unions and the legal rights that come with that. What we don’t want to see happen is a whole institution redefined for the sake of the narcissistic attitudes of a few.
@Wordsmith: I’m just stating my beliefs in this. I think that for the most part, you and I see eye to eye on this issue. We both do not believe in gay marriage. But I can sympathize with those who are for gay marriage. I do believe that the right decision was made, we’ll see what happens in the next few years, when it comes up again.
I’m sympathetic to the conservative view and I think since it was put up for a vote, the decision of the voters should stand.
But I still consider myself rather agnostic on this, although leaning over the right side of the fence. I could still be swayed to the left.
I think Elton John’s comment is a healthy one. He’s happy and those who believe in the institution of traditional marriage are happy.
I see Larry’s comment was extracted out, as well as my response, and his reader’s post, posted.
Erika (aka “voter”), you miss the point. The LGBT community is not fighting for equal rights and benefits, they are fighting the entire concept of “marriage” as it is government defined.
Frankly I, and most conservatives I know, don’t have a problem with same sex union benefits. However there are some things that do *not* need to happen to accomplish this. They do not need to reinvent the wheel to accomplish what they supposedly say they want.
1: Definition of marriage stays man-woman. Marriage is not a creation of government, but a union devised of religion. Govt got into the act for the financial aspect… shared assets, taxes, etc. Marriage should stay a product of religion, and govt should continue to do what they do for whatever. But marriage was, and is, a religious rite first and foremost. It should stay that way.
2: Civil unions: If they want the same govt benefits, then civil unions is the answer. However the problem is they don’t want civil unions. They want to call it “marriage”. If the LGBT community was merely after benefits, they would be conceding on this. They aren’t. And that’s because they want to change mindsets as to what is “marriage” in the norm. Retraining in schools, advertising, etal. You think the Muslim world doesn’t like us now? Wait until same sex marriage becomes legal…..
Again… see my #1. Marriage is for a man and woman, born of a religious rite. My suggestion to the LGBT? Take the civil union, or forever hold your piece.
3: Conservatism is alive and well, and aptly demonstrated this past election. They voted for a guy who lied thru his teeth and promised tax cuts (very conservative issue). They also voted enmasse for NO to same sex unions (another very conservative issue). Amazing, eh? And they say conservatism is dead. Nope….. it’s just being hijacked by very efficient liars.
And you voted for him.
Wordsmith, there was a lot I was prepared to respond to, but voter covered most of it. Only thing really left is this:
“Regardless of gender? Do we stop there? What about regardless of species? What if someone wants to marry her brother? Discrimination against age?”
When it comes to animals, incest, or pedophilia, these things differ from same sex mutual relationships in that they are almost always, if not absolutely always, indicative of some sort of abuse.
What encourages me is that we are even able to have this discussion. 20 years ago, it would be unheard of to even consider this. For a public servant to even mention anything that affected the gay community would have been political suicide. But your point is taken on my wording that “we are headed in in the right direction” – as right is subjective to one’s point of view. Therefore I will reword my phrase and say that I’m pleased that we are heading in the direction I prefer.
Yes, the term “marriage” is born out of a religious definition. Yet, the Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Unitarian churches all approve and support same sex marriages. So, if it’s just a religious issue, perhaps we should just get the government out of the marriage business entirely and offer Civil Unions to everyone, gay and straight. Then the churches can bless those unions with the title of marriage to whomever they deem appropriate. I think that’s a fair option, albeit a much more difficult one to achieve.
I believe strongly in the power of language, which is why I think that it’s more than a semantical issue. If we pass a “separate but equal” clause, subsequent laws are opened to be passed which apply to one but not the other. Hardly equal.
There’s not much more I can say about this, only that I think it will indeed be worked out in time, so I’m not really too concerned.
@MataHarley: Mata, I am not saying that I think that same sex marriage is the way to go. I am simply saying, I can understand the other side’s argument. I am kind of imagining myself in their shoes, I would want to have the right to be “married” to the person I so dearly love. But in my core I just can’t agree with the non natural union, on paper, as I’m sure most people feel the same way. Like I said this issue gives me a headache, because it has so many significant meanings, and the morality of it doesn’t sit well with me. I think of myself as someone who can relate to all walks of life, without judgement, and yet sometimes I have to put myself in check with this particular issue. I teach my children to not judge someone else’s life style, and yet at times I struggle with it. At the end of the day, my senses kick in, and I remind myself we have the freedom of choice and it is not my place to concern myself with how others live their lives. I’m just glad it’s not up to me to make the decision. I choose not to vote for that particular issue when I’ve seen it on the ballot.
@Wordsmith: I agree, but mostly because Elton John and his partner, are happy with it. It’s a win win.
Cary, tho you make a valid point, religions are a business as well as a faith. The right paperwork, and the govt recognizes you as a church. Where shall that end?
I’m not saying those you mentioned in your statement above are those fly by night financial enterprises, but the traditions of marriage still remain man-woman in the bond of marriage for any of those that still use the Bible as their guide for principles That these particular sects choose to morph their history to suit today’s mentality is not the issue for me. That is their choice. And were I a member of their congregation, I’d be history.
I, personally, will not alter my stance on this just to blend with today’s concept of sexual freedom. Marriage is, and will always remain, a union between a man and a woman. It is only by the two, combined, that a child is borne of natural (not petrie dish) conception… a natural order to procreation. Just as animals will not continue to exist without the natural order of procreation, neither will man. I do not want my granddaughter taught anything different.
If same sex unions needs to be “blessed” by govt in order to achieve their benefits, that is their choice. There is no reason to muddy the waters by the govt redefining what is not theirs to define. The meddling in the traditional rite of marriage is unconcionable. Civil unions… fine. Marriage? An insult to the rite…. and to it’s traditional history.
Erika, I understand we are actually on the same side of an issue here. But you said:
If I choose to be married… whether “in the eyes of God”, or perhaps just a vow spoken between myself and another on a remote beach somewhere… the vow and intent bind me in a way far more powerful than a govt contract. Marriage was not created to be a govt contract, but a very personal vow between a man and a woman before God… or the powers they believe exist.
So my question to you would be… why does the govt have to sanction it as “marriage” for your “right” to be recognized?
I cannot, and will not, put govt on a par with God – enabling them to define a religious (and intensely personal) rite on this issue. The govt does not grant us rights. They pre’exist and usurp govt power.
Again, you still miss the true agenda. This is not about govt benefits for the LGBT community. It is about reeducating the public as to what is “marriage” in order to tear down traditional rites. Otherwise, they’d go for the civil unions.
I would never ask you to compromise your opinions or your spiritual faith. Only to recognize that our laws are not based on the Christian Bible, but allow for different interpretations and adherence to such, as well as other Holy books and even the absence of religious beliefs. Your other questions have already been addressed in my previous comments. So I will likewise ask you how what any couple have between them affects what you have with your spouse or partner in any way. I hardly think that, in the context of your own spirituality, that God would look down on you differently in your own life because of whatever is happening around you.
@MataHarley: Yes, but what the gay community wants is to be recognized as a married couple. A badge of honor that comes with the commitment of marriage. Not to mention the legal rights, a surviving spouse would have a right to inherit. Or to be on one anothers health insurance, etc. All in addition to having a LEGAL ceremony before God. That’s what I see as the major issue with the governments involvement.
The question is… Should the government have so much say so into our lives, and the way we choose to live them?
What is it that the gays does not understand in the word “NO”? Is it the “N” or the “O”?
@MataHarley: This is off subject, but with your awesome powers 🙂 as an author, can you please look on the rape mutilation murder post and do a check if Barbara, and Amy are the same people? They seem to be trying to prove a point using two names. When I changed my name, I did not hide it, nor did I try to make my point as one “personality” more valid, using another personality. I just simply had never been on a forum before, didn’t realize that I didn’t want my real name used.
Why is my comment 30 in moderation, for so long? Is it lost in limbo?
Craig… good to see you’re still here.
Erika, I’ve told you twice, you even repeat it (in some odd form) and it still ends up in some mental void you possess. The LBGT community is *not* about the benefits with this marriage bit. They insist it must be called marriage… which you apparently recognize with your statement:
Now why do they want so badly to be “recognized” as a married couple if not to change societal behavior to accept this as the norm? And how do you think they will accomplish that societal behavioral change but to take this even more aggressively into the classroom?
Because… again… this is not about benefits. It’s about forcibly changing the American culture.
INRE the inheritance, this is easily accomplished via deed, and has been done for decades that I know of… most likely long before my time on this planet. You can leave your belongings to a dog via legal contract. You honestly think that a LGBT couple can’t figure out a way to legally share their assets?
You will find that states like Oregon and California have laws for domestic partners that already offer these benefits… including the hospital visits, etal. Yet that doesn’t deter their assault on the rite of marriage. They have not achieved their goal. And the US population is very conservative on this still… marriage is for a man and a woman. Civil unions are for same sex couples.
Now if they have any beef, it’s that civil unions are per state, and they are not recognized as they cross borders. Meaning if they have a civil union in a state with appropriate domestic partner laws, and relocate, they may have to accommodate with legal documents for their shared assets.
Then again, a concealed carry in Oregon isn’t recognized outside the state…. The difference between state and federal laws.
Cary, INRE your comment:
First of all, I didn’t ask any questions. But thank you if you felt you answered them. This is not a new issue to me, and your arguments are as common as raindrops in Oregon. My bank of friends and acquaintances thruout my years has included diverse culture, as well as sexual preferences. I have no particular bias on a lifestyle choice for any individual other than myself.
But will I agree to reeducation of a culture to appease their desires? In a word, no.
You contradict yourself when you say our laws are not based on the Christian Bible and then insist that the govt involve itself with mandates on what is a ritual born of religion. Again, I say to you as I do to Erika… if benefits is the issue, make the benefits available. However the LGBT community refuses anything but “marriage”. I know their agenda. They begrudgingly accept a civil union, but only as the first step to making it full fledged “marriage”, as defined in the Christian religion, on the next step.
As for your comment:
You ask this because you still refuse to accept the genuine agenda of altering perception of traditional family and marriage in this country. For a same sex couple… hang, a dog and a person – several people – why not?… to have legal benefits? I have no problems. But when you start educational agendas that now contradict the traditional family of a mom, dad and children they conceive, bear and raise being the norm, you most certainly “affect” my life, and that of my family and posterity.
A marriage between a man and a woman follows natural laws of conception and procreation. It is the way our world evolves and grows. Were any animal species of this inclination to any serious degree, it becomes extinct.
I can easily agree with the 50-60% of the population that feels civil unions gives same sex partners legal benefits that are enjoyed by married couples. But marriage and civil unions are not “equal” in the laws of nature… unless you think premature extinction from the lack of ability to conceive is “natural”. They should be equivalent in benefits, but in no way considered equal as a traditional family.
Come talk to me when your kids or grandkids come home and tell you what they’ve learned about the new “traditional” family in America… then ask yourself, did altering our culture from the traditional family concept affect your life?
@MataHarley: This isn’t a subject that I really care about to terribly much, but to the argument that they are trying to forcibly change the American culture. Only thing that comes to mind is, we forcibly changed American culture, with the civil war. That is the only way things get changed, is forcibly. Other wise everything remains status quo. Some agree with the change and some do not, same as in the past with other issues. We will find another issue that will challenge the status quo, and the cycle will repeat.
Also, since I am not gay, I don’t know exactly what they want. I can just speculate.
“You contradict yourself when you say our laws are not based on the Christian Bible and then insist that the govt involve itself with mandates on what is a ritual born of religion.”
Actually, as you’ve read, I proposed eliminating government from this process all together.
As for my “common” arguments, I feel likewise about yours. But this is a new discussion, so I don’t know what you’ve heard before, and sound arguments remain sound.
As for children, I must ask another common question: What is your stance on infertile heterosexual couples or those who chose not to have children?
As far as my own kids… well, I don’t have any. As a struggling actor who has to be prepared for taking jobs out of town at a moment’s notice, or enduring long periods of time without work, I feel it would be irresponsible of me to rear a child alone. And with three support jobs, along with auditions and classes, I just don’t have time to even date anyone. This is why I particularly admire single moms and dads, I know I could never do it. But my sister does have children, and she has explained to her kids that sometimes men can love other men and women can love other women very much the same way that mom and dad love each other. This doesn’t change the definition of “traditional”, it just adds the word “alternative”. My nephew is now 16, displays a mature tolerance beyond his years, seems to have a different girlfriend every week, and always treats women with the highest respect. So, I hardly think that teaching him tolerance and diversity has tainted him in any way but positive.
Erika, when you “forcibly” change a religious rite, you also create unintended consequences and repercussions.
SueK put it very well on the other thread. Just what happens when the US govt declares same sex marriage as legal, and churches are forced to change their beliefs to perform this “legal” marriage?
What happens when a church going family, or even occasional… hang, even a never attending traditional family has a child that comes home and tells them that churches and God are bad because the govt says same sex marriage is as normal as apple pie, and the church believes that man and woman were made as companions to procreate and evolve the human race?
I’ve always been annoyed that govt dabbled in the marriage bit. I understand that it was to provide (or refuse) benefits because of an IRS filing status. But when the govt starts defining what is meant by a religious rite, we are all in deep do doo.
And know that you are aware that the talking points of the LGBT community may not be articulating what it is they “want” (badge of honor, hell…. LOL), you might start processing the issue a bit differently. Because I’m not sure your want your schools indoctrinating your kids to a new view of a traditional family. They are already in there in some ways…. but they are having to sneak in thru the back door to battle the irate parents on this.
@MataHarley: I agree with you, you have made a good point, I do not want my children learning ANYTHING about the gay lifestyle, except for what I teach them. Just as I don’t want the schools teaching my children about political issues, I believe that is MY job. If they can’t teach the bible, and leave that up to the parents, they should not be able to teach about lifestyles, or anything else that does not have to do with the traditional subjects.
Cary #35… you took a huge leap there, guy. Who was talking about “tolerance”, as you put it? All children should be taught not to abhor someone who is different. That’s quite the left turn on your part. Feh to you.
I have lost most of my gay friends now to AIDS. Spending time with them in the hospital until they drew their last breath of air was heartbreaking. This is so not about “tolerance”.
This is talking about teaching children that same sex marriage is the traditional and natural order of life. If that were not true, the human race could procreate because we were unisex.
I’m happy your sister’s kids are “untainted”, as you say. But that’s rather presumptuous of you to assume that all parents want their children taught something that they, or their church, teaches otherwise. You and your sister do not speak for the nation.
Nor do I want to see churches that a great percentage of the US population frequents having to alter their doctrine, or their performed rites, at the risk of losing their non profit status because the govt dabbled in religious rites to appease a loud minority.
That you use the word “tainted” in this conversation shows you have a hard time conceiving of separate but equal vs A and B must be the same to make it right… ala “marriage”.
As for your “infertile” question… has no bearing on the unintended consequences of going this route via federal law. But since you ask, I have always believed adoption is fabulous.
@Cary: That’s great that your sister can have that kind of relationship with her child, but it was HER decision. I think alot of parents choose to not go into detail about the subject, I know I do. It should be the parents decision when and how it is explained to them. My children have asked me questions, and I try my hardest to answer with as little info as possible, (I believe in keeping the innocence as long as possible, heck my 10 and 8 year old still believe in Santa, the tooth fairy, and the Easter Bunny). But I also make sure they know not to judge ANYONE, for anything, including how they live their life, as well as their religion. My children are the ones who stick up for the Muslim kids in school when the others call the “terrorists”.
Being a parent is hard, even with a two parent household. There are so many things to factor in when dealing with these kinds of issues.
I don’t know what “feh” means, so I’ll not respond to it.
Again, you bring up a point which I have already addressed in this thread. This time it’s my stance on “separate but equal”.
I agree that adoption is a great option. It gives children a loving home for those who cannot otherwise have them, and more adoptions could do well to dramatically lower the abortion rate. It’s a win- win.
I’m sorry you’ve lost so many friends to AIDS, I know what it’s like, having lost quite enough myself. Trust me, knowing that you worked in the entertainment industry, I am well aware that you’re not ignorant to the plight and contributions of those who identify themselves as homosexual. I’m also confident that you have first hand knowledge of the bond that gay couples can have towards each other, and the difficulty they endure at the hands of society. I’m sure that you loved every single one of them, and that your political stance is non reflective of that.
In the end, I think that a close examination of our views, as presented here, will show that we agree on much more than we disagree. As I said, it’s a topic that brings up a lot of emotion for both sides. So, I think we’ll just have to accept that where were at right now is good enough, for now.
Thanks for an open, honest, and intelligent discussion.
@voter: You sound like a great mom, and I mean that!
You’re welcome for the open, honest discussion, Cary. Now can you alter your own opinion that those of us who favor civil unions and not same sex marriages are not “intolerant” bigots?
BTW, feh is a yiddish expression of disgust or “yuck”, so to speak.
@Cary: Well thank you very much. I wish you all the luck in your acting, and when you make it big, come back and let us know when to watch. 🙂
Mata, I’m afraid you are mistaken as to my rhetoric. Perhaps I didn’t write it clearly enough, but I never stated that anyone here who disagrees me in this thread is a bigot. In fact, I wrote quite the contrary in comment #13 here. Bigotry is indeed prevalent in our society, but I’ve not seen it here. I DO NOT perceive those who favor Civil Unions to Marriage as bigots, and thought I was careful to say so. My apologies if that was somehow unclear.
Thank you for the clarification, altho I see nowhere in your comment #13 that stated clearly that you did not judge those who did not support same sex marriage.
What you said was:
You were discussing the way we view ourselves, followed by this “will all work itself in time”. But I’ll take you at your word that this doesn’t mean you consider us uneducated bigots. LOL
Now, since you brought it up before, you really need a refresher course in civics, Cary.
The LGBT community *has* equal protections for Constitutional rights. Same sex marriage – even hetro marriage – is not a “right”, it’s a “rite”. The govt has taken upon itself to recognize some forms of unions in order to dispense govt benefits.
Government benefits are also not “rights”.
But if same sex marriage is okay, why not polygamy? Beastiality? Pandora’s box of govt bennies….
Your base error is believing that a religious rite of marriage is a “right” controlled by the government. It is not. They only control the ensuing benefits. Do not confuse the two.
Now I can see why you confused my stance. I’ll try to improve my rhetoric in the future.
The 14th Amendment is commonly held to be an extension of the Constitution’s premise that all men are created equal (I take the word men to refer to “mankind” and thus includes women), and prohibits states from overriding its protections. Thus, I hold that equality in a civil contract, including in name, without gender based discrimination, is a “Right” – as opposed to a religious “Rite”.
Now Mata, I mean you no disrespect – from what I’ve read, you seem like a person I’d really like. But your arguments are continuously repetitive, even when I’ve addressed them. So I’m very sorry, but I need to bow out of this now. I look forward to another discussion on another topic in the near future. For now, have a good night.
I was a little confused by your response;
Was that directed to me? Or perhaps another post that was later deleted? Or just sarcasm? All I pointed out was error of logic in the writer’s message, so I fail to see why that makes me intolerant or a hypocrite.
You stereotype all Conservative as;
I do have several acquaintances amongst local Las Vegas entertainers/performers who are homosexual. I do not hate them for their sexual persuasion and have talked to them concerning the nuances of gay marriage and civil unions. They are appreciative of my acceptance of civil union partnerships as unions that should be afforded the same rights and privileges of marriage in lieu of accepting the implications of the religious term “marriage”. Several of them are atheists and actually prefer having their partnerships defined as a secular union rather than one with parochial connotations so long as they enjoy the same benefits and rights. In this regard, they agree with Elton John’s views on marriage and civil unions. In my discussions with them, they pointed out that the primary proponents within their own cultural cross-section who wish marriage to be redefined as opposed to accepting civil unions are radicals who wish it be that way, based solely on their desires to culturally piss off the “breeders”; Judeau-Christians and Islamics who hold so firmly to their convictions.
It’s much like the difference between “true” feminists who would accept Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and our newest 4-star general (See; http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/11/16/breaking-the-brass-ceiling/) as strong women and role models for their gender and those radical feminists who refuse to accept the later two examples as “feminists”. And there are many lesbian feminists who would fall under both of these radical elements. I personally only know one individual who would be indicative of this extreme and nobody can talk any sense to her. She is a very stubborn individual and a chronic “male-basher”, who even gets in the homosexual males faces with her vile contempt. Needless to say, she doesn’t have many friends in the theatrical community.
There is no justification in our free society to change our laws to ignore the vast majority, merely to pander to a “one-thousandth of a percentile” cross-section of our populous. To do so would be treading into dangerous territory. After all, we wouldn’t want our majority rule laws defined on the narrow beliefs of so-called skinheads would you? Or KKK members, as was attempted in the 1960’s by Southern Democrats with segregation as an answer to civil unrest.
Your position that religion has no bearing on law is unfounded. Historically many laws have their roots in religious laws which stemmed barbarianism and hatred by dictating civilization be controlled via tenets of moral standards. The founding fathers used religious laws as a starting point to outline how this country would be legislated. They established “God given rights” for the people. The 10 Commandments were just one of these sources. Do you have a problem with these ones; “Thou shalt not kill”, “Thou shalt not steal”, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”, “Thou shalt not bear false witness”, and “Thou shalt not covet”. The rest of the commandments were additional laws intended for the faithful to adhere to, not the “gentiles”. Deuteronomy established legal guidance for fair judgments amongst the Hebrew communities and later with Israel, and made specific exceptions and conciliations for dealing with to those member of the communities who did not know of or understand their laws. Granted, some fundamentalists throughout the ages have abused those laws for the oppression of others. But by and large these initial steps toward civilization is what instrumented mankind’s ascent from anarchy.
By the way, Obama’s wealth redistribution plan breaks the; “Thou shalt not covet” covenant. That was why our founding fathers did not incorporate entitlement programs into our laws and why socialist programs our counter to their intentions.
Why do I allow myself to get pulled back in when I say I’m done? This site is like Crack!
Rocky, I do not dispute that many of the founding fathers were deeply spiritual and religious, with a morality which was produced through their faith. But they also recognized, even within their own body, that these views would differ among them and our citizens, and provided for that.
I call your attention to the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment:
“The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the “separationist” or “no aid” interpretation, while the second approach is called the “non-preferentialist” or “accommodationist” interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government’s entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.”
Now please see comment #23, and that will definitely be my final word. Thank you.
You stereotype all Conservative as
Oh wait…please tell us how YOU’RE so different [rolleyes]
BTW, “feminists” don’t need any assistence from self-proclaimed conservatives in determining who “feminists” should and must support. There are “feminists” like me who can appreciate Palin in some ways, perhaps even see her as an empowered person, but also maintain a critique of her whackadoodle politcs, dunno, that might be too much cognitive dissonance for a conservative, since they so legendarily like simplicity and black-and-white thinking.
There are “feminists” who defend Palin from the rampant sexism of the conservative males trying to get in her pants and saying all manner of weird crap about what they’re gonna do to her. I’m also having a great time watching conservative males suddenly discover “sexism”, when what they thought was going to be their new damsel in distress needed rescuing from a so-called “liberal” press that didn’t treat her with “deference” LOL as if Miss Wasilla actually earned any “deference”.
You may enjoy a special section I have just for them at my site, called “Angry Conservative Male Commentary on ‘Women'”. As if those people knew jack about “women” besides what’s in their porn stacks.
There is no justification in our free society to change our laws to ignore the vast majority, merely to pander to a “one-thousandth of a percentile” cross-section of our populous. To do so would be treading into dangerous territory. After all, we wouldn’t want our majority rule laws defined on the narrow beliefs of so-called skinheads would you? Or KKK members, as was attempted in the 1960’s by Southern Democrats with segregation as an answer to civil unrest.
LOL, uh-huh so this mythical “one thousandth of a percentile” would be whom, exactly?
Since when did your mythical “one thousandth of a percentile” ever force ANYONE to backs of buses for not sleeping with same sex, or force heterosexuals into inferior schools and neighborhoods on the basis of who they slept with?
Illogical, ahistorical comparison, though predictable and typical coming from a self-admitted conservative.
BTW, those Southern Dixiecrats are called “Republicans” now. Southern Strategy/Nixon/Silent Majority, honey. Now known as Real America/Pro America/etc. Sarah Palin tried to rile them up this year. Didn’t work, because normalcy prevailed. For once.
The point I was making was that religion has influenced our laws and that is supported by the statement in the exclusionary clause Cary cites which prohibits:
This left open the argument that although some of our secular laws originated in religious laws, as they held bearings on secular purposes, they could be deemed acceptable. The Constitutionality of the exclusionary clause was never even examined by the Supreme Court until 1947.
Marriage is a protected religious rite as Mata attests, Civil Unions are not and may be used as an acceptable secular solution in lieu of religious rites of marriage.
Marriage since time immemorial, was a religious practice and rite based on parochial beliefs, not at the whim of the legal system. Changing the definition of marriage preferentially is not a neutral government action. It would redefine religious standards and transform it from a religious, to an irreligious institution, therefore to do so is unconstitutional under both the Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion Clauses.
The conduction of marriages as a religious sanctity practice places a burden on the clergy to perform them. Each religion has it’s own traditional marriage rituals. Civil Unions being offered in lieu of marriages in front of a justice of the peace or a ship’s captain, places no burden on the clergy and does not require a ritual. In this regard, the ability for non-clergy to perform marriages may in itself be unconstitutional. In the same regard, forcing churches to conduct same sex-marriages by law would also be unconstitutional. Just as legally forcing parochial hospitals to conduct abortions against the tenets of that institution’s faith would be similarly unconstitutional. Their doctors would be justifiably allowed to refuse to perform such actions.