State of Connecticut Legalizes Gay Marriage!

[Marcia Drummergal]

NEW YORK REGION | October 11, 2008
Connecticut Ruling Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
By SHARON OTTERMAN
With the 4-to-3 ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court, the state becomes
the third in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1

One state at a time.....

Marcia :) :)

[Judy]

The courts are slowly coming to the realization that discrimination against any group is discriminitation.

[DaveM]

Applause! Applause!

And may the bluenoses who rail against marriage develop full-body hemorrhoids!

[Mary6906]

Tonight's news story ....
http://www.wfsb.com/video/17690622/index.html


And in a related story....

Elissa Altman
Posted October 10, 2008

When I Marry My Partner
Thirty-one years ago, when I was fourteen years old and living in Forest Hills, New York, I had an experience that would forever change the way I think about the basic decency of people.

It was a tough year. It was the Summer of Sam, and his hunting ground was my backyard.
My parents were fighting constantly, and I knew that they would eventually divorce (they did, a year later). The friends I had grown up with split off into cliques, and one of them -- with whom I took every class -- decided that I was no longer worthy of their friendship. They never taped a sign to my back that said "kick me," but they might as well have, and I don't really know why.

But beyond all this--beyond Son of Sam, and the death of Elvis, and the heat waves and the garbage strikes and the blackout and the divorce--beyond all this, I had to cope with the fact that I was beginning to feel a lot different than my friends. Again, I really didn't know why.

I never thought that it was a particularly obvious difference. Until one day, while I was sitting in class with my former friends behind me making some sort of snarky joke at my expense, my teacher, Mrs. Eyerman, wanted to know if it was true. If I was gay. When I didn't respond--when I just wanted to put my head down on the desk and make believe I wasn't there--Mrs. Eyerman looked past me, and asked the rest of the class. Again.

It was, in retrospect, preposterous. I was fourteen years old, and I had no words for what I was starting to sense about myself. But in fact, it was not preposterous. It was my young life that she was talking about. Mrs. Eyerman, standing in front of me, with her crazy Janis Ian hair and her octagonal glasses and bell bottoms and cowl neck sweaters, had painted a scarlet letter on me. The target practice that my former friends had used me for would be a little bit sharper: they now had something definite to aim for, because it was sanctioned by an adult who happened to be their teacher, and an authority figure.

Over the years, I have thought a lot about Mrs. Eyerman, and the fact that I had to sit in her class every day, day after day, for an entire school year. But ultimately, she was right: after dating men and even being briefly engaged at one point, I realized that I couldn't try to be something I wasn't, anymore than I could try to be tall and skinny, or to have green eyes.

I could no longer try to be a straight woman, when I was not one, whatever the consequences.

So today, with the overturning of the ban on gay marriage in my state of Connecticut, I found myself thinking about small-minded, mean-edged bigots in positions of authority, and how, when "different" kids are left in their care, they can make their intolerance somehow "official" and actually incite the cruel bullying of the young people that our taxdollars pay them to care for and instruct.

Certainly, and thankfully, we are living in a vastly different world than we were back then in 1977, when I was a fourteen year old girl in Mrs. Eyerman's class. As a forty five year old woman in a settled, committed relationship, I would love to have a chat with her now to ask what she says to and about young people in her class whom she suspects might be gay. Maybe she's grown wiser over time. Maybe she understands that it is simply a civil rights issue. And even if she doesn't approve, perhaps she's more tolerant, like Sarah Palin.

As for me, when I stand up before the justice of the peace; when I hear the absolutely unthinkable--my name and the word "marriage" used in the same sentence; when I look into the eyes of the woman I love, and can safely demand and expect the same rights accorded to every tax-paying citizen of this country whether I am liked or I am not; I'll be thinking of 1977, and Mrs. Eyerman, and I'll likely weep for joy, but also for that young, frightened woman she taunted, who never thought that she would ever be deserving of marriage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elissa-altman/when-i-marry-my-partner_b_133715.html

[Elliott]

And I am so happy for you.... But I'm sorry, we can't be friends anymore: you're short? I had no idea.... ;)

[Eva]

Ha! Mrs Eyerman can go ehm... 'sanction' herself. Things is only that she 'crazy Janis Ian hair'. Which should make her an okay person... :confused: Yes, I am confused.
Elliott, you are a true pest. I like that :D

Eva

[aabram]

Someone with some sense at last!!!!! :)

[hoops]

congratulations to conneticut! My brother lives there, maybe he'll come to my wedding HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! seriously tho, one state at a time, NY needs the publicity and a lot more. soon, i pray, soon. it will be all of us my friends
peace
hoops

[diver_boy]

3 down, 47 to go

[paularoid]

And they're trying to take it away in California now. At least the Mormons are. It looks like the Mormons may just get what they want too. They're sending TONS of financial backing and people down there to Cali and because of that it looks like they might just get it done.

I'm right here in the heart of Mormon-land and it's been all over the news. Just north of me in Rexburg is BYU-Idaho and they've had students taking time off from school to go down to Cali and back it. Although I haven't heard, I'd be willing to bet that the same thing is happening at BYU in Provo Utah as well.

FYI, "BYU" is Brigham Young University and "BYU-Idaho" -used- to be known as "Ricks College" and was or is a satellite of BYU proper, until a few years back when they changed the name. Those two institutions(?) are -THE- preferred higher education establishments of the LDS(mormon) church.

I'd give links but I've just taken note and thrown the stuff away. Do a search and all kinds of stuff -should- pop up.

[Dee]

NEW YORK REGION | October 11, 2008
Connecticut Ruling Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
By SHARON OTTERMAN
With the 4-to-3 ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court, the state becomes
the third in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage.

S'about time.

Way to go Connecticut Supreme Court!

[Bat]

I know the Mormons are trying to take over the world, but I don't think any amount of money or advertising can change the minds of any thinking individual. If someone has actually thought about the basics, they will realize that there is something basically wrong about being able to put a person's civil rights to a public vote. This is an argument which has not been adequately addressed, and it would be a very simple ad, just a statement to that effect, which I think would solidify a lot of positive votes and certainly raise questions in those who might be on the fence. Of course, the religious nuts will never change...until it becomes law writ in stone. After all, the churches were the last to maintain that slavery was a worthy institution...wasn't it in the Bible? :eek:
I just hope there are enough progressively thinking people out there...and if they're not in California, they're nowhere.

[Peppermint]

Go My State!!! Eventually it will be legalized everywhere. Maybe we'll just have to spread out all the Connecticut Judges and other judges who have passed it to other states and so forth.

[DaveM]

To my knowledge, the Mormons still do not permit full membership to black people. That should help keep their "ideas" in proper perspective.

If churches wish to maintain the belief that marriage is a contract between two people and the church as opposed to a civil rights matter, they are free to do so and to only marry people in their churches who meet their standard (perhaps a special classification, to be called, "religious unions", could be created). Beyond that, they have no proper authority. This is not a theocracy and the document which governs our system, the Constitution, specifies "equal protection under the law". Which part of that phrase is so difficult to understand?

The difficulty with religious "thought" is that it tends to run along the lines of the following:

"Resolved, that the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof;

"Resolved, secondly, that the Lord intends the earth for his saints;

"Resolved, thirdly, that we are the saints".

This resolution was actually enacted in Milford, Connecticut--in 1640. A delightful irony.

[paularoid]

http://www.knbc.com/news/17698206/detail.html

Gay Mormon Group Denounces Church For Prop. 8 Crusade
Mormon Church Part Of Conservative Coalition Working To Pass Proposition 8

SALT LAKE CITY -- Leaders of a support group for gay and lesbian Mormons on Saturday criticized their church for its efforts to ban gay marriage in California.

Olin Thomas, executive director of Affirmation, said The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is using fear to sway voters. His remarks came during the group's annual conference in Los Angeles.

On Nov. 4, California voters will decide whether to ban same-sex marriage in the state's constitution. The Mormon church is part of a coalition of conservative groups working to pass Proposition 8, which would overturn the California court ruling that legalized gay marriage.

Thomas said church leaders were wrong in saying last week that failing to pass the proposition would force churches to sanction same-sex marriage and force schools to teach children to place gay and heterosexual marriages on equal footing.

Proposition 8 only effects civil marriages, won't require changes in school curricula and is a matter of civil rights, Thomas said.

"Nothing in the issues related to Prop. 8 imposes anyone else's morality upon any person, church or other religious institution," Thomas said.

Three senior church leaders on Wednesday addressed members in a satellite broadcast to church buildings in California, Utah, Hawaii and Idaho. They called on Latter-day Saints to step up efforts to pass the proposition.

Mormons, who believe God ordains traditional marriage, have joined with other faiths to do grass roots volunteer work and donate funds to the Proposition 8 campaign.

Affirmation asked the church last spring not to demonize gays by using its resources to promote the measure.

[hoops]

davem,
i just want to add a couple things to your post
1) religious "thought" tends not to contain much thought
2) Jesus came to make the world for ALL people. remember He ate with the prostitues and the tax collectors, with the lepers and the "sinners" the saints and the "do gooders" don't need Him so why would He come for them?
just a little "thought"
peace
hoops

[Dee]

Thomas said church leaders were wrong in saying last week that failing to pass the proposition would force churches to sanction same-sex marriage and force schools to teach children to place gay and heterosexual marriages on equal footing.

:o Well yah. And their point is?

It's like looking in a rear view mirror at the bigotry and brainlessness of the past.

[DaveM]

I quite agree, Hoops....the major lesson people fail to learn from the teachings of Jesus was perhaps the greatest one, provided by the company he kept.

Does anyone know if there are any gay polygamous Mormons? Fair is fair, after all.

[Elliott]

Since when did this group of open minded, loving people start making fun of morons? I'm sure there is room on this board for all types of people.... If this group was limited to folks who just arn't that smart, where would I be? Just sitting here alone.... again..... naturally. :rolleyes:

[hoops]

elliott, HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
peace
hoops

[paularoid]

http://www.alternet.org/rights/103041/conservatives_push_hard_for_gay_marriage_ban/?page=entire

Conservatives Push Hard for Gay Marriage Ban
By Karen Ocamb, AlterNet. Posted October 16, 2008.


An influx of cash from the Religious Right has boosted the campaign for Prop. 8, pushing the anti-gay measure dangerously ahead in the polls.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell told MSNBC recently that the economic crisis would trump cultural issues in his battleground state Nov. 4. Blue-collar working-class families are trending for Democrat Barack Obama for president, he said, worried more about their budgets than Obama's African-American race.

Obama's Republican opponent, John McCain, on the other hand, is having difficulty with some of his angrier supporters who perceive Obama in various permutations of "the Other" -- making him "dangerous," as the National Republican Trust put it in an e-mail distributed by the conservative publication Newsmax.

But while the world watches the critical presidential match, there is another high-stakes culture clash being waged, pitting the gay community against the Religious Right. It is the battle over Proposition 8, an initiative on the California ballot that would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

For gay people and their allies, the battle is not only about retaining the "fundamental" right to marry, as the California Supreme Court ruled May 15; it is also about not letting the majority vote to take away an existing right of the minority and thus adding to other disgraceful moments in American history, such as when the country tolerated Jim Crow laws and the Japanese internment, to name a few examples.

For the proponents of Prop. 8, however, the battle is "spiritual warfare," with religious freedom and the nation itself at stake if same-sex marriage is allowed to survive and spread beyond California's borders.

"If sexual freedom is the ultimate liberty, then you have to rewrite the Bill of Rights," Chuck Colson, founder of the Prison Fellowship Ministries, says on a Yes on Proposition 8 video produced by the American Family Association for distribution to pastors and Christian activists. "This vote on whether we stop the gay marriage juggernaut in California is the Armageddon. We lose this -- we're going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion."

The Church of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church and Christian evangelical churches and organizations, including the Family Research Council (FRC), are telling church members to give all they can to ProtectMarriage.com, the group spearheading the Yes on 8 movement.

By the end of September, Yes on 8 raised $25.4 million, compared to $15.7 million for the No on Prop. 8 campaign, according to the California secretary of state Web site. The Mormon Church alone contributed $9,072,329.58 as of Oct. 14, according to Mormonsfor8.com.

"This Supreme Court (ruling in favor of marriage equality) decision was a huge wake-up call for Catholics. It was shocking," Catholics for Protect Marriage leader Bill May told the Associated Press. "The sense is that this is the last chance to restore the definition of marriage, and if unsuccessful, it is going to have serious ramifications for California and across the country."

"This is not political to us. We see it as very spiritual," Jim Garlow, pastor of the evangelical Skyline Church in San Diego County, told AP. Garlow is part of a nationwide 40 days of prayer, fasting and intensive mobilization of "God's Army," leading up to a Nov. 1 rally in San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium of 10,000 "young pioneers" supporting passage of Prop. 8. A video on TheCall's Web site promoting the Qualcomm rally calls the Prop. 8 battle a war between Darkness versus Light.

"Thirty-five years of an American abortion holocaust, the civil imposition of homosexual 'marriage' upon America and the indoctrination of America's public school children in pro-homosexual ideology are practices that a Holy God will not tolerate," FRC's National Prayer Director Rev. Pierre Bynum said in an e-mail.

"The future of our nation hangs in the balance!" FRC President Tony Perkins wrote in an e-mail to supporters.

None of the fervor of the Religious Right, however, filtered through to the gay community. In a conference call with reporters Oct. 7, members of the No on Prop. 8 campaign said they were hurt by complacency after early polls showed Prop. 8 going down to defeat.

No on Prop. 8 supporters also said they were caught short by the massive influx of money from the Religious Right. That funding enabled the Yes on 8 campaign to widely distribute an effective commercial featuring a menacing-looking San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, followed by a Pepperdine law professor making a series of claims that individuals will be "sued over personal beliefs, churches could lose their tax exemptions, gay marriage taught in public schools" if Prop. 8 fails.

In an unprecedented political move, No on Prop. 8 consultant Steve Smith released its internal polling by respected pollster Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners, which paralleled an Oct. 7 poll by SurveyUSA.

Lake's poll of 1,051 likely voters from Sept. 29-Oct. 2 showed that 47 percent now support Prop. 8, compared to 43 percent who oppose it. A SurveyUSA poll of 670 likely voters on Oct. 4-5 showed Prop. 8 winning by 47 percent to 42 percent.

"We're currently being very badly outspent," Smith said. "Their ad is really breaking through -- it's reaching across the spectrum and having major penetration. ... Their ad is effective because it shows people being pissed off at government. We need to deliver our own messages."

The new poll numbers served as a wake-up call for the LGBT community and its allies, including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who contributed $25,000 and helped raise more than $200,000 at a recent No on Prop. 8 fundraiser.

"I vow to vote No on Proposition 8 because I believe our civil society demands that we uphold -- not eliminate -- these fundamental rights. I believe all Californians deserve to be treated equally. And I believe that government exists to protect individual rights, not to undermine them," Villaraigosa said in a statement released by the Courage Campaign.

At a recent fundraiser, West Hollywood City Councilmember John Duran, president of the LGBT lobbying group Equality California, explained why domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage equality.

"In recent history here in California, we had one set of drinking fountains for blacks and one set of drinking fountains for whites. And what difference did it make if everyone got a drink of water?" Duran said. "In Los Angeles, we even had a third set of drinking fountains for Mexicans. And in San Francisco, there was yet another set of fountains for the Chinese. And did it really matter? After all, everyone got a drink of water from the same river or stream. If everyone's thirst was quenched, did it matter that there were separate fountains?

"Yes. It mattered," Duran said, "because in those moments, we treated our fellow Californians as if they were different or inferior to us. And it did not afford them the dignity to which they were entitled as fellow citizens. And even worse -- we denied dignity to ourselves by trying to uphold practices that violated our own basic decency and notions of equality."

On Oct. 14, the culture clash appeared again on the presidential stage when WorldNetDaily published a story in which supposed "domestic terrorist" William Ayers, whom the McCain campaign has tried link to Obama, endorsed a book called Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue About Sexualities and Schooling. Ayers called the book an "important contribution to nourishing the ethical heart of teaching."

[DaveM]

"We lose this -- we're going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion."

Why do they always resort to this nonsense. NO ONE will be prevented from practicing their personal faith as they choose under any measure which allows more people to marry. What will be lost is their perceived "right" to tell other people how they can live their lives--a right which has never been recognized by American law.

[Eva]

Sorry, this is quite complicated for me to understand. The text is too long and so are a lot of sentences. I kind of lose the point languagewise. But did this guy say that if there is sexual freedom then freedom of religion will disappear? :confused: Did I read that right?

Eva

[DaveM]

That's about it, Eva. He fails to explain how someone's else's freedom to live their own life is any threat to his right to do the same.

[gisli]

Since when did this group of open minded, loving people start making fun of morons? I'm sure there is room on this board for all types of people.... If this group was limited to folks who just arn't that smart, where would I be? Just sitting here alone.... again..... naturally. :rolleyes:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha keep this up Elliott and I may become gay after all, the old fashioned way that is......again..............naturally.

[Bat]

That's about it, Eva. He fails to explain how someone's else's freedom to live their own life is any threat to his right to do the same.


Couldn't be simpler, Dave...it simply means the churchies are losing control over people, finding out that their Fear of God tactics simply don't work any more--if they ever did. Church is all about control, and if they lose it, they think it is the end of the world...maybe only for them, one could only hope.

[dragonlady]

The anti-marriage groups are outspending the pro-marriage groups by about 10 to 1...we could see all of those marriages nullified, yet again, by bigotry pure and simple.

-di

[hoops]

maybe i'm a bit slow minded but i need to know does all this money buy votes? if they do, i didn;t know they were for sale
peace
hoops

[dragonlady]

No but it buys advertising that convinces voters that "one man, one woman" needs to be in their constitution...that appears to be what it is dioing since No on Prop 8 is now behind in the polls by at least 5%.

-di

[Marcia Drummergal]

Published - Oct 20 2008 09:49PM EDT | AP

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin says she supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a break with John McCain who has said he believes states should be left to define what marriage is.

In an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network, the Alaska governor said she had voted in 1998 for a state amendment banning same sex marriage and hoped to see a federal ban on such unions.

"I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that's where we would go. I don't support gay marriage," Palin said. She said she believed traditional marriage is the foundation for strong families.


McCain, an Arizona senator, is supporting a ballot initiative in his state this year that would ban gay marriage. But he has consistently and forcefully opposed a federal marriage amendment, saying it would usurp states' authority on such matters.

As governor, Palin vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In a debate with Democratic rival Joe Biden, Palin said she was "tolerant" of gays and said she supported certain legal protections for same-sex couples, like hospital visitation rights.

Biden, meanwhile, said during an appearance Monday on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" that if he lived in California he would vote against a ballot measure that seeks to ban gay marriage. DeGeneres, who is gay and newly wed to actress Portia de Rossi, has urged Californians to reject Proposition 8.

"I think it's regressive," the Delaware senator said. "I think it's unfair, and so I vote 'no.'"

Biden added that he and Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, opposed a similar initiative nationally. In the debate with Palin, Biden said he supporters partnerships rights for gays and lesbians, although he also opposes same-sex marriage.

[Eva]

Palin said she was "tolerant" of gays
Wow... it's 2008 and she is 'tolerant'. I think tolerant is a terrible word. It looks like tolerant people are supportive. But there is built-in 'but' in the word somewhere. It is said of the Dutch that we are so tolerant. Bulls***! The Dutch just don't care. Untill it touches them... that's when the 'but' starts to work. Grrrrrrr...

I guess the American 'tolerant' means something else. People seem to care, one way or another. But the 'but' is there. Very much so. Palin says she wamnts to grant gay partners visitation rights in hospitals. I think it's so inhumane that those rights weren't there anyway automatically! It's a sick sad world... :mad:

Eva

[Dee]

I hope and pray with all my heart that her 15 minutes of fame are nearly over! Enough already!

[hoops]

dee, i'm with you, her time is up and she needs to get back to the kids
peace
hoops

[Mary6906]

... and let's hope it stays that way!

http://video.aol.com/video/judge-makes-gay-marriage-legal-in-connecticut/2319141

[paularoid]

I've been out of circulation for a day or so due to my "cancer buddy" routine so I'm a little behind. Here's part of what built up during the day I was gone.

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/countdown-special-comment-prop-8-what

Countdown Special Comment On Prop 8: What Is It To You?

http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/movieimages/2008/11/6772.dl.jpg

http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/mediaimages/video_wmv_icon.gifDownload (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CD-Comment-Prop8-111008.wmv?mid=6772)

http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/mediaimages/video_qt_icon.gifDownload (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CD-Comment-Prop8-111008.mov?mid=6772)

Keith Olbermann asks those who voted for California's Proposition 8 how in the world it should affect them whether gay couples wish to legalize their relationship.


If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

On a related note, California Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed his disappointment in the passage of Proposition 8, and cheered protesters up and down the state by telling them the "fight isn't over" and said he hoped to that the California Supreme Court overturn Prop. 8.

Transcripts below the fold

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.

This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.

If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

---

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...

Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.


"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:

"So I be written in the Book of Love;

"I do not care about that Book above.

"Erase my name, or write it as you will,

"So I be written in the Book of Love."

[dragonlady]

I've seen this Olberman guy's name before on a news channel but never watched his show...I'm glad to see tha I agree with him...he's very right on all counts as far as I'm concerned. I was very touched by what he had to say. We need more straight allies like him.

-di

[Bat]

I like Keith Olberman...he rants, but is sensible about it, and I haven't caught him in a lie yet. Opinionated, yes, Liar, no.

(...and then there is 'Rachel, the Nice', as Keith calls Rachel Maddow. Whew.)

[trish55]

I don't get what the big idea about "protecting" marriage for the heterosexuals is all about. I've been married, done that, so what? It's just a word, let anyone who wants to be so foolish get married if they want!! Let them get ALL the privileges that go along with it and all the privileges that go along with divorce to.:eek:

[paularoid]

I don't get what the big idea about "protecting" marriage for the heterosexuals is all about. I've been married, done that, so what? It's just a word, let anyone who wants to be so foolish get married if they want!! Let them get ALL the privileges that go along with it and all the privileges that go along with divorce to.:eek:
AGREED MOST WHOLEHEARTEDLY!..... me being a divorcee and all that entails. :p

[Dee]

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

Hard to believe that in the year 2008 this kind of bigotry and hate is still an issue. I do find it ironic that here in Canada I could marry another man if we wanted to, and yet I have no desire to. If there were some way to transfer that right to those who want to but can’t, I would do it right now.

[Elliott]

Why would Morons try to ban prop 8? I didn't know they could count that high! :eek: