February 20, 2004

Wedding Photos

How can anyone click through this photo album and not believe that this is an Unqualified Good Thing? Why does the Right hate love?

Comments

Derek takes incredible photos.

Gabe is organizing people for a rally on March 11th when the Statehouse reconvenes for the marriage ammendment. This is a rally against the ammendment, of course! Sign up for info and updates at http://ben-yosef.com/marriage.

Posted by: Sooz at February 20, 2004 10:24 AM

The sad thing is, I do imagine hate-filled bigots looking at these pictures saying,
"It's sick."
"Ewww."
"Their poor parents."
"All they need is a good F***, to straighten them out."
etc.

Posted by: Hilary at February 21, 2004 08:34 PM

So, if you are opposed to the concept of gay marriage, then the logical conclusion is that you are a "hate-filled bigot"? That statement sounds bigoted. Is it possible that stereotyping, name calling and generalizing has really been counterproductive to liberals?

Posted by: rudolfo at February 25, 2004 04:05 PM

Liberals/progressives have gotten women the right to vote, African-Americans the right to vote and a multitude of other civil rights, all over the objections of what we now realize were, in fact, hate-filled bigots.

If you're trying to restrict or remove someone else's rights for no good reason, I really don't know what else to call you.

Posted by: Michael at February 25, 2004 07:28 PM

So I take that to mean you are free to express your viewpoint, and that it's reasonable, but if someone has an objection to gay marriage it can only originate from "hate" or "bigotry". You made a similar statement. A while back, you stopped short of calling Bush a racist because he didn't support affirmative action. Are you stating that affirmative action is the litmus test? Many African Americans feel that afiirmative action is, in essence, infantalizing. I guess they are self loathing.

That being said, a look at the President's proposed, and frankly pointless, constitutional ban on gay marriage should be examined:

The whole concept of the ammendment is political. Despite what you my believe, Bush is not stupid. he knows full well that such an ammendment is never going to be ratified. This is simply a great wedge issue that forces more liberal candidates to be for or against this, as well as energizing the far right to vote in record numbers this year. Bush has been consistent in his opposition to gay marriage. John Kerry supported gay marriage 2 years ago, and now does not! Anyone smell a pandering, placating politician here? Anyways, I digress. There should not be an ammendment banning gay marriage, and likely there will not be. I do however, think it is pointless to allow that states to decide this. If a gay marriage is recognized in Massachusetts, but not in Alabama, it is simply not a marriage. It will end up going to the sumpreme court, and they will be called upon to define what marriage is and who enjoys the privledge (It's not a "right" by the way)

After Bush is likely re-elected, you will likely hear nothing more from him on the issue. If Kerry or Edwards wins, the same applies.

What amazes me is that this has become an issue at all. I suspect this issue was forced out of the closet (pun intended) by conservatives to force liberals to take one side or the other in an election year. Civil Unions are not even legal in most states, so demanding that a cultural institution like marriage now be permissable for gays is a bit baffling.

The mayor of San Francisco is totally wrong in breaking the law, especially in light of the fact that the voters of California mandated by ballot that gay marriage be prohibited. This man is defying the laws he was elected to uphold, and further is defrauding gays by issuing marriage certificates that are worthless and invalid. I was reading in the Washington Post, that a make-up artist who lives in D.C. flew to San Francisco with his partner, got "married", and returned to D.C. with plans of putting his "spouse" on his legal documents, mortgage and insurance. Is this man delusional? No one, especially banks and insurance companies is going to recognize his non-marriage. In this, the mayor has commited fraud, and all of these couples should be re-imbursed the cost of the licenses and perhaps travel expenses.

In conclusion, I think the US should just allow gays to marry. Who is hurt by it? If the argument is "A man and a woman marry to have children" that means women over 50 should be prohibited and couples who do not want children should as well. Churches do not have to perform these ceremonies, nor recognize gay marriage. It's now the 21st century. People should grow up! If anything, gays marrying is an indication that thy want to be part of the greater community and that they want many of the same things that straight people do! We deride them for being secular, then deride them for wanting to fit in and live their lives in a commited relationship that's recognized by law? We cant have constitutional ammendments because a portion of the population thinks homosexual marriages are "icky". This country was founded so we could be free to pursue happiness, not so that some holier than thou types could determine what is, and what is not, "moral' This country is not, and shall become, a theocracy.

Bush is being manipulative with this issue, and Kerry is being a coward.

And by the way, happy 30th in advance! :D

Posted by: Rudolfo at February 25, 2004 10:22 PM

I gueuss this "right" that hates love includes Howard Dean and John Kerry! :P

Posted by: Rudolfo at March 8, 2004 02:45 PM

Post a comment