In Defense of Marriage

Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan, who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.

Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced

Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced

former Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced

Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced

George Will - divorced

Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced

Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.

Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH
marriage are you defending?!?

Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced

Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)

Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorced

Henry Kissinger - divorced

Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced

Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced

Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced

Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced

So ... homosexuals are going to destroy the institution of marriage? Wait a minute, it seems the Christian Republicans are doing a fine job without anyone's help!

Separation,Divorce and affairs happen to an awful lot of people and throwing rocks at them is fool hardy,but quite fun when those same people aren't living the lives they want others to live.

Well, those were the charges. But after hearing the case and testimony from Clinton, Lewinsky, Jordan and Blumenthal, the Senate voted 55-45 to acquit him, well short of the 2/3 required and not even a majority of the Senate.

Only if your last name happens to be Clinton. Then people will bring up all of your mistakes to suit their political needs.

Why does anyone?

"homosexuals are going to destroy the institution of marriage"

And I ask how is that? Will we be any more married without gay marriage or less married with it? What are so many people afraid of and why? Is it nothing more than homophobia?

I'm married over 30 years. I sure will not be or feel less married if gay marriage is legal, likewise I won't feel more married if it isn't.

By the way same sex marriage is legal and has been for some time in MA and the sky hasn't fallen in. Believe it or not life has gone on as usual and normal since it became legal.
Maybe MA knows more than the rest of the country and should take lessons from us.

Remember the "shot heard round the world" came from MA.

The trouble is that right-wing politicians are using their interpretation of religion to deny the right of marriage to a whole segment of society. And, as the OP pointed out, many of those that support such a ban have made a mockery of marriage through their adultery, cheating, and other escapades.

Marriage was conceived in Paradise" The Garden of Eden.
Of course it's religious!

You get tax breaks and SS benefits and such…of course it’s political!

Call it a "union" or "gay married" and everything should be fine. "Marriage" is a sensitive word. I’ve even heard people here refer to their marriage as an "inter-racial" marriage, or a "mixed marriage". "Gay married" should be acceptable

I don't believe the question has ever been answered in this forum, though: How will allowing the legal union (marriage) of gays have any impact whatsoever on heterosexual unions? What makes it so personally objectionable for so many straight people? Does it honestly affect them, and if so, how?

Not a valid question. I don't think many people have a problem with allowing any two adults to form a union. Calling it "marriage" is the problem. I see this need to use the term "marriage" as an attack on heterosexuals and religion…the two "evils" that stand against their ways. I see this attack as part of an inferiority complex that one must deal with when "coming out of the closet".

But, to me, that's not a valid reason for objecting. OK, even if we do use the word "marriage" to refer to a gay union (just as we apply it to a hetero union), how does the mere use of the word as applied to a gay union have a negative impact on, say, my marriage (which is straight)? It actually has no impact whatsoever. Calling a gay union a "marriage" means nothing to me, because it neither detracts from nor adds anything to my marriage. It's a non-issue.

I don't get it.

In the very early days of the US, "marriage" was just a matter of a man and a woman moving in together and agreeing that they were married. All they had to do was introduce themselves three times as married, and that would do it. In some states that is still the case, if a man introduces a woman as his wife three times to three different people, they are common law married as far as the government is concerned. Marriage has always been more a political thing than a religious thing. Otherwise, why would the government be trying to control it?

I always thought it was the act that offended people. You know, Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve…Madam and Eve.

Marriage is a man and a woman…Husband and Wife. Please explain how two people of the same sex meet the criteria.

Insurance is privatized. Lobby them for a policy for gay couples.

Well, the first marriage in my family on this continent took place in April 1614 when my ancestor John Rolfe married Matoaka ("Pocohontas") and they married in the Anglican church at Jamestown. Rolfe had to secure permission from Governor Dale and marriage was recorded. Maybe that holds true before the first permanent English settlement in North America, but church marriages date to long before the establishment of the United States.

Jadle, I'd suggest that you start spending some time on right-wing or evangelical web sites. you'll find plenty of people saying just that.

You say that marriage is between a man & a woman. I say it doesn't matter. Why should it? If two people want to commit themselves to each other, why should it be illegal? Why shouldn't they have the same legal benefits as a heterosexual couple? No one on the multiple threads regarding this subject has given any kind of answer to that question. Nor have they answered the questions on how letting same-sex couples get married will destroy the institution of marriage and the family as we know it.

As for Adam and Eve, if you're going to throw them out, who was around to marry them? [For the record, the first marriage mentioned in the Bible occurs after the expulsion from Eden, when Cain and Seth marry...(others, to be precise, though of course that raises another interesting question, where did their spouses come from?)

Spewey,
I had an answer but I like trudi's a little bit better.

It attacks the very essence of the word.

Okay. You lost me here. Perhaps I haven't been keeping up. When did this happen? When did gay marriage cause insurance rates to go up?

Can homosexuals destroy the institution of marriage? Perhaps. The word 'gay' has been destroyed forever now. Gay used to mean having or showing a merry, lively mood. I've had plenty of homosexual friends and they've all been just as miserable and screwed up as heterosexuals so what makes anyone think they're actually gay?! Granted, since the 17th century 'gay' has also been used with sexual overtones, but never in a positive way as in its other meaning is licentious or wanton. I can't imagine anyone being proud of being labled that way. Or is homosexual just too long a word to say/write all the time?
Whatever the reason, a perfectly good word will never be used the way it once was again. And that may be the same fate of the sanctity of marriage should homosexuals attain marital status.

High profile marriages often took place in churches, because it was the contemporary version of television for people to see the pomp and circumstance.

Marriage is a good thing, but just not the ONLY thing that keeps people together. I'm just sayin' ...

Exactly. Notice how nobody is able to rebut this one?

Do they believe that a sinful relationship deserves to be recognized as a holy union? I might be arrogant, but not confused. This is the second time you've assumed that I was a religious republican. You are so wrong on both parts. You are the arrogant one. They aren't the only people who see the problems with a homosexual "marriage". No, I'm not religious. But why isn't a civil union good enough. I have already said that I didn't care if they got all the benefits as long as it doesn't cost me. Calling it marriage is nothing more than an attack on religious people and you know it. "Arrogant" is assuming that anyone that doesn’t agree with gay marriage is a religious republican and everyone for it is a staunch democrat! You’re knee deep in the hoopla. I say, quit attacking the religious people. Leave them alone.

Littleonefb
I sure would like to see some proof of your claims. You know, you visit an insurance website that tells you all about the diseases involved with the act, and they explain how it will increase rates…then I hear…YOU? say different. Do they get all of the federal benefits? If they want a divorce, do they just leave the state? And once again for the people who can’t read very well. ..A civil union with all the benefits of marriage is fine with me. When I have time to worry about gay rights, I’ll check to make sure the gay couples in your state get all the federal tax breaks and such…because I don’t believe that you actually know.

For the record…I vote for the Constitutionalist party when I have a chance, then libertarian, then green, then democrat…depending on the ballot choices. I have never voted republican, and democrat only one time. Your logic is just as confused as your gay marriage issues. Also, for the record, democrats aren’t atheists. My grandfather was an elected official for 20 years and an elder at the church of Christ…and, a democrat????? How did that happen? Calling me a republican doesn’t bother me any more than calling me a democrat would. I’m actually sick of hearing you two fight it out everywhere you get a chance.

Really, is there no "happy medium"? Can’t the gay people understand that using the term marriage for gay people is just as bad as using the "N" word to some people? A "union" isn’t good enough? Why?

Spewey,
Again, I didn’t say it would affect your marriage at all. It attacks the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

Once again, I see this need to use the term "marriage" as an attack on heterosexuals and religion…the two "evils" that stand against their ways. And a couple of people here are proving this. However, I failed to see that they are also using it as an attack on republicans, also.

You would have to change the definition of the word "marriage" to include two people of the same sex. You would have to add the term "partner" to "husband and wife". Of course, if we did this, the new definition would only be valid in America. Why go through all of this offensive hassle. What’s wrong with a civil union?

cait1
They also stole the rainbow!!! I love rainbows! How un-cool! Naturally, they would have to attack another religious belief. More proof of this inferiority complex I mentioned earlier. Give me back the rainbow!

There are also plenty of religious gay people who would seek out a solemnized marriage. Are we as a nation to violate our Constitution and make religious decrees?

For what it is worth, I don't recall any place in the New Testament where Jesus was wandering around with those twelve guys and he made any statements regarding homosexuality.

Civil unions do not always confer the same rights as marriage. And civil unions are only available in a few states.

Hooooooly crap.
I can hardly believe I just read that.

No, not just a ban. Any legislation on religion. Therefore, they have no right to legalize gay marriage. They can't rule on it. They can only rule on civil unions. So, the gays need to be addressing civil union rights...not marriage rights.

Separate insurance policies? What in the world are you talking about? Actuarial tables are based on individuals with their group risk factors. Unidentified gays are already factored into these actuarial tables without reference to sexual preference. Besides, if it is true that the Gay lifestyle does decrease life expectancy (as some maintain), then a gay married couple would be outing themselves to the insurance industry to be insured differently from hetero couples. So in this instance, gay marriage would actually save heteros insurance money, jadle.

You should know that evidence that a gay lifestyle reduces life expectancy is very sketchy and controversial because it is based on more anecdotal evidence than actual numbers. Mortality data for these studies are based on incomplete data - obits from known gays which are probably skewed and not representative of all gays. The mortality risk factor is AIDs and is highly skewed towards older cases before HIV/AIDs drugs came on the scene. There are many gays who have a low risk for AIDs because they take precautions and practice monogamous relationships. In addition, the life expectancy for those with AIDs is increasing, AIDs is not just a gay disease, and in addition, other disease risk factors for gays are probably similar to other groups and probably lower for some diseases and injuries. Actually, in terms of AIDs lesbians are probably the least at risk.

Marriage may be a religious sacrament to some, but not to everyone.

The courts have upheld the right of Massachusetts and some municipalities to provide for gay marriage. It would take a constitutional amendment to overturn the courts, and when such a ban has come before Congress, it's been defeated.

As a public health worker, I have enough general knowledge to vouch for the accuracy of some of the claims in this post, but not all. This person seems to have done a thorough review so I will provide it here in the interest of providing a complete picture. The post was very comprehensive so I will include it in full and let the poster speak for himself:

Just an FYI, since you quote one of the lies the anti-gay right tells and disguises as statistics. There is absolutely no data suggesting that gay people have a different life expectancy than straights. That 20-year thing is, in fact, "a statistic dreamed up by opponents of heterosexuality." The specific opponent is Paul Cameron, head of the Family Research Institute and a well-known scientific fraud. No less an authority than the Supreme Court of the United States, in its Lawrence vs. Texas decision, noted in a footnote: "Dr. Cameron, who is cited as an authority ... has been discredited in both the scientific community and the courts." It goes on to note that a lower court judge characterized Cameron's testimony as "fraud or misrepresentation." In the 1980s, Cameron was ejected from the American Psychological Association, the Nebraska Psychological Association, and the American Sociological Association, the last of which noted: "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism."

Cameron first dreamed up the statistic in a study he did of obituaries in gay newspapers. The methodological flaws in that study are detailed at the website of a University of California,Davis, professor of psychology's website: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html

Suffice it to say that a sample of the obituaries of people that happened to be printed in the gay press, which does not make a habit of listing all deaths of everyone, is not even close to a statistically useful sample.

Then recently Cameron juggled some statistics from the CDC and, surprise!, came up with exactly the same results. Cameron has a long history of drawing invalid conclusions by comparing numbers that are not comparable and ignoring factors that would render his conclusions inaccurate.

There's one other study the bigots cite in pretending gay people die younger. That's a study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology that looked at how AIDS was affecting the life expectancy of gay men in Vancouver in the late 80s and early 90s. It was an attempt to measure the effects of a disease on a certain portion of the population, not to differentiate gay life spans from straight ones. It was never generally applicable to the rest of the world, and since it was done before newer AIDS drugs came out, the numbers it found are no longer valid. In any case, it only applied to gay men, and not to lesbians, who get AIDS at a lower rate than heterosexuals and so, by the logic of the AFA, are leading a "lifestyle" that should be encouraged.

The authors of that study, Robert Hogg et al., were so appalled by the misrepresentation of their study that they felt compelled to publish a letter in the Journal in 2001. "These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being," they wrote.

They added, "It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure. Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor." And they said that anyone wanting to know the life expectancy of a gay man should use the same actuarial tables used for all men.

Posted by: Neil Savage at December 10, 2005 02:49 PM

"AIDs is not just a gay disease"
Anymore, but is still about 50% of the cases here. I know AIDS isn't a gay disease. But, they are responsible for the American epidemic.

I'm new here... and I think I clicked on wrong link somewhere and ended up in the twilight zone....

Don't you think that a sensible gay person would want a policy desinged for them?
No, I don't think gays want to be discriminated against for their sexual preference particularly if it is based on faulty information.

But, they are responsible for the American epidemic.
Well, lets see, Reagan dawdled and did nothing to support AIDs research or put the federal healthcare agencies to work with PSA's and other disease prevention. So you would just abandon people with the first cases of a disease who unknowingly spread it? What if we had done that in 1918 and abandoned all those WWI soldiers spreading the epidemic? Also, for your information, some of the fastest growing AIDs cases are in young heterosexuals.

How about seperate taxes too so gays don't have to chip in to pay for the education, clothing or feeding of kids they didn't have.

Fair is fair right?

"Who are you gonna believe - some insurance adjusters on a forum or scientists? Separate policies?! Did you even read my post?"
No, I didn’t read you’re post before I posted that comment. See my statement above for that reply. Where is the scientific evidence? His word?

"No, I don't think gays want to be discriminated against for their sexual preference particularly if it is based on faulty information."
And likewise, I don’t want to have to pay for it if it is true. Some of my $4,750 in property went to school taxes…I don’t have kids and have to pay dearly for it.

" So you would just abandon people with the first cases of a disease who unknowingly spread it?"
No, just the ones that knowingly spread it, like Patient Zero. (I know, it’s "o") Yes, I think we should have quarantined those people and saved millions of lives. I know he wasn’t the first American case, but his group started the whole American outbreak. Just think of the millions of people he has "touched". Yes, they are all the victims of this ruthless person, who knowingly spread it. Please don't point me to a bogus website that claims that patient zero if false. Show me proof and I will listen.

Spewey,
"Marriage may be a religious sacrament to some, but not to everyone."
But they want it to be a religious union. Didn’t you read what Lucy claimed?
"How arrogant! There are plenty of gays who are quite religious and who believe marriage is a holy union which should be sanctified by God, and I doubt very much that the 'benefits' are enough for them any more than they'd be for you"

Not all gays that want to marry would want a religious ceremony. All states provide for non-religious ceremonies, such as those conducted by court clerks, judges, justices of the peace, boat captains. If a church wants not to provide a ceremony, they can do so, just as Catholic priests won't generally marry non-Catholics. Marriage is not necessarily religious, for gays or heterosexuals alike. Just like the rest of the population, some gays are religious and others aren't.

Secondly, Jadle, for all your protestations about being precise, you still haven't answered the question of how gays being able to be married will destroy the so-called sanctity of marriage. And considering the divorce rate still hovers at or around 50%, just how much sanctity is there in the institution anyway?

Secondly, Jadle, for all your protestations about being precise, you still haven't answered the question of how gays being able to be married will destroy the so-called sanctity of marriage.

I believe that the only way a person could possibly answer this question affirmatively is to state that they believe homosexuality is an "abomination", that being gay is a sin, and that a higher power would never bless the spiritual and physical union of same-sex partners.

Not saying that's what I believe - but I've spent enough time in the Bible Belt to have heard the "argument." I think that's what I'm trying to get folks who find "gay marriage" objectionable to admit. Because quite frankly, I see no other reason for anyone to even give a rat's patoot. (Not that the above is a "reason", but you know what I mean.)

So let them have their "union". Let's face the facts. This is nothing more than an attempt to bring politics into religion. Gays want to be able to sue churches that won't marry them for discrimination. They want to be able to shove their relationship in the face of religious people. They want to be able to force the church to recognize their union and impose their lifestyle on others. More proof of this inferiority complex I mentioned earlier, and a form of "payback" in their eyes. Call me a homophobic as I predicted many people would. I’ve heard it all before and it’s meaningless to me. First, you have to show signs of a phobia. Saying that I don’t want to pay for it is not a phobia…that’s my only objection to a union, as I have maintained all along, "if it’s true". There is a reason that they must get gay marriage legalized, and benefits are not the reason. Otherwise, a union would be fine. Open your eyes!

KT,
I don’t want to "imagine" all the possibilities. It was just a comment on what I read and that article you posted doesn’t disprove what I read. Please keep in mind that I’ve said all along, "If it’s true". Now, compose yourself. I have no doubt that the insurance companies would try to profit off this all they can.

AJ,
"Secondly, Jadle, for all your protestations about being precise, you still haven't answered the question of how gays being able to be married will destroy the so-called sanctity of marriage."

How many times do you need it explained? Please read. Or better yet, show me any writing older than 40 years that says two people of the same sex should be able to marry. Show me where, in any old religious writing that homosexuality is good. This is a new problem. Never in history have gays wanted to get married, nor have they ever been confused enough to imagine that one was a husband and one was a wife. Once again I must ask, why is the term "married" so important to them. What’s wrong with a civil union if it offers the same benefits? Can you not answer? Of course not! It has to be an attack on religion and I for one am sick of all the anti religious people screaming their hatred towards religious people. You don’t have to believe in God but if you spew hatred towards him, you are no better than the preachers that spew religion everywhere.

Marriage is based in religion. Homosexuality is a sin according to these same people. They have held these beliefs for thousands of years. Leave them alone!

That isn't happening, and of course there is no evidence you can cite for that. And if they did, they'd waste their time, as no court would rule in their favor. Churches have always had the right to refuse the sacrament of marriage to any couple for their own reasons. For instance, Roman Catholics will generally refuse to conduct ceremonies for non-Catholics, and Anglicans generally don't permit their churches to be used for the weddings of non-Anglicans. Perfectly legal.

Marriage is not based on religion in the United States. While states do recognize religious marriages, they do not require them. All states recognize non-religious ceremonies held in accordance with law.

Homosexuality is a sin to those of some religious beliefs, but not everyone. My church, the Episcopal Church, is rather ambivalent on the subject. At any rate, it is not for our laws to prescribe religious decrees. Our Constitution does not allow us to make laws or codes based on religion. We don't require heterosexual couples to have religious marriage ceremonies, so religion is a moot point.

As noted, civil unions do not always offer all the same benefits as marriage, and they are unavailable in most states. So that is not a viable alternative.

And as noted, gays marrying does not affect the sanctity of my marriage at all. My vows remain the same.

Your source for this information is - ?

They want to be able to shove their relationship in the face of religious people.

And you deem gays to be non- religious, by what reasoning?

They want to be able to force the church to recognize their union and impose their lifestyle on others.

How do gays manifest this "imposition"? Has a gay person ever "imposed" any part of the gay lifestyle on you, personally?

More proof of this inferiority complex I mentioned earlier, and a form of "payback" in their eyes.

You certainly are a homophobe, as your very words demonstrate. You fear what you do not, obviously, understand. You fear that it will somehow "touch" you and bring about some sort of "change" -- from that which is "imposed" upon you -- in you and/or your own comfort zone. Tough stuff, man.

Call me a homophobic ...

Yeah, I did - and I will. And I seriously doubt I'm alone in such assessment.

This beautiful ceremony was done Quaker style in the sense that each member or friend of this congregation signed the specially created marriage certificate to affirm and support the marriage of these two women. Both Sue and I firmly stand behind that commitment.

Their "agenda"?

Only to love one another and to have the same full "marriage" rights as others - something else that the both of us also fully support!

Be well, wise, and kind, folks.

Bill

Since we, in the US anyway, live under a secular government there is no basis to deny marriage to same sex couples.

I don't think the issue is anymore complicated than that unless one wishes to imagine it so.

BTW, I just noticed this forum today. Can't believe it's here. How things have changed ;-)

It is a government, civil rights issue, not a religious issue.

Churches that believe homosexuality is an abomination can keep on believing that.

It is the justice of the peace who can't perform a civil marriage for homosexuals, but can for heterosexuals that is the issue.

There are already plenty of churches willing to marry same sex couples, it is only the supposedly secular government standing in the way.

You must not have understood this thread, as it has been pointed out repeatedly that churches do not have to marry anyone they choose not to. The issue is the legal status of gay marriage, not the religious one. Churches and so-called religious folk don't have to bless anyone or do anyone.

"And you deem gays to be non- religious, by what reasoning?"
No, I think most religious people think the act of sodomy is a sin.

"Has a gay person ever "imposed" any part of the gay lifestyle on you, personally?"
Are you kidding me? The people that flaunt it with their voice are sickening! Did you see that one stalking Howie on Deal, No Deal? I had to mute the volume, and he stalked Howie like not even a woman has. And yes, one did try to grab me when I was 14. But I don’t have a complex about it. I did have a gay friend for most of my life…He died. Why do some gay people insist one telling everyone they’re gay with the tone of their voice? I don’t tell everyone I’m straight with my every word. Why reduce yourself to that?

"You fear what you do not, obviously, understand."
No, I just don’t want to pay for it. Say what you will. A union has always been fine with me. Even one that offers all the benefits of marriage, but you refuse to listen.

"You fear that it will somehow "touch" you and bring about some sort of "change" -- from that which is "imposed" upon you -- in you and/or your own comfort zone."
BWAHAHAHA! Certainly, you know me better than that by now. I’m not religious but I see no need to attack religious people and their beliefs with this subject. Just call it a union and most people will be happy and get the benefits they seek.
"Yeah, I did - and I will. And I seriously doubt I'm alone in such assessment"
Big whoopee!!!

Spewey,
"Marriage is not based on religion in the United States. While states do recognize religious marriages, they do not require them. All states recognize non-religious ceremonies held in accordance with law."
Yes, between a man and a woman. There has to be a way for people of other religions and Atheists to be married. But never same sex "marriages". These unions do provide all of the benefits of marriage.

"Churches have always had the right to refuse the sacrament of marriage to any couple for their own reasons."
But if they show a pattern of refusing all gays marriage, then it will be a discrimination issue and you know it.

"As noted, civil unions do not always offer all the same benefits as marriage, and they are unavailable in most states. So that is not a viable alternative."
As I have always stated, I approve of a civil union that offers all the benefits. If you want to talk about state laws…sodomy is illegal in some states. How will they legally consummate the marriage? Just leave the religious terms out and call it a union. What’s the big deal? Why do gays insist on the term if they know it offends people? More proof of this inferiority complex. Like I said, most sensible gay people would accept a union. It’s just the few that insist on calling a marriage just to offend people.

Mozart,
I love most of my male and female friends, but I don’t get confused.

"who had recently "discovered" or finally "confirmed" her own preferences of sexual expression or loving, after years of doubt, fear, inhibition, uncertainty, etc"

It’s a huge complex to overcome and face. When they all reach the level that you described, then I’m sure they will be happy. But once again, I must ask…Do they actually get the benefits? What good is the "marriage" if they don’t? Does the IRS recognize the "marriage"? Does the state? Social Security? And since you say they are only after marriage rights, would they care if it was called a union instead of a marriage?

"There is no rational, non religion based argument against same sex marriage."
As long as you redefine the word. Until then, there is no rational argument on how same sex couples can be married. Who's the husband? Who's the wife? How can you be pronounced "man and wife"? I know, some dictionaries already accept a same sex civil union as a marriage. A recently added update. But some don't.

The word marriage isn't a religious term. Look up the etymology of the word. There is no legal requirement to 'consumate' a marriage with penis-vagina intercourse or any other kind. Where do you get the idea there is?

This is the thing I just don't get. Some people are OK with same sex unions being identical to marriages in every way except they can't accept these same sex unions being called a marriage.

Makes no sense. None.

The word marriage isn't a religious word.

"Churches have always had the right to refuse the sacrament of marriage to any couple for their own reasons."
But if they show a pattern of refusing all gays marriage, then it will be a discrimination issue and you know it

No, churches can always refuse the sacrament of marriage to anyone. This has been established practice forever, as with the examples I mentioned of Roman Catholics generally refusing to perform ceremonies for non-Catholics. There is no discrimination issue involved, as under our laws, the government cannot regulate religious practices. There would be no standing for such a suit to be brought.

These unions do provide all of the benefits of marriage.

No, they do not. Civil unions do not provide the same benefits as marriage. Pension awards, veterans benefits, and adoption rights are not automatically conferred on partners in a civil union as they are married couples, and some of these rights are outright forbidden to them. And only two states have civil union laws anyway.

Just leave the religious terms out and call it a union.

"Marriage" is a legal term, not a religious one under our law. As you admit, all states provide for marriage outside of a church context and do not require one.

Auntjen,

You are not alone. You might be interested in this federal study on homophobia. It concludes that "homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."

Now this is the kind of nonsense that gets me. Attack anyone who
disagrees with being a closet homosexual. Talk about bigotry.Sheeesh

Once again one or two unvarying positions running the thread, on and on, with everyone else buzzing around them and firing back, like bombers and fighters. Rat-a-tat-tat or ZZZZZZZZZZ?

We are not being judgemental about you. You're the only one who has even mentioned being closeted. We had no idea, or at least I didn't. I'm just against bigotry and homophobia.

As for the quote, it is a direct one from the study by the National Institute of Health.

For whatever reason(s), I simply can't get my underwear caught up in a bundle over the matter of whether it is a "union" or a "marriage"; or who's the "wife" and who's the "husband" or whatever other really false issues that are being brought up here.

However, I do find it quite humorous that those folks who are sometimes vehemently speaking of "family values" and the "defense of marriage" are unable to follow their own sanctimonious "advice".

Thank you - auntjen - for posting the failure of the sanctimonious in uniting theory and practice and for this posting.

(BTW - I am still listening/copying CD's on my new computer; this time around I am listening to Christmas Gift" A Dorian Holiday Celebration Specifically, a rollicking piece by Bach: "Christen altzet disen Tag". Unfortunately, Dorian, who produced a wonderful array of diverse, fine recordings, is out of business, but many of their exceptional recordings can still be had. I have the Dorian recording of Jacqueline Schwab's (pianist) "Down Came an Angel", but need to purchase her also lovely, "Mark Twain's America".)

On a more positive note, I remembered that the United Church of Christ aired a video on "God is Still Speaking" - the "Bouncer" ad. In doing some searching, I found that this church has produced two others, "All the People" and the new "Ejector Seat" ad, which is having difficulty in being aired because it is deemed to be "too controversial" for network televison; it has apparently been aired on some cable channels:

Viacom has rejected the United Church of Christ’s latest TV ad, the "ejector seat." They are OK with ads that are laced with sexual innuendo, greed, and violence, but won’t run an ad that says "you're welcome here."

If you're interested in signing the petition urging Viacom to air the ad, you can link below. I did; I urge others to do likewise. It's one small way to help bring a more humane, democratic society.

Tell Viacom to run the new UCC ad

If you're interested in viewing all three UCC ads, you can link below.

God is Still Speaking

Again, be well, be wise, and, above all, be kind.

Bill

Spewey, I always thought Jadle was a little to hard on you, but I
guess you do tend to do alot of Spewing.

(?ti teg, etadnam)

It's the same old tactics…If "homophobic" and "bigot" doesn’t work, they always resort to telling you that you have secret desires, or "you’re in the closet". Same nonsense I've been hearing for years. Meaningless. You need new logic, it’s too transparent. Actually, you need any logic, as I have said all along that I don’t have anything against a union between any two people as long as it doesn’t cost me, and only against calling it marriage. Now, what study do you have to tell me about my hidden desires under these circumstances? Bwahahaha!!! You’ve tried assuming I’m religious, republican, bigot, homophobic, in the closet, unknowingly aroused…Well, one thing is consistent…you are all wrong on every single count! You guys are confusing me with someone who is against homosexuals. I’ve stated many times (to deaf ears) that I’m only against a "union" IF it is going to cost me, and calling the union a "marriage". If gay marriage does become legal…my reply would be…"I bet the religious people are mad". And laugh. That’s about it. (not meaning ALL religious people, spewey) I guess my phobia would have to be sodomyphobia or what ever, because I have no desires to do that to a woman…much less a man. Hmm, under you’re logic it would have to be a phobia of a hidden desire. Double SHEESH! From now on I’ll refer to the two of you as DR. Spew, and Dr. AJ. And remember my rights DR’s. You can’t tell anyone my condition, and you most certainly can’t publish my condition on the internet! This is a law suit just waiting to happen. Such slander, my life will never be the same!!! Bwahahaha

Like I said, I don’t think one sensible gay person would object to a union that offered all the benefits of marriage. This remains the question. "What is so wrong with a civil union that offers all the benefits of a marriage"? Don’t tell me that one doesn’t exist because neither does gay marriage. I’ve explained how some people would be offended by the term "marriage" and no one has explained what is wrong with calling it a union.

Spewey,
"No, they do not. Civil unions do not provide the same benefits as marriage."
The "unions" that I was referring to are the ones preformed in every city by the JP, between a man and a woman. Please try to stay focused and try to keep everything in context with what is clearly written. Did I throw you off by saying "union" and not "marriage"? As I’ve said all along, they need to work on their civil union rights. I support a union that offers all the benefits of marriage to any two adults…as long as it doesn’t cost me. How many times do you people need to hear this? Is once every other sentence enough?

Also, marriage was a religious term way before we had any laws in America. Therefore, any legal definition of marriage IS mixing politics with religion. Once again, gays need to be addressing their civil union rights.

I don’t see how a failed marriage is a sign of anything more than just that. It doesn’t affect the sanctity of marriage one bit. Lots of people rush into things, others just don’t work out, some were doomed from the beginning, some fall apart, and some do it for the wrong reasons. We aren’t perfect! Who’s to say that gay marriage would be any different? You can point out all of the problems that some people have with their marriage, but it won’t reduce the meaning of the word. That is the main objective of the OP.

I’ve posted this before but I doubt may people actually read it. These are the oldest writings on marriage that I know of and it even explains how marriage went wrong and they had to correct it. Interesting history lesson, if you can stand to read it. This is from dictionary.com. Read it and weep. The churches that perform gay marriages need to read this, as it is proof of what they are doing is wrong.

Marriage
was instituted in Paradise when man was in innocence (Gen. 2:18-24). Here we
have its original charter, which was confirmed by our Lord, as the basis on
which all regulations are to be framed (Matt. 19:4, 5). It is evident that
monogamy was the original law of marriage (Matt. 19:5; 1 Cor. 6:16). This law
was violated in after times, when corrupt usages began to be introduced (Gen.
4:19; 6:2). We meet with the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage in the
patriarchal age (Gen. 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8, 9; 29:23-30, etc.). Polygamy was
acknowledged in the Mosaic law and made the basis of legislation, and continued
to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity,
after which there is no instance of it on record. It seems to have been the
practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives for their sons (Gen.
24:3; 38:6). Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the
maiden (Ex. 2:21). The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted
(Gen. 24:51; 34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was
bound to give a price to the father of the maiden (31:15; 34:12; Ex. 22:16, 17;
1 Sam. 18:23, 25; Ruth 4:10; Hos. 3:2) On these patriarchal customs the Mosaic
law made no change. In the pre-Mosaic times, when the proposals were accepted
and the marriage price given, the bridegroom could come at once and take away
his bride to his own house (Gen. 24:63-67). But in general the marriage was
celebrated by a feast in the house of the bride's parents, to which all friends
were invited (29:22, 27); and on the day of the marriage the bride, concealed
under a thick veil, was conducted to her future husband's home. Our Lord
corrected many false notions then existing on the subject of marriage (Matt.
22:23-30), and placed it as a divine institution on the highest grounds. The
apostles state clearly and enforce the nuptial duties of husband and wife (Eph.
5:22-33; Col. 3:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Marriage is said to be "honourable" (Heb.
13:4), and the prohibition of it is noted as one of the marks of degenerate
times (1 Tim. 4:3). The marriage relation is used to represent the union
between God and his people (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:1-14; Hos. 2:9, 20). In the New
Testament the same figure is employed in representing the love of Christ to his
saints (Eph. 5:25-27). The Church of the redeemed is the "Bride, the Lamb's
wife" (Rev. 19:7-9).

Jadle, why the insistence that "marriage" is exclusively a Biblical term? Open your mind.

From Merriam Webster's Online:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union

But wait, there's more. If you buy within the next ten minutes I'll throw in this amazing kitchen device, the most spectacular thing you will ever need ...

Well, that's the norm for a few of the people here. If they can't debate, they just call people names and diagnose them with some disorder. Such qualified individuals here!

The only definition of marriage that makes any sense is it is a union of two or more people for some purpose. Any further definition is a social construct that can be changed like dirty underwear.

Appealing to the last few hundred years of western cultural traditions is an invalid technique as this isn't when marriage started, nor is this the way most of the world's population practiced it.

Marriage can be whatever people wish it to be. A government prohibition of same sex marriage is nothing more than the influence of the religious right on our secular government.

This idea of not calling it a marriage makes no sense to me. What is it about the word that needs to be 'protected'? There has been no universally constant definition to the word so why restrict it's meaning to a narrow definition now?

And when you have your "long held, traditional" definition - what then? Are you going to use that to apply to the topic of gay marriage as the norm? That just doesn't make any sense. "Long held, traditional" is always subject to change, to grow, to expand. And thank goodness for that. Unless, y'know - you long for the days where black people picked your cotton and women couldn't vote.

So sorry we "don't get it", as defined by you. But there really wasn't a need to get so snarky, was there?

"Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love."

But then, again, the next quote makes greater sense, especially with regard to some of the antiquities and/or narrow Biblical references expressed herein.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Again, be well, be wise, and, above all, be kind to one another.

Bill

Because the bible expresses Christian views. Outside of Christian theocracies, the bible isn't used for making laws. That would be an establishment of religion issue.

In the US we have a secular government (in theory) and a constitution that doesn't allow for the 'church' (which ever church one considers to be the 'true' church) to impose it's laws as the laws of the people.

Churches can bless and withhold blessing from anything they wish. A justice of the peace has to follow the law. Not 'God's' law, but man's law.

Keep it in context here. My question was, If they are married in a christian church, why shouldn't they follow the christian definition of the word.

Not everyone believes in the Bible, so there is no consensus that marriage originated in Genesis. Christians are welcome to believe that, but not everyone accepts the Bible. And our state government regulations regarding marriage are not based on religion.

In no state in this country is anyone required to be married in a Christian church. Churches have the right to refuse to marry anyone based on their own criterion, and cannot be compelled to do otherwise due to the prohibitions against the government making laws respecting religion.

For the record, plenty of Jews, Muslims, Deists, non-believers, and others marry in non-church ceremonies in every state.

Even if gay "marriage" is "legalized", what civil rights does that grant them?

Rights currently denied such as automatically receiving pension, retirement and veterans' benefits from a spouse, rights to make medical decisions on behalf of a spouse, medical visitation rights, adoption rights and so forth, some of which are not even available under civil unions, which of course are only available in two states.

What good is "marriage" for gays? If not only to join them in "holy matrimony"?

Not every gay couple would seek "holy matrimony," just as not every heterosexual couple does. Even heterosexual couples are not compelled to have church marriages.

So why shouldn't they follow the bible's definition of marriage?

Because we are not a theocracy, and our government cannot dictate religious beliefs or observances.

If they are married in a christian church, why shouldn't they follow the christian definition of the word.

That's up to the church to decide. Not every Christian church follows the same exact definitions. The United Church of Christ, for instance, welcomes gays, and the Episcopal Church is ambivalent on the matter. Christ himself, while wandering around with those twelve guys, kept quiet on the issue of homosexuality.

Again, churches are free to decide who they will marry or not, and we as a nation do not compel church marriages.

That's all from me on this...debate???

If we wish to go to the OT for marriage guidelines then there is no divorce allowed, women who are raped and thus not virgins on their wedding day are to be thrown away, adultery should result in stoning, if a man dies his brother takes the woman as his property.

Those would be some of the 'traditions' I don't agree with.

I am unclear why you do not seem to understand that marriage predates the bible. There were marriages in cultures predating Genesis. There was marriage in cultures that never heard of Jesus or Moses until the last few hundred years.

Marriage is a christian thing only to Christians and worldwide christians are a minority. Why should anyone other than a Christian accept Christian definitions and traditions?

Family Values

Be well, folks.

Bill

:-/

I don't know if I'm the only gay person to post on this topic, but I do appreciate everyone's input, even those who differ from what I believe. All I want and I can't emphasize the word ALL enough, is to be treated equally. I don't feel like I am treated equally and I don't know if I ever will be. I'm not going to get hung up on the definition of marriage because all that matters now is that I am discriminated against because I can't marry my partner of 7 years. We can't adopt a child and I'm not eligible to receive his benefits, God forbid, something should ever happen to him. Hell, I'm not even allowed to be at his bedside if he were ever dying in the hospital!

I can't dwell on these inequities though because I would drive myself crazy. I used to read commentary from people who think that we are God-less savages who will ultimately burn in hell for the sins we committ on a daily basis. I challenge those stone throwers to focus on their own families before attacking mine. I still find that I get upset when I see or read the blatant bigotry that some people spew and I don't care what party you vote for or how many gay friends you have....if you wish to deny me the right to "marry" my soulmate, my love, the only person I will ever love, then shame on you. I pity your narrow-minded views and I pray (yes, I pray) that one day your eyes will open to behold that I am no different than anyone else EXCEPT that my own country treats me as a second class citizen. They sure as hell don't mind me paying taxes but they also sure as hell don't want me to marry. It's wrong. It's plain and simply wrong. There is NO argument that I will ever believe or convince me that prohibiting me from marrying is going to contribute to the declination of our "free" society. In the grand scheme of things, with all of the inequities in the world, with all of the problems W has caused for this country, I don't even think gay marriage should be discussed right now. At the same time, by not discussing it, that doesn't give those the right who oppose it to try and pass amendments to our Constitution to ban it. And they call themselves patriotic? How can you be patriotic when you clearly hate Americans?

I can't wait for November 2008. Gay issues aside, this administration is a disgrace in every facet of what they do or don't do. I'm not going to proofread what I typed so please forgive any typos or grammitical errors.

Ditto with two thumbs up!

Be well.

Bill

There is an inequlity in our nation due to the way acces and bennifits are controled by the States and national Govt.
If the people on this thread want equality for everyone in the nation They need to look at what their beliefs and desires say to that equality. There needs to be reform that will adress the issues.

Are the vocal ones willing to do something to bring about the reforms that will result in equality and be a step to ending hate and bigotry? It is a brave new world we live in and things that have been hidden through time because of fear are now coming to light. We need to adress them with thoughtful dignity instead of condemnation or "as long as it dosen't cost me."

No I am not gay but I lost a son to AIDS in 91 when our government stood by and did nothing till it was too late for millions. Another case of "as long as it dosen't cost me." It will cost every one that turns their back on current issues if they think they are not involed. They are.

Don, I am sorry to read about your son dying to AIDS. I can't imagine how painful this has been for you.

Lily and Pidge, I think I do feel demonized. It's hard to sum up my feelings on the whole situation. Again, you know, I try not to let it get to me but then I hear someone say something stupid or I read some ridiculous commentary that is chock full of hateful propaganda and I get frustrated. Believe me, I'll never get used to it.

Andie and Bill, thank you for your support and kind words.

As for same sex marriage, I still can't and won't ever understand what the problem is with it. What are people so afraid of? Why is it such a big concern in making it legal.

Marriage is a religious institution if you choose it to be, if not it's a civil institution. In the eyes of the law it is a civil matter not religious.
If it is a civil matter, which obviously it is as no one can be legally married in this country without a marriage licsense issued by the state they are getting married in, then it would seem to be a civil rights issue. That falls under the civil rights acts.
One would think that if same sex marriage became legal in all 50 states, instead of just one Massachusetts, the world would come to an end. The sky would fall in, armageddeon would arrive. Well believe me, I live in Massachusetts and guess what? The only thing that changed was it is legal for same sex couples to get married. Wow, can you imagine it. Nothing horrible has happened, why would it in any other state in this union. It's no big deal in the sense that anything horrible has happened. It's just legal as it should be.
Am I afraid of same sex marriage? No, why would I or anyone be? It isn't a threat to me or my sexuality or my marriage, religion or anything else. It's a fact of life and should be treated that way. No one should be denied their civil rights in this country regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation.
This is 2006, folks, get a life and dwell on and get involved with something important that really truly affects lives in this country and the world.
Leave people alone to live their life the way they see fit.
It isn't anyone elses business and shouldn't be.
Those that are against same sex marriage sound more like the klan when blacks where freed from slavery, had the right to vote, not have to sit in the back of the bus, able to go to "white schools". Are we going backwards now to that kind of belief because one disagrees with a life style and sexual orientation?
I would hope that we have come a lot further in our understanding of people by now.

I know I have and my family has as have most of the people I know. Time for the rest of the world to think the same way.

I'm off to a wedding now. One my daughter is the maid of honor in and her boyfriend is an usher. the couple, well long time close friends of my daughter as we are with their parents. Low and behold, it's a same sex legal marriage in Massachusetts. Whose performing the ceremony? A Rabbi. Imagine that, legal and religious as well. The sun will go down tonight and it will come up in the morning, just as it always does and I can't imagine a nicer married couple if I even tried.

Weird is spelled weird, not wierd.

Are you obfuscating again?

:)

I suspect that you already know of this decision, but I thought that I would post it for the benefit of those so interested. You may our (Sue and I) support and offer our apologies for the decision of this court.

Be well.

Bill

Source:

The Progressive - Horrible Judicial Reasoning on Same-Sex Marriage in New York

Horrible Judicial Reasoning on Same-Sex Marriage in New York
By Matthew Rothschild - July 7, 2006

Equality took one on the chin Thursday.

The decision by New York State’s highest court not to grant marriage equality to same-sex couples was pathetic, so backward and irrational was the reasoning.

The main argument was that heterosexual marriage is better for the kids.

Here are the exact words: "Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like."

Since when do state supreme court justices rely on intuition?

And the logic of the court’s decision is to accord lesser rights to divorced parents or those who have lost a spouse, since, as a consequence, their kid "will not have, before his or her eyes, every day" that living model of idealized masculinity and femininity. And what, pray tell, are these models?

There are crude gender stereotypes lurking between the lines of this decision.

What’s more, doctors who deal with kids all the time have rebutted the court’s central claim. "The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual," the group stated in February 2002.

In fact, it is in the interests of the child, the pediatricians said, that same-sex couples be accorded legal equality. "Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized," the American Academy of Pediatrics said. It supports "the right of every child and family to the financial, psychologic, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and the welfare of their children."

New York’s highest court has fundamentally misread what a child really needs. Not a set of Ken and Barbie doll mom and dad, but loving, caring parents who are a constant, trustworthy presence.

This is not a chromosomal issue.

To reduce it to that is to mistake genitals for parental skills.

For the record, plenty of kids are raised by single parents quite well, though those born to a family do have advantages.

Sikhs are not supposed to drink whiskey according to the tenets of their commandments, but many of us Christians tend to stray from the Bible as well (like wearing cotton-polyester blends, though not me!). Sounds like a wonderful family to know (especially at dinner time).

I disagree with the decision of the court but I think you oversimplify or misunderstand the role of the court in this decision. Their job was not to determine what a child needs. Their job was not even to determine if the law enacted in 1909 was right or wrong only whether the legislature writing and passing the law was a rational legislature. I would argue that the legislature did not use rational judgement in 1909 when they passed the law (as the plaintiffs did), but the appeals (not supreme) court justices found otherwise. In other words the burden was on the plaintiffs to prove the legislature was irrational when they passed the law, a difficult burden. The only way the appeals court could have changed the NYS constitution was to have found that the state legislature did not use rational judgement when they passed the law and that's what they should have done.

Smith wrote in the majority decision. "The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

As usual the dissenting opinions are a lot more interesting and in my mind make a lot more sense.

Here are the decisions for #86-89

NYS court of appeals should be ashamed.

A federal appeals court just restored nebraska's same sex marriage ban that was approved in a referendum in 2000.

It looks like the federal court was paying attention to what the NYS appeals court was doing. Here is a snippet of the decision taken from what the AP is reporting

"The court said the amendment ''and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States.'' "

Nasty piece of business.

Unforunately the vote was probably just the set-up. Now right wing opponents of Democrats who opposed will bang this drum in the upcoming mid-terms. Using an issue that truly impacts people's lives as a political wedge is disgusting, hurtful as well as wasteful of all America's time and money. This legislature needs to get a set... throw the bums out.

Question number one: why should the government--whether the state or the federal government--have the power to tell you who you can or cannot marry in the first place? Why shouldn't the government recognize legal contracts voluntarily entered into by two consenting adults regardless of their gender? People keep saying "marriage is between one man and one woman" as if that is a universal truth but I've got news for you, the modern American idea of "marriage" resembles not at all the idea of "marriage" as practiced hundreds or thousands of years ago, or as practiced in some countries today. Once upon a time, men could take several wives (and in some countries, still can). Once upon a time, a man could marry a girl who was barely past puberty (or not even). Once upon a time, marriages were arranged and you had no choice who you would marry. Once upon a time, wives were more or less considered the property of their husbands. Once upon a time, people of different races could not marry. In some states you can marry your first cousin, in others you can't. In some ancient societies, it was quite permissible for a brother and sister to marry. So "marriage" has changed, and is still changing. Get used to it. In the meantime, here are some questions to think long and hard about:

Since marriage has always been defined by the states (rather than by the federal government--with regard to federal benefits, until the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) the federal government simply accepted any marriage recognized by a state), why not keep it that way? Why not let the individual states--whether the citizens, the legislators they elect to LEGISLATE, or the judges (many of whom are elected, BTW)--determine what is or is not a marriage? (And why did the Republicans forget all about the principle of "state rights" when it came to this subject?)

With all the talk about same-sex marriage being imposed by "activist judges", why is the Federal Marriage Amendment written in such a way that it it prevents not only judges but also the state legislatures, and even the voters themselves, from determining how to define marriage? The way the amendment is written, no state could legalize same-sex marriage even if 100% of that state's residents WANTED TO. (In fact the California state legislature--presumably elected by the state's voters to legislate--passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage a couple of years ago but it was vetoed by the governor.) Why not just word the constitutional amendment like DOMA to say that no state must be compelled to legally recognize a marriage from another state? And why word it in such a way that even civil unions may not be permissible? This, I think, speaks volumes about the motives of those who are pushing the amendment.

Meanwhile my partner and I have been together for 23 years. He is my husband in every sense of the word but as far as the government is concerned we have no legal relationship. We are not each other's legal next of kin. If he were to be hospitalized, or die, I would have to take VACATION TIME to take care of him, or to attend his funeral, but a coworker who is on his fourth marriage can take sick time to take care of his wife or his kids from his previous three marriages--how's that for adding insult to injury? In fact, if my partner were hospitalized in Virginia, it's quite possible that I would not be allowed to make medical decisions for him, or even see him. So no, it's not all about the benefits, it's about the PROTECTIONS of marriage. And I have yet to see a single compelling argument as to why my partner and I should not receive the LEGAL PROTECTIONS of marriage.

Gay couple separates "

Is this legal? I thought divorce was legally defined as being between a man and a woman? Now they want to take that from us too!

A few days ago, I finished reading Dan Wakefield's The Hijacking of Jesus, a rather light, but very interesting read, especially for those who haven't delved deeply into the subject of "Old Testament" Christianity as yet and/or the hijacking of Jesus.

At any rate, a little more than halfway through the book, I came acorss the Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing (pages 108 - 114) and thought I would post it, along with the the source, and the home page from whence it came. Thought it might be helpful and/or useful for those so interested. Although I tend to be an agnostic/atheist with spiritual leanings - mainly Liberation Theology -, I find nothing in the statement below to disagree with. Once you arrive at their main/home page, you can, if you so wish, endorse the statement below by adding your name.

Here's the link, which is followed by the home page.

Religious Declaration on Morality, Justice, and Healing

Religious Institute

Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing

Sexuality is God's life-giving and life-fulfilling gift. We come from diverse religious communities to recognize sexuality as central to our humanity and as integral to our spirituality. We are speaking out against the pain, brokenness, oppression, and loss of meaning that many experience about their sexuality.

Our faith traditions celebrate the goodness of creation, including our bodies and our sexuality. We sin when this sacred gift is abused or exploited. However, the great promise of our traditions is love, healing, and restored relationships.

Our culture needs a sexual ethic focused on personal relationships and social justice rather than particular sexual acts. All persons have the right and responsibility to lead sexual lives that express love, justice, mutuality, commitment, consent, and pleasure. Grounded in respect for the body and for the vulnerability that intimacy brings, this ethic fosters physical, emotional, and spiritual health. It accepts no double standards and applies to all persons, without regard to sex, gender, color, age, bodily condition, marital status, or sexual orientation.

God hears the cries of those who suffer from the failure of religious communities to address sexuality. We are called today to see, hear, and respond to the suffering caused by violence against women and sexual minorities, the HIV pandemic, unsustainable population growth and over-consumption, and the commercial exploitation of sexuality.

Faith communities must therefore be truth seeking, courageous, and just. We call for:

* Theological reflection that integrates the wisdom of excluded, often silenced peoples, and insights about sexuality from medicine, social science, the arts and humanities.

* Full inclusion of women and sexual minorities in congregational life, including their ordination and the blessing of same sex unions.

* Sexuality counseling and education throughout the lifespan from trained religious leaders.

* Support for those who challenge sexual oppression and who work for justice within their congregations and denomination.

Faith communities must also advocate for sexual and spiritual wholeness in society. We call for:

* Lifelong, age appropriate sexuality education in schools, seminaries, and community settings.

* A faith-based commitment to sexual and reproductive rights, including access to voluntary contraception, abortion, and HIV/STD prevention and treatment.

* Religious leadership in movements to end sexual and social injustice.

God rejoices when we celebrate our sexuality with holiness and integrity. We, the undersigned, invite our colleagues and faith communities to join us in promoting sexual morality, justice, and healing.

kwoods:

"Lesbian couple in same-sex marriage lawsuit now separated

BOSTON The lesbian couple whose lawsuit led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts have separated.

Gay couple separates "

Is this legal? I thought divorce was legally defined as being between a man and a woman? Now they want to take that from us too!

Your last sentences don't make any sense whatsoever. Surely, any married couple has a legal right to obtain a divorce. Given that, who are the "they" and exactly how are "they" going to take away the right of separation and/or divorce?

Be well - everyone.

Bill

Any honest medical professor or researcher would point out the increased risk
of disease, psychosis, depression, suicide,etc. accompaning some sexually
deviant lifestyles.The statistics are overwhelming but kept quiet by political
correctness.This can no longer be blamed on being out of the mainstream since
this lifestyle has become so widely accepted.So accepted that we now have the
Metrosexual phenomenon.Heterosexual men imitating effeminate men's
mannerisms,etc. It's now hip to be gay.

Any honest medical professor or researcher would point out the increased risk of disease, psychosis, depression, suicide,etc. accompaning some sexually deviant lifestyles. The statistics are overwhelming but kept quiet by political correctness.

So where's your supporting evidence?; where's the "overwhelming statistics"?; where's the "honest medical professor or researcher"?; etc.

You've supplied nothing more than mere verbal conjecture.

As for this nonsense:

So accepted that we now have the Metrosexual phenomenon. Heterosexual men imitating effeminate men's mannerisms,etc. It's now hip to be gay.

Where did you conjure this fabrication up?

Perhaps, you've been reading the Queen James Bible too much:

"Rex fuit Elizabeth: nunc est regina Jacobus"

"I, (King) James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George."

Sources:

Queen James and His Courtiers

In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture by Alister Mcgrath

Be well.

Bill

Next, reduce the meaning of woman, so the sex change will be legalized.

Who are these doctors that give harmones to make them grow breasts? Give them harmones to make them normal. Sheesh! It's a sick world.

Who has the inferiority complex again?

lol.

Who are these doctors that give harmones to make them grow breasts? Give them harmones to make them normal. Sheesh! It's a sick world.

Is your "scientific expertise" now conjuring up new words?

Why don't you search here before posting:

Medline Plus - Medical Dictionary - National Library of Medicine

Be well.

Bill

Yes, & we've all got a pretty good idea of who the sick-o is.

A sick-o is someone that is married with kids, goes to Germany as Red and returns as Madelyn. They don't care about their wife and kids...only their perversions. Yes, I knew Red.

My science is the truth and you believe hocus-pocus. No big deal. Chicken Little. I know, you have to poke fun at something when it goes against your belief because you are clueless about how to reply. I don't worry about the indians, so you people shouldn't worry about science.

You are all trolls that can't debate anything I say, so you have to attack the messenger. You guys will be able to hide in this dark, hidden forum for now, but it won't take too long for the real world to find this forum and your 'safe place' will be gone. You are all the most boring people I've ever met, and this forum is dead without me.

"Kwoods...Your last sentences don't make any sense whatsoever. Surely, any married couple has a legal right to obtain a divorce. Given that, who are the "they" and exactly how are "they" going to take away the right of separation and/or divorce?"

Bill, sorry you misunderstood my post. It was not intended to offend but was an attempt at irony.

The incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is greater among promiscuous people, whether gay or heterosexual. How on earth would banning gay people from entering into married, monogamous relationships do anything except lower their chances of infection? Promiscuity is the threat, not marriage vows.

The group you quoted from is "Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment," which I hardly would accept as the "most reliable, objective research sources in the world." They may take some JAMA studies out of context, but any group that uses terms like "liberal totalianarism" are to me not scientists but yes, wackos.

You avoided my point. Since promiscuity, both gay and heterosexual, is the main engine by which sexually transmitted diseases is spread, how would preventing gays from entering into married, monogamous relationships do anything except reduce the rate of STDs. [I think if you dig around, the lowest rates of STDs are among lesbians in monogamous relationships.]

By that logic the legal "right" to drive a car should be recinded.

Of course one thing swanz's article, and swanz, aren't telling us is that the statistics cited in the article are generally based on men who come into clinics to be tested for STD's. Hmmm, I wonder if that just might bias the results at all???

BTW I see that the first reference in the article swanz linked to is over 20 years old, and some are 30 years old. It's so nice to know they're up-to-date with their highly selective and out-of-context facts and figures! (And the parenthetical last paragraph in the article makes it clear that these people have some serious, serious issues.)

So remind me again how any of this has anything to do with me and my partner being in a monogamous relationship and wanting the legal protection of marriage for it???

Even though Kingturtle has given you a succinct and more than adequate response, I thought that I would delve more deeply into your presumed "scientific truth" complete with "an open and unbiased mind."

First of all, I did link to your "recommended site: Read the scientific truth with an open and unbiased mind; bookmarked it for future reference; backtracked it to the source which is H.O.M.E. and found Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment - an interesting, conjured up name designed to bear "false witness". Isn't that against one of the Ten Commandments?

At this web site, I found find such wonderful "open-minded" and "unbiased", topics of discussion as:

The Case Against Homosexual Activity

Sexual Abuse: A Major Cause Of Homosexuality?

On The Disease-Ridden Homosexual Lifestyle

Some Quotes Regarding The AIDS Epidemic

Do Homosexuals Have A Hidden Agenda?

Why Homosexuals Tend To Be Sexually Exploitative

On The Liberal Bias Of The Dominant Media

The Dominant Media Admit They Have Little Credibility

Liberalism's Totalitarian Side

Are Public Schools A Propaganda Arm Of Liberals?

Should We Have "Hate Crime" Legislation?

Should "Sexual Orientation" Be Included In Anti-Discrimination Measures?

Are Sodomy Laws Unconstitutional If They Only Apply To Homosexuals And Not Heterosexuals?

Strange But Logical Repercussions Of Societal Approval Of Homosexual Activity

The Homosexual Movement's Connection To Hollywood

Freemasonry's Connection To The Homosexual Movement

I also noted that:

"H.O.M.E. is dedicated to the use of science, logic, and natural law in explaining why heterosexual activity is right and homosexual activity wrong. On our website we have an irrefutable argument as to the demonstrable immorality of homosexual activity. It should go without saying that we at H.O.M.E. condemn violence against homosexuals and their supporters. We believe in educating them about the lifestyle, just as we believe smokers, for example, should be educated about their unhealthy lifestyle. It should also go without saying that such education is not a hateful act, as many misguided people would have you believe."

"Our website is periodically updated. Some of our less rational critics demand that we use more current medical journals than we occasionally use to document some of our statements (while these same critics oppose research into certain unhealthy aspects of homosexual activity, thus making it difficult for us to find those recent medical journal articles documenting how unhealthy homosexual activity can be!!!). We point out that just because we have known for around 50 years that smoking contributes to lung cancer doesn't make that knowledge wrong. Facts are facts, whether they are old or new, and whether they are convenient for homosexuals or not."

In the Why H.O.M.E.? section, I found the found equally open minded and unbiased statements such as these:

First, because morality is the glue that holds societies together, we need to be concerned about moral issues. Homosexual issues are moral issues. We can and do prove that homosexual activity is wrong, is immoral.

Second, we should be concerned about homosexual issues for humanitarian reasons. Since the "homosexual lifestyle" is so disease-ridden (as we'll show), and since the average lifespan of a homosexual is so relatively short, for their own sakes we should try to persuade people to avoid homosexual activity.

Third, the negative consequences of homosexual activity are not restricted to homosexuals (and bisexuals). Thousands of innocent hemophiliacs died of AIDS in years past because homosexuals (and to a lesser extent bisexuals) infected the blood supply with the AIDS virus. Now that AIDS has become so widespread ("thanks" in large part to homosexuals and bisexuals), even some innocent babies are born with AIDS. And besides that, the federal government is spending roughly $12 billion annually on STDs, and state governments are spending millions more on them every year--that's money we could be spending feeding starving children around the world or finding a cure for heart disease or arthritis or helping low-income senior citizens pay for expensive prescription drugs, etc. There is a public cost for private unsafe sex. (For example, in the year 2000 the federal government spent $1.8 billion for medical treatment of poor AIDS victims, and spent $387.7 million on AIDS prevention programs, and spent $257 million for housing poor and homeless AIDS victims [Chicago Sun-Times, Sept. 10, 2001, p. 5].)

Fourth, your civil rights are being threatened by homosexuals and their supporters as we'll explain elsewhere: rights like freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

H.O.M.E. was founded with one main purpose in mind: to expose all the flaws in the arguments homosexuals (and bisexuals) use to try to justify homosexual activity. Other goals are to defend heterosexual sex and marriage, and to expose the liberal pro-homosexual bias of the dominant media.

While other conservative groups, like Focus on the Family, are also involved with homosexual issues, they tend to be occupied with so many other things (abortion, gambling, abstinence education, etc., etc.) that it is difficult for these laudable groups to be as persuasive and as effective as a group like H.O.M.E. which practically specializes in homosexual issues.

We are not criticizing these other conservative groups. We are just recognizing that, because so many conservative values are being simultaneously attacked by liberals, the burdens on groups like Focus on the Family, which endeavor to defend all those values, are many and varied and heavy. Under those extraordinarily burdensome circumstances, it is understandable that the groups may not have the time and resources to devote to individual issues (e.g., homosexual issues) that more specialized groups like H.O.M.E. have.

Believe me (or us), we dearly need groups like Focus on the Family. But we also need more specialized groups like H.O.M.E. Each has an important role to play.

Clicking on the "Links" section of this right wing site - not at all surprising - brings up a whole host of right wing groups, such as Focus on the Family; the Eagle Forum and the Christian Coalition

And these are your credible reference sources?

Well, I decided to do some checking, just in case I might be in error:

In the article - On The Disease-Ridden Homosexual Lifestyle - given in Swanz's link above, I noted the sentence: "One 1982 study found that the anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal, maybe as high as 50 times normal. 1" The accompanying footnote is directed to the following article: Council on Scientific Affairs, "Health care needs of gay men and lesbians in the United States," JAMA, May 1, 1996, p. 1355.

In checking for the supposed or real accuracy of this "reference", I sought the article at Medline: one of the extensive databases of The National Library of Medicine - the largest medical library in the world and also checked for the same citation at the Journal of American Medical Association.

Unfortunately, while the article is cited at both places, there is no abstract available on this article at the National Library of Medicine - Medline or at JAMA. Unfortunately, I do not have either a print or online subscription to JAMA. But I do have access to the full article via inter-library loan services. Consequently, I have requested that the full JAMA article be sent to me and I'll read it thoroughly to see if the cruel, hatred filled, venom - otherwise known as being open minded and unbiased (your lingo) - inferred at the H.O.M.E. site is present in the original JAMA article.

Isn't really handy and dandy to locate and then make neo-fascistic propagandistic use of medical science to booster and/or lend "authority to" one's own prejudices. Is this not bearing false witness? Or are you somehow allowed or given special permission to bypass or forget about any or all of the Ten Commandments?

Next, I linked to Do Homosexuals Have A Hidden Agenda? at the H.O.M.E. site to see what I could find out as well.

The first sentence of the article reads:

"A homosexual author named Michael Swift has stated: "Our [gay] writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigeur....We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons....The family unit will be abolished." 1 That is one indication of the pathological attitude some homosexuals have towards the opposite gender."

And, of course, I was "treated" to another footnote - which makes the article all that more "authorative". This one being: 1. Michael Swift, "For the homoerotic order," Gay Community News (Boston), Feb. 15-21, 1987.

Since it always pays to do your "homework" and check out the sources in their original form (if or whenever possible), I, of course,went exploring as usual.

Guess what I actually found Swanz?

I found this:

The Gay Agenda: How The Conservative Religious Right Created A Lie

Gay Agenda

Linking to that you'll read the following (emphasis added):

The "Gay Agenda" is but one of the many lies promulgated by radical religious political activists.

The Radical Religious Right has repeatedly referenced an article written by Michael Swift in 1987 at the request of the Gay Community News as satirical "proof" of the so-called "Gay Agenda". The article is titled "The Gay Manifesto".

One of the most notable examples of the religious right referencing this article is the video "Gay Rights, Special Rights", put out by Lou Sheldon's Traditional Values Coalition. The video cites it with ominous music and pictures of children.

But when the religious right cites this text, they always omit the vital first line, which sets the context for the piece. In other words, every other version of this found on the net and in the literature of religious right political activists is part of the radical right's great lie about gay people.

"This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor."

In fact, a "shocked, so very very shocked" congressperson read the article in the Congressional Record in 1989. Funny thing, though, the opening disclaimer was deliberately omitted.

As recently as 1999, the Miami-Dade chapter of the Christian Coalition circulated a pamphlet called "The Gay Manifesto", claiming that it was taken from the Congressional record. They circulated the pamphlet as part of a campaign against a new human rights ordinance.

Funny thing ... what's printed in the pamphlet does not resemble what was written into the Congressional Record.

And the funniest thing of all.... the CC pamphlet just happens to be a direct quote (stolen without attribution) from reactionary CA congressman William Dannemeyer's 1989 book, "Shadow in the Land". Dannemeyer's "Gay Manifesto" is a complete fiction by his own admission in the book. It is a paraphrase of what he thinks a "Gay Agenda might be.

It's time for the religious right political activists to at least pretend to follow the 10 Commandments. One of them has something to say about lying and another has something to say about stealing.

Source: Miami Herald, (The Power of Vitriol, Liz Balmaseda 3/10/1999), (Letter to Editor, For Christian Coalition Honesty Is Not Best Policy, Joe Mursuli, Lisa Versace 4/25/1999)

Swanz:

Despite all of your so-called "efforts", your reference is obviously not open minded and/or unbiased or represent scientific truth in any form whatsoever.

Your "reference" is simply using the guise of science to politically promote an extremely conservative, if not, a neo-fascist, agenda, all of which reminds me of Robert Jay Lifton's book: The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. At "best", they are little more than a form of "Cargo Cult Science":

Before we get to The Nazi Doctors let's take a look at what constitutes "Carge Cult Science.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.

Source:

Cargo Cult Science - Richard Feynman, PhD.

So what kind of conclusion can be drawn from your so-called references? From what I've discovered so far - your sources are - at best - little more than a form of Cargo Cult Science with a definitive poltical agenda! The source has the "appearance" of being medically sound, truthful, etc. by virtue of certain rituals, repetitions,etc., but in the final analysis - it isn't science!

For those who are reading this far down, I heartily recommend the reading of The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide

Here are two reviews:

From Publishers Weekly

Nazi doctors did more than conduct bizarre experiments on concentration-camp inmates; they supervised the entire process of medical mass murder, from selecting those who were to be exterminated to disposing of corpses. Lifton (The Broken Connection; The Life of the Self shows that this medically supervised killing was done in the name of "healing," as part of a racist program to cleanse the Aryan body politic. After the German eugenics campaign of the 1920s for forced sterilization of the "unfit,"it was but one step to "euthanasia," which in the Nazi context meant systematic murder of Jews. Building on interviews with former Nazi physicians and their prisoners, Lifton presents a disturbing portrait of careerists who killed to overcome feelings of powerlessness. He includes a chapter on Josef Mengele and one on Eduard Wirths, the "kind," "decent" doctor (as some inmates described him) who set up the Auschwitz death machinery. Lifton also psychoanalyzes the German people, scarred by the devastation of World War I and mystically seeking regeneration. This profound study ranks with the most insightful books on the Holocaust.
Copyright 1986 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal

This extraordinary work analyzes the terrible, seemingly contradictory phenomenon of doctors becoming agents of mass murder. With chilling power, it limns (????) the Nazi transmutation of values that allowed medical killing to be seen as a therapeutic healing of the body politic. Based on arresting historical scholarship and personal interviews with Nazi and prisoner doctors, the book traces the inexorable logic leading from early Nazi sterilization and euthanasia of its own citizens to mass extermination of European Jews and other "racial undesirables." Ultimately the book asks how doctors rationalized being "killer-healers." Lifton's response a multifaceted evaluation of genocide, of the seductive power of Nazi ideology, and of the psychological process of "doubling"is both profound and thought-provoking. A remarkable achievement; it is essential reading. Benny Kraut, Judaic Studies Dept., Univ. of Cincinnati
Copyright 1986 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

In short, your beloved scientific truth with an open and unbiased mind source reveals so much of what's found inThe Nazi Doctors that I suspect the day might - possibly - be not too far off when medically supervised killing might also be done in the name of "healing" and/or as another transmutation of values that will allow medical killing to be viewed and practiced as a therapeutic healing of the body politic from a range of "undesirables."

Thus, it doesn't surprise one bit that the H.O.M.E. site listed various sources to "cure" - i.e. Groups That Help Homosexuals Become Heterosexual - homosexuals of their deviant, immoral, life threatening, disease ridden, sexuality.

Folks, the "framework" is already being set in place.

So I will - again - ask you:

So where's your supporting evidence?; where's the "overwhelming statistics"?; where's the "honest medical professor or researcher"?; etc.

So far, the source you've provided is absolutely and entirely without scientific merit; its supposed "truth" is entirely ficticious; and it certainly lacks in being "Christian".

If you possibly can - and I do have my doubts - at present, please be the responsible and more intelligent person and do your homework thoroughly before attempting to razzle-dazzle us with such dim-witted and/or neo-fascist garbage under the guise of Old Testament Christianity.

In the meantime, I am looking forward to seeing the "new documentary, "Theologians Under Hitler," (which) examines how three prominent men of faith came to ally themselves with the Nazi party during the 1930s and 1940s. Producer-director Steven D. Martin spends 64 minutes dissecting how respected German theologians of the day embraced Adolf Hitler’s ideology and spun it for the German people."

Makes one wonder who might be among the American "spinners" of this neo-fascist ideology?

Bill