Same-sex marriage, we’ve been told countless times by opponents, will have devastating consequences on “traditional” (man and woman) marriage. We’re never told exactly what those consequences are, we’re just told it will happen. Same-sex marriage, allegedly, will destroy the sacred institution of man/woman marriage, which is one of the reasons it cannot be legalized.
Same-sex marriage has been legal for nearly six years in MA and just about one year in CT. Same-sex couples have been marrying for five months in Iowa and several weeks in VT. Same-sex marriages were also legal for an all too brief period last year in CA. I have yet to hear of any “opposite marriages” being destroyed in the wake of the tens of thousands of same-sex marriages that have occurred in these states, but I’m willing to admit I may have missed something out there.
So this is an open invitation to people who are (or were) in man/woman marriages in MA, CT, IA and VT (or even CA). If your man/woman marriage was destroyed by same-sex couples being granted marriage equality please let the world know. It would be nice to finally discover, from couples actually affected, what these “consequences” entail.
Comments are open.
Update: Please note this invitation is to man/woman couples in the indicated states who believe their marriages were actually affected by legal same-sex marriage, and who want to share their individual stories. It is not an open invitation for people to offer vague hypotheticals about what legal same-sex marriage does/might cause or preach their religious views. If I wanted the latter I could go read the prattlings of Maggie Gallagher. Thank you.
The RRRWers obviously don’t know what Socialism means. They apparently don’t care to know what Socialism actually means. It’s just a catchall term they apply to anything they don’t like. Healthcare for all is Socialism! A minimum wage is Socialism! The president talking to school children is Socialism! Now, apparently , same-sex marriage is the path to Socialism.
Same sex marriage is part of a socialist agenda to undermine “the foundations of individual rights and liberties,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said Wednesday.
By giving to same-sex couples the rights opposite-sex couples take for granted? M’kay.
If there’s a push for a socialist society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together living collectively off one pot of resources earned by everyone, this is one of the goals they have to go to, same sex marriage, because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. They want public affirmation, they want access to public funds and resources.
So King seems to be claiming that married couples are “on the dole” but it would be “Socialism” to allow same-sex couples the same rights that opposite sex couples now have because then everybody would be “on the dole” (because if you legalize same-sex marriage then everyone is going to get married). Apparently it’s only when some are “on the dole” and therefore “special” that it’s not “Socialism. Yep, I get it now.
Reality check: (Thanks to DOMA my wife and I don’t have any of the federal rights provided by marriage, but even those wouldn’t qualifiy as “public funds and resources”. But let’s pretend for the purposes of this that DOMA doesn’t exist.) If I were to die and my wife were to collect my Social Security benefits that would not be an example of her getting “public funds/resources”. That would be her getting benefits I had worked for and put into the Social Security fund–money I would have been getting myself if I were still alive. That’s not “Socialism”, that’s Marriage Equality.
King condemned his own state legislature for not voting on an amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision, suggesting that the legislature had been backed politically by “a number of very, very rich homosexual activists.”
There’s that stereotype again. Gay people are all rich, white, non-religious sluts determined to take over America (and later the world). Wake up people. LGBT people come from every race/ethnicity, every socioeconomic class, every religion/faith/non-faith, etc. We are your friends, co-workers, neighbors, brothers, sisters and your children.
King also said that former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) was right to say that legal same sex marriages would open the door to legal polygamy or bestiality.
No, he wasn’t. Santorum, at least, (in that instance) was engaging in a standard slippery slope fallacy. King is plain off his rocker.
You know all that talk they make about marriage being about bearing and raising children? They mean it. And banning same-sex marriage because, according to them, gay people “cannot” procreate, is only one step in their master plan. An Iowa Family Policy Center spokesperson lays bare the plain truth.
Did you hear that? Regarding elderly, infertile, or childless couples he states; “One might ask, why are you getting a marriage license anyway?” If you aren’t going to procreate you aren’t worthy of marriage–at least in the eyes of the so-called “pro-family” faction. Marriage isn’t about love and commitment. Marriage isn’t about spending your life with your soulmate. Marriage is about churning out babies for The Lord, period.
Their future is not one where you fall in love with someone, propose (or have them propose to you), get married and spend the rest of your lives together, perhaps having and raising children. Their future is one in which you’re judged solely on your ability to bear fruit for their God. If you are fertile you will be given a spouse and you will propagate the species. It doesn’t matter if you like or love your spouse. Marriage isn’t about love and commitment, it’s about procreation. If you are not fertile you will work in the factories, toil in the fields, labor in the households of those who are fertile, or otherwise be engaged in some productive labor to assist those who are being fruitful and multiplying.
Their most recent underhanded tactic has been to help supporters of anti-gay legislation circumvent state public disclosure laws by donating through NOM. In various e-mail blasts Brian Brown lures donors by assuring them they can keep their identities private, unlike when they contribute directly to state ballot initiatives. Since NOM merely lists itself when making a donation to any particular anti-gay nationwide cause it can take in donations from any number of people or organizations–who never have to be named–and funnel that money into their bigoted agenda. Those who want to harm gay people without getting their hands dirty need only give money to NOM. NOM then funnels the millions they got from private citizens and “others” to ballot initiatives, legislators they wish to see elected and other causes. Tax free, of course.
But NOM may have overplayed their game in Iowa. They’ve been pushing hard for the election of rabidly anti-gay Republican Stephen Burgmeier. They’ve gone as far as spending $86K on radio and TV ads to push him. That’s in addition to all of the money they’ve used specifically to roll back marriage equality in Iowa. Iowa officials are displeased at the idea their election might be bought by outsiders with an agenda and may demand NOM disclose their donors.
…..
The National Organization for Marriage has spent more on a special Sept. 1 House race in southern Iowa than either the Democratic or Republican candidate has raised in cash, according to campaign reports released this week.
…..
NOM will likely need to disclose future donors if it continues its Iowa activities, Charlie Smithson, the head of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, warned NOM in a letter today.
“I’m not as much concerned with this particular race as I am that
Iowa is not going to become a dumping ground for undisclosed campaign contributions,” Smithson said in an interview. “Anyone can play the game here, but they are going to play within the rules.”
Play within the rules? NOM can no more play within the rules than Maggie Gallagher can tell the truth. But it will be nice if Iowa refuses to let them play their reindeer games, and other states follow suit.
The Iowa atheist bus ads continue to be in the news. They were put up, taken down, and put back up amidst complaints from people who apparently are offended by the mere mention that we exist. Now a DART driver has been suspended and faces termination due to her refusal to drive a bus which had the ad on it.
…..
On Monday, the Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority suspended bus operator Angela Shiel after she refused to drive a bus with an Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers ad on its side. Shiel, 41, said the ad’s message, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone,” went against her Christian faith.
…..
So do ads for churches and religions other than her own go against her faith? Does Shiel refuse to drive buses that advertise anything that allegedly goes against her faith (like ads for divorce lawyers, casinos, the state lottery, etc.), or does she, like most of her ilk, pick and choose what she will play the Faith Card over?
Shiel, a DART employee for eight years, now could be fired because of her refusal to drive the bus.
DART policy states that drivers cannot choose which buses they drive, DART General Manager Brad Miller said.
“Drivers are not permitted to reject a working bus,” Miller said. “It’s a very fundamental policy for DART. … It’s an essential rule that we will maintain.”
She should be fired. Her behavior was flat out insubordination, nothing less. I am a vegetarian yet when I worked in Human Services I prepared and served meat to my clients because I was there to provide support services to them, not serve my own interests. I am also an atheist but if they wanted to go to church I took them because, again, I was there for their needs and not my own. If Shiel and her faith are so fragile that an ad telling atheists “you aren’t alone, here’s where you can contact like-minded others” makes her apoplectic she needs to find another line of work.
“When you work for the government, part of your job is to respect the rights of your fellow citizens, and you cannot use your religious beliefs to evade that responsibility,” he said.
Hear, hear. And I daresay that extends to pretty much any line of work. If you can’t handle your job because your “religious beliefs” get in the way then find another job. The people you are being paid to serve shouldn’t suffer because of your chosen beliefs–particularly if you are applying them in a haphazard way as so many do.
Once again atheist signs are at the center of a controversy. Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers began advertising on DART buses on the first of August . The ads were removed just three days later with DART officials claiming they never should have gone up.
…..
“Drivers said people weren’t getting on buses or getting off the buses because of it,” said advertising director Kirstin Baer-Harding. “So with all the calls, it wasn’t something we wanted.”
The signs came down on Aug. 4. Baer-Harding said they never should have gone up.
…..
“I was disturbed, personally, by the advertisement and I can understand why other Iowans were also disturbed by the message that it sent,” Culver said.
So what was this heinous ad that caused people so much distress that they were refusing to board buses, that they were calling DART to lodge complaints, that the governor himself was “disturbed”? Get your children out of the room, take any heart medications you require and view it yourself…
The ad acknowledges the existence of atheists, tells them there are others like them out there, and gives them information so they can contact those like-minded others. Why is that so offensive to religious people? Churches advertise all the time, so why shouldn’t atheist groups be able to?
My personal theory is that they like it when atheists are isolated, unaware that there are others like them, unable to associate with other non-believers, and therefore quiet about the fact that they don’t believe. If they don’t hear or see us, we don’t exist in their minds. And if we don’t exist, we can’t do them any harm. It’s oppression, plain and simple.
The joke is on them though. The Iowa ads are back, and thanks to all of the controversy IAF is enjoying a surge in membership. Their group has more than doubled in size so far, and may continue to grow in the coming days. It appears oppression and intolerance don’t always pay off.
Final Score
Intolerant religious people: 0
Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers: 125+
The bigots scream endlessly that we must be denied the rights they take for granted or their “religious freedom” will be trampled. Of course that’s bull on its face for reasons I and others have stated countless times before. But the reality is that by denying us marriage equality they are also denying our religious freedoms. (Yes, many LGBT people are religious whether or not they believe in god(s), and many religious/faith traditions do support same-sex marriage . ) Religious freedom must be provided to all. It cannot merely be granted to the people who have the most money, the most power, and the greatest number of votes .
While we’re at it, a little reminder about how Separation of Church and State protects everyone.
Robert Peters is the president of a group called Morality in Media one of those RRRW nanny groups that promotes governmental censorship of pretty much everything but Christian programming and Fox News. He claims he has discovered what makes people go on murderous rampages. Legal same-sex marriage. Yes, he’s a complete whackjob but read his nonsense anyway.
…..
“For many citizens, what has replaced Judeo-Christian faith and values is the secular value system that is reflected in films, rap/music lyrics, and videogames and on TV and now the Internet, where the taking of human life for just about any reason is commonplace and is often portrayed in an appealing manner and in realistic detail. Murder motivated by hatred and revenge is also justified.
…..
I’ve read the Bible. The Bible God and the people who followed him murdered on every conceivable whim including hatred and revenge. Christians and other religious people murder LGBT people, women and others out of hatred (intolerance of their sexual orientation/ nonconformity to “god’s design”/ non-adherence to Biblical directives/etc.) and revenge (for all of the above and/or perceived slights against god/religion). Peters can’t chalk hatred and revenge up to “secular society”.
“This secular value system is also reflected in the ’sexual revolution,’ which is the driving force behind the push for ‘gay marriage;’ and the Iowa Supreme Court decision is another indication that despite all the damage this revolution has caused to children, adults, family life and society (think abortion, divorce, pornography, rape, sexual abuse of children, sexually transmitted diseases, trafficking in women and children, unwed teen mothers and more), it continues to advance relentlessly.
Is there anything in Peters’ head besides Christianist dogma? Hello! If the driving force behind the push for same-sex marriage were the “sexual revolution” there would be no push for same-sex marriage. We can have sex without marriage (and have been for centuries). We certainly don’t need to go through all this pain, heartache, financial strain and other garbage for the sake of sex. But then Peters is a typical RRRW whackjob who is obsessed with sex so of course to him everything we do is about sex.
“It most certainly is not my intention to blame the epidemic of mass murders on the gay rights movement! It is my intention to point out that the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders.
Of course he isn’t. He’s only saying that gay people are sexually depraved people who want to get married just so we can have copious amounts of sex, and that’s why people go on murderous rampages–which is completely different.
While we know Peters is totally off his nut (and doesn’t understand the concept of “correlation does not imply causation”), it helps to inject some actual facts here. Forcing more archaic religion on the nation will only make matters worse, not better. Countries that are more progressive and less religious fare better, have fewer teen pregnancies, better health care, lower divorce rates, fewer incarcerated individuals, etc.
BTW Mr. Peters. While you’re out there crusading to save the world from sex and violence you might want to demand a ban on that Bible thing. It’s got more genocide, infanticide, lust, sex, fratricide, rape, ritual human sacrifice and other abominations than any NC-17 movie you’ll find on the market. It’s certainly not fit for families, if anybody.
When liberty kisses justice: equality of rights is an excellent post by Classically Liberal on the Iowa Supreme Court’s recent decision to provide marriage equality. Click here for the full post, but here are a few excerpts to whet your appetite:
…..
The god-botherers out there scream when a court rules as this one did. They exhibit their own ignorance by bleating that the justices are legislating from the bench. But what these justices are required to do is judge whether or not legislative law is consistent with, or in violation of, constitutional law. That is their job! They are not usurping powers but judiciously engaging in their primary job.
…..
What the Iowa court did, in this case, was make issue a very conservative ruling. They upheld constitutional law, and some of the best constitutional law, that Americans have. The radicals in the court room were the plethora of religiously-inspired special interest groups demanding that constitutional principles be ignored because they imagine that some supernatural being has demanded that one class of people be treated badly. The Justices were respecting the law, not making law…
…..
The justices also noted that public opinion matters not one bit. “A statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion.” Jefferson addressed this when he said: “What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals.” Popular prejudice, even if widespread, in itself, is not sufficient cause for making a minority less than equal. The Iowa justices wrote that “the very purpose of limiting the power of the elected branches of government by constitutional provisions like the Equal Protection Clause is [according to Justice Robert Jackson] ‘to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.’”
…..
Each generation faces new questions about rights not faced by previous generations. The Founders did not believe that their list of rights was exhaustive. So they did not try to enumerate such rights. They said they were offering future generations the broad principles with which they should work when facing new controversies about individual liberty. Jefferson’s said that the “most sacred” duty of government is “to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.” That principle was enshrined in the Iowa Constitution, as it was in most state constitutions. Jefferson said our principles of government “secure to all… citizens a perfect equality of rights.”
But today, conservatives are leading a stampede to undermine the concept of equality of rights before the law. They are arguing that their religious sentiments and imaginations require the law to explicitly embrace an inequality of rights. This is precisely what Prop 8 did in California and what many other such “constitutional amendments” have been intended to do. They have radically rewritten a basic constitutional principle, that of equality of rights, and substituted for it one that demands inequality of rights. Such a revolutionary change to a founding principle is hardly conservative in any sense of the word. It is a shockingly revolutionary attempt to overturn the founding principles of the Republic.
…..
One of the great things about liberalism, properly understood, is that it doesn’t ask us to cling to the conclusions of the past, just the principles. Those principles still embrace a free society, based on individual rights and one that respects the equality of those rights before the law. The Justices in Iowa did not overturn those principles at all. They unanimously embraced them. And for that they should be applauded.
The “Gathering Storm” anti-marriage video about which I previously posted has angered quite a few people. Many have written about it and others have created their own videos dismantling the outrageous lies it spews. Here is an excellent effort from bgjohnla:
It appears the NOM is finally being seen for what they are; group of hysterical hatemongers who seek nothing more than to control everybody with their oppressive, antediluvian dogma. Or perhaps LGBT people and their allies actually learned from Proposition 8 and discovered they need to respond to this sort of garbage swiftly and decisively. Whatever it is, I like what I’m seeing. It seems the pit viper known as NOM is being defanged, slowly but surely.
Same-sex marriage, we’ve been told countless times by opponents, will have devastating consequences on “traditional” (man and woman) marriage. We’re never told exactly what those consequences are, we’re just told it will happen. Same-sex marriage, allegedly, will destroy the sacred institution of man/woman marriage, which is one of the reasons it cannot be legalized. 
.
