Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
catholic league

“When African Americans were seeking equal rights, they never sought to upend the most fundamental social institutions in society, namely marriage and the family”

SOUNDBITES — “When African Americans were seeking equal rights, they never sought to upend the most fundamental social institutions in society, namely marriage and the family. Nor did they ever denigrate world religions. Instead, people like Martin Luther King, himself a minister, spoke respectfully of Christianity and other religions. But the situation in San Francisco is different: David Boies, and his colleague Theodore B. Olsen, cannot make their case for homosexual marriage without demonizing religion. They have a special fondness for bashing Catholicism. … Plato condemned sodomy. Jefferson thought it should be a felony. Neither was Catholic. And neither they, nor the Catholic Church, ever thought it was okay for gay bashers to act out their hatred. That this even needs to be said doesn’t speak well for where Boies wants to go.” —Catholic League communications director Susan Fani on how Perry‘s plaintiffs are overstepping

By:           editor editor
On:           Jan 28, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , ,
  • 40 Comments
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      Maybe thats because its diffucult to discuss Gay marriage without religion being brought into it because your institution insists on inserting the church into a legal issue, clearly defing the laws of separation of church and state

      Why not spend more time concentrating on helping all the boys your clergy have diddled?????????

      Jan 28, 2010 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      What the hell is she talking about: “Plato condemned sodomy”?!?!! Has she ever *read* the Symposium??

      Jan 28, 2010 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PBCliberal
      PBCliberal

      Perhaps Susan Fani should spend some time studying the history of the Southern Baptist Church.

      Jan 28, 2010 at 5:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      Kiddie fuckers…oh, and kiddie fucker hiders too.

      Jan 28, 2010 at 5:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      @Kevin:

      Yeah, but she’s probably referring to the later Plato in “The Laws”.

      Thomas Jefferson (a fascinating man) owned and fucked his slaves (as most slavemasters did), is that who sh’e appealing to as a moral authority?

      Don’t let me bring up the role of the Catholic Church in slavery and the extermination of the people that were already here.

      Stupid bitch.

      Jan 28, 2010 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill
      terrwill

      [img]MaggieSimpson1.gif&usg=AFQjCNH6Qizlt-ouNvEDI8029wNp2-5WkQ[/img]

      Jan 28, 2010 at 5:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wade macMorrighan
      Wade macMorrighan

      Wia t a minute…. WTF?! Of COURSE they were a threat to you and your system during the “interracial marriage” debates! Is your memory THAT poor?

      Jan 28, 2010 at 5:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rf7777
      rf7777

      Wow! So MANY things wrong with this. The Church of Kiddie-f*ckers and the Inquisition preaching on others’ behavior? Using Plato (gay!) and Thomas Jefferson (slave owner/f*cker) as references?

      Jan 28, 2010 at 5:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      About the Catholic league’s misleading claim that “Jefferson thought it should be a felony.” … it already *was* a felony and a capital offense. The bill Jefferson helped draft (he was the head of a committee, and all members had some say) was entitled, “A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishment in Cases Heretofore Capital,” so Jefferson and the others were trying to eliminate the indiscriminate use of the death penalty.

      The bill in part stated “Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half diameter at the least.”

      Jefferson was not really happy with that. In Jefferson’s autobiography, he wrote, “On the subject of the Criminal Law, all were agreed that the punishment of death should be abolished, except for treason and murder; and that, for other felonies should be substituted hard labor in the public works, and in some cases, the Lex talionis. How this last revolting principle came to obtain our approbation, I do not remember…It was the English law in the time of the Anglo-Saxons, copied probably from the Hebrew law of ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,’ and it was the law of several ancient people. But the modern mind had left it far in the rear of it’s advances.”

      Jefferson had substantial reservations about lex talionis (also called “retaliation in kind”). In spite of Jefferson’s objections to it in general, lex talionis was kept but only for rape, polygamy, and sodomy. When this part was discussed and voted on by Virginia’s general assembly, Jefferson was in Paris.

      Source: http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Bill_64
      (which has a lot more of the details).

      Jan 28, 2010 at 5:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Why doesn’t someone knock this stupid bitch on her fani? misspelling intentional

      Jan 28, 2010 at 5:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      One thing they aren’t saying when they claim “When African Americans were seeking equal rights, they never sought to upend the most fundamental social institutions in society, namely marriage and the family.” ….

      At that time, African Americans were not prevented from marrying each other (although there were restrictions on interracial marriages). When you are trying to get equal rights, you try to change the things that are giving you unequal rights.

      Jan 28, 2010 at 5:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      “When African Americans were seeking equal rights, they never sought to upend the most fundamental social institutions in society, namely marriage and the family.

      Oh, grow up, Ms Fani.

      And when women were seeking suffrage, they never sought to upend the most fundamental social institution in society, namely that women should be in the home, raising children and taking care of their family needs?

      This is the 21st Century, lady, in case you haven’t noticed.

      Jan 28, 2010 at 5:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChicagoJimmy
      ChicagoJimmy

      The idea of equality for people of differing races or ethnic backgrounds was itself upending fundamental social institutions in society, namely schools, the military, public restrooms, public transportation, and lunch counters.

      It had been previously unthinkable for people of mixed races to share anything in society. For that matter, I wonder when the Catholic church integrated? These aren’t exactly forward-thinking people.

      Jan 28, 2010 at 6:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Excellent post, ChicagoJimmy. Right on the money.

      These people are so busy looking at the past, that they are totally incapable of looking foward.

      Jan 28, 2010 at 6:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      @No. 5 · Chitown Kev

      Like the other Kevin, I too thought The Symposium wasn’t the best example of an abhorrence of buggery. If memory serves, I remember being more than a little aroused. But that’s easy to do, especially then.

      But this is just another example of religious people smearing their moral mores on the masses, and then crying foul when we attack back. But this is even more nefarious and despicable, because she seems to be (in a smarmy, down-low kinda way) attempting to reignite the fictitious schism between African Americans and Gay Americans.

      She seems ignorant to the fact that some of us have a foot in both camps, and as such know more about the history of the CIVIL RIGHTS battle and STONEWALL than she ever ever will. As she attempts her feeble divide and conquer, and not only know about discrimination in the text-book theory sense, but have lived it and breathed it all our lives.

      Ms. Fani needs to stick to dissecting the history of her beloved religion, and try to understand why it was responsible for one massacre after another all in the name of God.

      She’d have little time to posture as the poor little victim of Christian bashing.

      Jan 28, 2010 at 6:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bob
      Bob

      Poor little bigots are in such a tizzy now that they’ve seen just how weak their case is against marriage equality and just how stupid they sound when trying to explain their bigotry.

      Jan 28, 2010 at 7:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dan
      Dan

      “When African Americans were seeking equal rights, they never sought to upend the most fundamental social institutions in society, namely marriage and the family.” BS! They sought to upend slavery, a bedrock institution of the South – and they sought to end antifamily laws against interractial marriage.

      Jan 28, 2010 at 7:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • SoylentDiva
      SoylentDiva

      How are we “upending” marriage and family? All we seek to do is participate in them with the same legal protections others take for granted. And the only reason we speak against religion is because some use it as a weapon against us. They really do need to get off their crosses.

      Jan 28, 2010 at 7:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Devon
      Devon

      I can’t be the only one thinking it’s about time for a reverse-crusade…

      Jan 28, 2010 at 7:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sal(the original)
      sal(the original)

      two words INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE

      Jan 28, 2010 at 8:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ChrisM
      ChrisM

      Boies demonized religion? He presented a lot of evidence that churches were disseminating themselves. If anybody was demonizing religion, it was religion. They hear their own views repeated by our lawyers and cringe at how bigoted they know it sounds (and is) – thus they put out this crap trying to make themselves out to be so good to us. Like in this sentence:

      “And neither they, nor the Catholic Church, ever thought it was okay for gay bashers to act out their hatred.”

      But having that hatred is ok I guess. Isn’t the Catholic Church the one preaching unconditional love for everyone? So why are they going against their own values by implicitly condoning hatred or prejudice in the same paragraph where they are throwing a fit over us challenging their values?

      Jan 28, 2010 at 10:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wade macMorrighan
      Wade macMorrighan

      “”And neither they, nor the Catholic Church, ever thought it was okay for gay bashers to act out their hatred.”

      Ugh…are you sure ’bout that Miss Thang?! After all, it was the Church who condemned Gay people to death and burned them alive at the stake!

      Jan 29, 2010 at 12:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 19 · Devon wrote, “I can’t be the only one thinking it’s about time for a reverse-crusade…” … You aren’t the only one. Osama bin Laden thinks he’s running a reverse crusade, giving the term a bad rap (unfortunately). Plus, he’s probably as homophobic as the Catholic hierarchy.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 1:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BUSSY
      BUSSY

      s

      Jan 29, 2010 at 2:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BUSSY
      BUSSY

      As i said Boies and Olson have made the grave error of making this case about Gays Vs Religion.

      As far as i am concerned this case is a case for the spoiled sports aka gays.

      1. May 2008, the Supreme Court of Cali ruled the constitutionality of one man and one woman as defined in marriage as false. Whether they consulted the general public’s opinion on the matter..im not sure. But people were pissed so im going to say no. Just a few judges made that decision.
      2. Some people were pissed off about this and very offended the court did not ask the people if they wanted marriage to mean any two parties of legal age and mutual consent. Thus they insisted very simply let the people decide.
      3. Prop 8 gave the people a chance to voice their opinion for the courts and the nation to hear. Both sides campaigned to the people and gave their reasons why their side was right.
      4. In Nov 2008, one side won.

      R we following this? Good. Now im putting this in very simple terms. The problem of prop 8 was the way it was handled in the first place. Prop 8 SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED AT ALL. That would have made more sense and avoided this nonsense that is called a trial from happening.

      There is no real basis to rule prop 8 unconstitutional. Something was put to ballot and won. The arguments should have come on the constitutionality of having prop 8 in the first place not after the fact. You did not fight when you should have. You also said let the people decide. They have decided and now you are fighting their decision. My question to gays is what if prop 8 had not won? Wont it have been the same mob rule? Would you agree that it is unconstitutional if anti 8 took you to court because they lost fair and square?

      Jan 29, 2010 at 5:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      @BUSSY: Your comment contains at least three errors.

      “Boies and Olson have made the grave error of making this case about Gays Vs Religion.”
      No, they have not made it about Gays vs Religion at all. They just proved, as facts of the case, that the backers of Prop 8 were motivated by religion, and that a majority of the people in CA belong to religions that specifically condemn homosexuality. That religious motivation is just one of the elements that is spelled out in two of the precedent cases, that they want to invoke. The backers are still free to believe what they want.

      “There is no real basis to rule prop 8 unconstitutional.”
      Olson and Boies say there are several reasons. Specifically, Prop. 8 Violates The Due Process Clause Of The Fourteenth
      Amendment, and Prop. 8 Violates The Equal Protection Clause Of The Fourteenth Amendment. After reading the briefs and transcripts, and some of the cases they cite, it seems to me that they have it right. The judges will decide. That’s why we have judges.

      “The arguments should have come on the constitutionality of having prop 8 in the first place not after the fact.”
      No. That’s not the way our Federal courts work. Courts don’t consider “hypothetical” questions. A State has to actually make a law before the Federal courts will consider the question of whether or not the law is constitutional.

      “You also said let the people decide.”
      No. The _proponants_ of prop 8 said that, not the gays.

      You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. If you want to use facts to make an argument, you really need to make sure they are actually true.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 8:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rainfish2000
      rainfish2000

      @BUSSY: So you are saying that every proposed law should be run past the Supreme Court before they are passed legislatively or through referendum? Great idea, but it doesn’t sound very practical.

      Anti-Gay Amendment 2 in Colorado was voted on by the people and passed overwhelmingly (unlike the narrow margins in Prop 8); then it was immediately challenged in the State Supreme Court…it was struck down…then appealed by supporters all the way to the US Supreme Court which also struck it down via the majority opinion, by Justice Kennedy, which stated in Romer v. Evans:

      “It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort.” …Finding that “laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected,”… the Court implied that the passage of Amendment 2 was born of a “bare…desire to harm a politically unpopular group”… that animus (disfavorment, hatred, etc.) towards an unpopular minority cannot be held to justify a law which does not serve a rational, legitimate state interest and thereby places an unequal burden on the aforementioned disfavored minority.

      And even if you don’t rely solely on the broadest interpretation of the 14th Amendment in Prop 8, there is still plenty of precedence for the court to rely on gleaned from other cases — if it chooses to do so.

      So, no Bussy, the mob does not always have the last word as long as we have an unadulterated Federal Constitution and a Bill of Rights to protect us.

      Though how long that will last is any body’s guess as this country quickens its goose-steps towards fascism — so, who knows?

      Furthermore, using your “whatever the people decide should stick” philosophy of the law, then we should still have bans on interracial marriage; segregated schools and lunch-counters, and countless other examples of upholding the “status quo” which would solely be determined by the tyranny of the majority.

      Equality is not a gift to be won in a popularity contest; it is either a birthright for all or it is a meaningless farce.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 8:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Pay no attention to the moron Fani. She’s just a hatchet girl for archbigot William Donohue, President of the Catholic League who espouses “pedophilia = homosexuality”. The catholic cult has a long history and tradition of advocating violence against gays. Hating the sin and loving the sinner mantra they’re now chanting doesn’t wash. Its just another way in expressing homophobia. These cults just don’t understand that they do NOT own marriage, governments do when they issue secular marriage licenses. Government gets involved with marriage directly, contrary to what politicians and presidents say, when it confers state and federal rights, benefits and privileges that are automatic once a marriage has taken place. No religious cult has that power, so their opinion doesn’t count. If they want to meddle in the political process, let them forfeit their tax-exempt status for starters and stop sponging off of the rest of the taxpayers or face the consequences. If only the dems had the balls to confront them on this one.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 9:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • rainfish2000
      rainfish2000

      “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” – Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi

      ===================================================

      Mahatma Gandhi on Homosexuality

      Two gay Englishmen came to Gandhi in the 1930s and asked him what he thought of their relationship. The Mahatma asked some questions and for a short time fell silent. Then he said, “The greatest gift God gives us is another person to love.” Placing the hands of each man in the other’s, he quietly and with a smile asked, “Who are we to question God’s choice?”

      ===============================================

      Jan 29, 2010 at 10:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tinkerbell
      tinkerbell

      Obviously Susan was never raised in the American South. Here in Tennessee, the African American civil rights movement sought to unravel the very threads of most every Southern societal institution. Thankfully, they were successful in almost every fight, as we shall be. They were on the side of right. We are on the side of right. Step aside, Susan or the bus of equality will run over you just as it did the Klan down here in TN.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 10:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      This this a joke? African Americans were once listed as property. So don’t tell me it wasn’t a fundamental change to society in a massive way when they began throwing off those chains and claiming their rights. This guy is an idiot.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 11:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Taylor Siluwé
      Taylor Siluwé

      @no. 28 · Robert, NYC

      I couldn’t agree more. But religion is still taboo and untouchable enough that it could be political suicide. I wish they would. But until ‘openly’ Atheist candidates begin winning elections, I don’t see it happening. *sigh*

      Jan 29, 2010 at 11:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BUSSY
      BUSSY

      Steve.

      Hehm Steve. This is about gays vs religon. Lets cut the crap. Every body knows that the only issues people have with gay marriage is that they have an issue with gays period. Why do we have an issue with gays? This is because of the fact that people consider gays immoral. Why do people think gays are immoral? Because RELIGION tells us so. Whether it be christian, muslim or jewish.

      Religious tenets are taught to us all. Whether your parents exposed to it or not. In my kindergarten, i was taught the ten commandments as part of a values based system. Homosexuality is seen as an immoral act and we are all taught that. People still teach their kids that and they want no affiliation with the idea that homosexuality is a normal thing. Just check out the headlines today, anything that has anything to do with exposing kids to homosexuality even in a positive way scares parents.
      They want no part of it.

      So the problem is what we teach each other. What parents teach and expose their kids to. Prejudices are learned not inborn. This is what you should fight. The thought taught process. It is ridiculous to expect people to not act on what they are taught to be right or wrong. If i do not support gay marriage because i am taught it is immoral and an insult to marriage by my religous beliefs does that make me incompetent to answer the gay marriage question? No it does not. People take action based on what they believe. They are allowed to act on that belief process so far it does not harm others or society. The problem with Gay marriage is that marriage has been between a man and a woman for so long. People have based their spiritual and social beliefs on this premise. Now gays want to marry. It is what they believe is their right. Well, people see this as you trying to impose your views on them. And vice versa.

      We can argue this all day. The point is this. Was prop 8 CONSTITUTIONAL? My answer is no. Not at all. However, it makes no sense to fight it after the people have clearly spoken for it. What youa re saying the votes of people should not be taken seriously when it does not favour you.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 11:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ajai
      Ajai

      Many sects of Christianity marry same-sex couples. It isn’t gays v. religion so much as religion v. religion at the expense of gay people. If religious freedom were a reality in this country the State would not show preference by recognizing one religious sects values over the other.

      Jan 29, 2010 at 1:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tartuffe
      Tartuffe

      I always get annoyed when I read junk like this, but then I remember all the Catholic churches I’ve seen that have recently been converted into medium priced condos.

      So it goes..

      Jan 29, 2010 at 5:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      No. 33 · BUSSY

      Now that Steve and Rainfish clearly beat the pants off of the uninformed arguments you put forth in your nonsensical post no. 25, we would like to thank you for “cutting the crap” and getting honest with us, as well as yourself, and admitting that you and the people who oppose same-sex marriage, based on their spiritual and social beliefs are after all is said and done, just bigots, after all is said and done.

      Prejudices are learned not inborn.

      Absolutely. And upholding the prejudices that you were taught and passing them along to your progeny is part of the problem, for whatever reasons you justify the withholding of equality from a minority group.

      This is what you should fight.

      Again. Absolutely. Prejudice IS what we are fighting and we have been fighting against it for a very long time now. The time has come for it to be ended.

      If i do not support gay marriage because i am taught it is immoral and an insult to marriage by my religous beliefs does that make me incompetent to answer the gay marriage question?

      From your religious point of view, no. From a secular point of view, the view of non-believers, the fact that you are a heterosexual and taking into separation of church and state which give your religion the special tax-free status that your religion enjoys, YES; you are incompetent to answer the gay marriage question.

      And what makes you think that you are qualified to speak for the equality of other taxpaying, American citizens? You would do well to remember that the some 1050 federal benefits afforded to married couples and religious tax-abatements that you enjoy, come at the expense of LGBT people whose taxes also go toward your “special” privileges. Your beliefs merely support taxation without representation.

      People take action based on what they believe.

      Yes. And this country has been witness to the terror of mob rule when this happens. I would refer you to the many public lynchings of black people before they won their equality. Is this something that you are proud of and would support if this were allowed to happen to gays?

      They are allowed to act on that belief process so far it does not harm others or society.

      Ah, but the belief process that motivated Prop8 which was a religiously based action did, in fact, harm others as well as society. It harmed the some 15 to 20 million American members of the LGBT community because if denies them access to the very same benefits and rights that you and all heterosexual that have always enjoyed. We gays are often and unfairly accused of seeking “special treatment” in asking for equality when, in reality, it is the heterosexual community that is looking to preserve the special treatment it is receiving at our expense.

      And it harms society when any group of people, come after minority groups as we witnessed in Hitler’s WWII Germany and as occurred in so many other parts of the world in the past and even now as we debate this issue. Mob rule, if it tolerated and allowed to exist, drags everyone down with the gangsters who practice it and has never raised a society to a higher and more glorious level.

      The problem with Gay marriage is that marriage has been between a man and a woman for so long.

      This has become such a oft-repeated, tired and worn-out cliché that has no basis in fact and people like yourself who resort to tossing about like it is etched in stone, should avail yourselves of some history books at your public library or start using your computers for something other than a hate tool to propagate all of the prejudices that you paid lip-service to in your post. I won’t waste my time debating you on this disingenuous lie, since there is more than ample material available to refute that ridiculous assertion.

      People have based their spiritual and social beliefs on this premise.

      This has something to do with something?

      Now gays want to marry. It is what they believe is their right.

      Yes. Gays want to marry. It is what we KNOW is our right. And all of your ridiculous objections will not change that fact one iota.

      Well, people see this as you trying to impose your views on them.

      Actually, in reality, it’s precisely the other way around, Sir. You and people who are against same-sex marriage, are imposing your religious views on us.

      We can find it in our hearts to overlook and forgive ignorance but please do not expect us to overlook and forgive disingenuous lies to make your point and pass laws that boldly and legally discriminate against a very large class of people.

      It’s unbecoming a gentleman and people who preach love…and then do hateful things to others simply because they do not approve of them.

      What youa re saying the votes of people should not be taken seriously when it does not favour you.

      So, what you are saying is that the stripping of the rights to same-sex marriage, which was already legal in California is ok, and which Boies and Olsen are now looking to overturn on the basis of unconstitutionality, is not ok?

      Additionally, this issue should never have come to a vote. Just where in the Constitution does it say that the people can just simply vote the rights of other away with impunity. How would you like it if we of the LGBT community, simply because we were of large enough numbers, were to vote any of your rights away. In fact, can you show me just one instance in which members of our community have committed such a heinous action?

      Jan 29, 2010 at 8:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Schlukitz #36, well said. Prop. H8 was indeed fueled by religious bigotry if you take into consideration that the Mormon cult alone donated $22 million and the catholic cult’s Knights of Columbus $1 million. Anyone who said it was not religiously motivated is a liar and in denial.

      Further, how would these religious cultists like it if we as a group started a ballot initiative to ban straights from getting divorced, banning divorced people from marrying again and those who choose not to or can’t procreate and reversing tax-exempt status on their cults. They can’t get it through their thick heads that religion does NOT own marriage. The state does when it issues secular marriage licenses. Another ballot initiative would be to ban religious people from obtaining a secular license in the interests of separation of church and state, let them issue their own and then ban them from acquiring all of the federal and state rights that come from a civil marriage license. Civil marriage licenses should be for civil marriage only. That said, I’d defy archbitch Maggie Gallagher to claim that that was not discrimination as she claims denying us the right to a civil marriage is not discriminatory or anti-gay.

      Jan 30, 2010 at 8:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert, NYC
      Robert, NYC

      Actually, Schlukitz, the French have the best marriage system. There are no legally recognized religious marriages. There is no state religion although the roman cults dominates. The civil marriage is the only one that validates the contract. Couples are then free to have it solemnized in a religious ceremony but its not mandatory.

      Jan 30, 2010 at 8:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • B
      B

      No. 31 · Cam wrote, “This this a joke? African Americans were once listed as property. So don’t tell me it wasn’t a fundamental change to society in a massive way when they began throwing off those chains and claiming their rights. This guy is an idiot.”

      The guy may be an idiot, but he was talking about the civil rights movement’s successes in the 1960s, not the end of slavery in the U.S. some 100 years earlier.

      Jan 30, 2010 at 8:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AxelDC
      AxelDC

      While it’s true that Catholics and other theocrats never tried to prevent blacks from marrying, the fight for interracial marriage is another story altogether.

      Jan 30, 2010 at 8:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.