Yabba "W" Doooooooooo - Gays as Political Pawns

Gays as Political Pawns

"W"edge Issues

This from an inside source at the White House:

"I have a problem with the president using gay issues as a wedge issue for political purposes. And what's particularly offensive about it is that I know for a fact that Bush doesn't believe it, so it's even more disgusting to me that he would use this issue." Stephen Herbits (Washington insider. Go to guy for Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Worked in the innermost circles of the Republican party for over 30 years.)

Gay Marriage

Here is an article I had to put on the site. It demonstrates the backward thinking to a tee.

"Gays have the right to marry it just has to be someone of the opposite sex.", Kent Harper

www.elynews.comwww.elynews.com 6/9/06

How does one even respond to that? Hellllooooooo Kent, a gay person marrying the opposite sex is like you marrying the same sex. Yeah, yuck! Why would someone gay want to marry the opposite sex? Have you not heard of all the gays that have fallen into that trap so that they don't "rock the boat." Then they are so miserable that they end up coming out and leaving the person anyway. So not only one but now two lives are destroyed. Maybe three or more if they had kids. Why would you ever want to promote that? Why not let each citizen marry who they fall in love with? That would make a heck of a lot more sense.

Here is the rest of his article:

http://www.elynews.com/articles/2006/06/09/opinion/opinion01.txthttp://www.elynews.com/articles/2006/06/09/opinion/opinion01.txt

Homosexual rights and wrongs

By KENT HARPER

Let's get something straight.

Homosexuals are not being deprived of any constitutional right to marry.

Any homosexual who wants to get married can... legally... with a bonafide license... even in a church.

All that homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. It's his or her uncontested right. Many homosexuals have married opposite-sex partners for a variety of social reasons. Some have married to keep their sexual preferences secret or because they were confused about their sexual orientation. Others have married because they wanted to have children and a family structure like their parents' home. Some have married for tax or other financial purposes.

But the argument today is that homosexuals should have the right to marry someone of the same sex: they are being deprived of their constitutional rights. That's bogus.

The Constitution doesn't address marriage directly. The Framers couldn't have imagined that homosexual marriage would ever become a public issue. And if they had given the issue a thought, they certainly would have considered it a state issue and not a federal one.

When Massachusetts became the first state to allow homosexual marriages, many other states, including Nevada, banned the practice. Clinton signed the Protection of Marriage Act in 1996.
But any law passed by Congress can be overturned by the courts on constitutional grounds. While the judiciary can rule a law unconstitutional, the judges can do nothing to overturn a legally ratified amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Hence the failed effort in the U.S. Senate this week to pass a constitutional amendment. There never was much chance the bill would get the needed two-thirds majority. It didn't come close Wednesday with 49 ayes and 48 nays.

The Bush-backed, Republican Senate effort, however, will serve to remind the social conservatives especially the Fundamentalist Christians, why they supported the Republican Party in the first place and why they must continue to support the GOP or see Congress and the White House fall under the control of those "godless liberals." Gays are comparing their fight for same-sex marriage rights to the Civil Rights movement, which has angered many in the Black community -- especially the leaders of the Black Christian churches who view homosexuality as a sin.

There are a few similarities, however, in the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and the old laws that prohibited mixed-race marriages -- the anti-miscegenation laws.

Massachusetts, the first state to recognize same-sex marriages, was also the first state to overturn its anti-miscegenation laws way back in 1843.

Those laws had existed since Maryland, a colony at the time, passed the first anti-miscegenation law in 1664. It wasn't until the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 case,

Loving vs. Virginia, that it ruled the anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. States began repealing their laws under the High Court's orders. The process took until 2000, when Alabama was the last state to rid itself of the racist regulations. From the first law against mixed-race marriages until the law was overturned took more than 300 years. The fight over homosexual relationships has gone on longer.

There are records of homosexuality in ancient Egypt and China. Greece in the Classic Age condoned the practice; it wasn't unusual for some older samurai in the shogun's service to have a young boy companion. Most North American native cultures honored their "twin souls," men who dressed in women's clothing. The Celtic warriors of pre-Roman Europe were teamed in homosexual pairs, although they still had wives and families at home.

Homosexuality has been a part of every human culture since the beginning of time.

So what.

It's plain (through polling) that most Americans are willing to tolerate homosexuals, even many of those who believe for moral or religious reasons that homosexuality is a sin.
But toleration is one thing. Elevating homosexuality to the level of an acceptable, alternate lifestyle is quite another. I don't object to homosexuals having all the rights the rest of us have. They are fellow citizens. I don't even object to homosexuals being able to form domestic unions. For me that's a public health issue.

Much has been said about the spread of the HIV virus and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) by homosexuality. It's not homosexuality, however, that spreads disease, its homosexual promiscuity, mainly gay male promiscuity, that spreads disease.

Many men who call themselves gay are actually bisexual, which exposes heterosexual women to STDs and through them, heterosexual males. Encouraging homosexuals to form long-term, monogamous relationships would cut down on the spread of STDs. Let them have responsibility for their partners, share debt, jointly own property and license their relationship with the state.

But don't include same-sex, domestic partnerships in marriage. They are not the same thing and shouldn't be linked together.

A married couple can go to a judge today and adopt two unrelated, orphaned boys. The court action will make the boys brothers. But the judge can't declare them sisters. That's a decision of biology and not the judiciary.

Marriage in all its civil and religious finery, came out of biological necessity. That's reflected in all forms of marriage through the ages, even those that allowed multiple partners. It's always been a male-female thing for biological reasons and should remain so.

By all means, give gay men and their lesbian counterparts the right to form legal pair-bounds with whomever they choose, since we no longer outlaw their behavior through sodomy laws. Allow them the same rights and privileges in their relationships that married people have.

But please, don't label those unions marriages.

Kent Harper

Where does one even begin with this? I am so glad I found this article, because it pretty much sums up all the lies, myths, stereotypes, and scapegoating in one single article. Throughout this article, Kent will say one thing, but the opposite is true.

I am going to reprint his article with my response to each statement. You might want to go to the bathroom, get yourself a drink, get comfortable. I have a lot to say to Kent. His words will be in black, my words will be in red, any resources I use will be in blue.

"Gays have the right to marry it just has to be someone of the opposite sex.", Kent Harper

www.elynews.comwww.elynews.com 6/9/06

http://www.elynews.com/articles/2006/06/09/opinion/opinion01.txthttp://www.elynews.com/articles/2006/06/09/opinion/opinion01.txt

Homosexual rights and wrongs

By KENT HARPER

Let's get something straight.

Homosexuals are not being deprived of any constitutional right to marry.

Any homosexual who wants to get married can... legally... with a bonafide license... even in a church.

All that homosexual has to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. It's his or her uncontested right. This is where it gets frustrating for gays. How can we have a decent debate? Intelligent dialog about this issue when the opponents are complete idiots? Kent is basically saying that gays don't exist. If he truly believes gays can marry the opposite sex then there is no where to go with this debate. He is saying the sex of the person doesn't matter. When this is central to the debate. It is the exact line of thinking that comes from Joseph Nicolosi of Narth. http://www.valueallfamilies.com/pro_discrimination_religious_leaders.

When the argument is that there is no such thing as a homosexual, then all intelligent debate just stops dead in its tracks. Then again after 8 years of George "W" who is used to intelligence?

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine founding father of the United States.

Many homosexuals have married opposite-sex partners for a variety of social reasons. Some have married to keep their sexual preferences secret or because they were confused about their sexual orientation. Others have married because they wanted to have children and a family structure like their parents' home. Some have married for tax or other financial purposes.

Here, Kent misses the entire point that until recently if one was to "come out" as gay his/her life was in danger. It was not about rights. It was about survival. Even now, in 2006, people are targeting gays for physical violence. (see http://www.valueallfamilies.com/physical_damage)

What a terrible, terrible thing it must be like to live such a massive lie. To pretend to be something you are not. Heterosexuals will never even come close to begin to imagine what this is like. Here, Kent suggests that gays should continue to do this. If he really respects marriage he would not condone making a mockery of it.

But the argument today is that homosexuals should have the right to marry someone of the same sex: they are being deprived of their constitutional rights. That's bogus.

Kent, what is bogus about wanting to marry the person you love? For homosexuals, this can only be someone of the same sex.

The Constitution doesn't address marriage directly. The Framers couldn't have imagined that homosexual marriage would ever become a public issue. How does Kent know what the framers were intending? In their day, there were no "out" gays. The message that the framers were sending was that they wanted a country where everyone was free. Everyone has the exact same rights.

That is what the framers wanted. Not one set for the striaght majority and another set for the gay minority.

Instead of guessing what our forefathers wanted why don't we read some of their quotes. From their words, it is clear that they wanted every man equal, period. No exceptions. They even specifically warn of the dangers of religion being used for discrimination in civic laws. Read these and you be the judge.

Did our founders in any way sound like they would have wanted the words "except gay Americans" put into our laws?

1. "Because freedom of religion affects every individual, State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

2. "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Jefferson

3. "Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

4. "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." George Washington First president of US (1732 - 1799)

5. "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Thomas Paine http://www.quotationspage.com/author.php?author=Thomas+Paine

6. "I never told my religion nor scrutinize that of another. I never attempted to make a convert nor wished to change another's creed. I have judged of others' religion by their lives, for it is from our lives and not from our words that our religion must be read. By the same test must the world judge me." Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

7. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." US orator, patriot, & politician in American Revolution (1736 - 1799)

8. "Whenever we read the obscene stories, voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a Demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind, and, for my part, I sincerely detest it as I detest everything that is cruel."
Thomas Paine US patriot & political philosopher (1737 - 1809)

9. "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison 4th president of US (1751 - 1836)

9. "It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government." Thomas Paine US patriot & political philosopher (1737 - 1809)

10. "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." , Journal, 1772
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

11. "Our act for freedom of religion will produce considerable good even in those countries where ignorance, superstition, poverty and oppression of body and mind in every form, are so firmly settled on the mass of the people, that their redemption from them can never be hoped." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Wythe from Paris, August 13, 1786. From Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society, New York: George Braziller, 1965, p. 311.)

12. "In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress." US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

13. "That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities" Thomas Jefferson 1779

14. "The proposition that the people are the best keepers of their own liberties is not true. They are the worst conceivable, they are no keepers at all; they can neither judge, act, think, or will, as a political body." US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)

15. "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

16. "As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." George Washington First president of US (1732 - 1799)

This last one from George Washington is priceless. "Those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government."

Yet, George Bush has decided that it doesn't matter if you are a worthy member of the community. You could be an upstanding citizen that has never been in trouble with the law. A teacher, doctor, nurse, fireman. A law abiding, churchgoing, tax-paying citizen that does nothing to hurt his/her fellow man. All that does not matter one bit if you are gay. If you are gay, you do not get over 1000 rights that straight citizens get. Even if the straight person is a mass murderer, child molester, straight up menace to society. The straight person will get 1000 more rights period. George Bush pushed for an amendment to the federal constitution to make it unchallengeable in court. Several states are now passing state constitutional amendments to make sure their gay citizens will not get the same rights as their straight citizens. We hear over and over "the founders would not want gay marriage." Go back and read those quotes. What is clear is that the founders did not want religion to be used for discrimination. That is exactly what has happened under "Dubya's" administration.

What is clear is that the founders were saying, "Beware of your government and don't let them take your rights away." "Don't let religion oppress any part of society."

"Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be
re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."
-- President George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Feb. 3, 2005

YABBA "DUBYA" DOOOOOOOOOOOO

Protect it from what? Why is it, when the republicans don't like a verdict, the judge suddenly becomes an "activist?" Judges remove prejudice and bias. They look at facts. They look at what our constitution says. Citizen's rights should never be decided by other citizens. Especailly when the citizens being voted on have been misunderstood and hated from the beginning of time. When these amendments are challenged in court they will all be dismantled one by one. Not because the judge is an "activist." But because it is the right thing to do. Even if it is not the most popular it will still be the right thing to do. Was the supreme court full of "activists judges" when they voted to make interracial marriage legal?

The KKK probably thought so.

For those of you who care about the truth..... For those of you mature enough to live in a world of reality.....Here are the FACTS about same-sex marriage:

American Anthropological Association:

The primary organization representing American anthropologists criticized President Bush's proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage Thursday and gave a failing grade to the president's understanding of human cultures.

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships and families across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the views that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution," said the executive board of the 11,000-member American Anthropological Association.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNGSK59NGM1.DTLhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/27/MNGSK59NGM1.DTL

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/ope-l/2004m11/msg00024.htmhttp://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/ope-l/2004m11/msg00024.htm

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.htmlhttp://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.html

American Psychological Association:

* Psychological research on relationships and couples provides no evidence to justify discrimination against same-sex couples. The working group members cited research that many gay men and lesbians both want and have committed relationships: Studies have found that between 40 and 60 percent of gay men and between 45 and 80 percent of lesbians are involved in committed relationships.

Also, reviews by Peplau and her colleagues have found that partners from same-sex couples and partners from heterosexual couples score comparably on measures of relationship quality, such as satisfaction and commitment. Finally, Kurdek has found that the factors that predict satisfaction, commitment and stability are similar in same-sex couples and heterosexual couples.

Entire article here: http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov04/action.html The psychological association backs gay marriage

Timely action

In just three months, an APA working group developed a successful council resolution to support same-sex marriage and parenting.

BY LEA WINERMAN
Monitor Staff
Print version: page 48

On July 28, the APA Council of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples and opposing discrimination against same-sex parents. The resolution passed unanimously and in near-record time--only five months after council first proposed a working group on the subject and three months after the working group formed.

Recent debates--and legal action--concerning same-sex marriage in California, Massachusetts and other states spurred the quick action, according to Armand Cerbone, PhD, chair of the working group and a clinical psychologist in Chicago.

"Given the timeliness and urgency of the issue, APA wanted to be able to inform the public debate with research literature as quickly as possible," he says.

The specific trigger for the resolution, Cerbone says, came during the meeting of the Public Interest Caucus at the February 2004 council meeting, when psychologist John Lorenz, PhD, mentioned that community members, media and clients had been asking about APA's position on gay marriage.

Realizing that APA had given no official word on this, Cerbone, Lorenz, APA Board of Directors member Ruth Ullmann Paige, PhD, and Div. 44 (Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues) representatives Kristin Hancock, PhD, and Doug Haldeman, PhD, decided to propose at the next day's council meeting that APA establish a working group to review the literature on the topic and come up with recommendations.

Council approved that motion and asked the Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest (BAPPI) to appoint the working group. BAPPI then requested nominations from the Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns.

The final working group members--Cerbone, Hancock, Beverly Greene, PhD, Lawrence Kurdek, PhD, Candace McCullogh, PhD, Charlotte Patterson, PhD, and Anne Peplau, PhD--met from April 30 to May 2 to review previous APA policies related to same-sex relationships, marriage and families, as well as relevant research. They focused on two areas of research: same-sex relationships and marriage, and same-sex parents and their children.

The group took pains to stay within the bounds of psychologists' expertise, says Peplau, a professor of social psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has studied gay and lesbian relationships for nearly 30 years.

"One of the challenges for the working group was to sort out what we can say as professional psychologists and what topics are not our province," she explains. "It was really important that the working group address issues of civil marriage and civil laws, and not religious ones. We all wanted to be very respectful of people's differing views."

The final resolution references years of psychological research and states the group's conclusions:

* There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children. The working group cited statistics from the 2000 census that 33 percent of female same-sex couples have at least one child under 18 in their home, as do 22 percent of male same-sex couples.

Researchers have found that sexual identity, personality and social relationships with peers and adults develop similarly in those children as they do in children of heterosexual parents, according to the group.

Next, the working group put its resolution before APA's Board of Directors, asking it for an expedited review process. Often, it can take as long as 18 months for APA's various boards and committees to review a resolution, but this time all comments were received within one month.

Then, in July, the resolution came before council at APA's 2004 Annual Convention in Honolulu.

"What's significant is that not only did it pass, but it passed unanimously--and this is a sensitive issue," says Cerbone.

Cerbone also says that he found it serendipitous that council passed the resolution at a meeting in Hawaii--the first state to consider the issue of same-sex marriage and the first state to amend its constitution to officially bar same-sex couples from marrying.

Now that APA has passed the resolution, Cerbone says, APA's next step will be to prepare amicus curiae briefs in court cases involving same-sex marriage.

Nathalie Gilfoyle, JD, APA's general counsel, says that her office is working on the first of those briefs right now and will use the working group's report as a resource to identify important research and experts. The case, Lewis v. Harris, involves seven same-sex couples in New Jersey who are suing the state for the right to marry.

Working group member Patterson, a professor at the University of Virginia who studies children of lesbian and gay parents, agrees that this is an important next step.

"Historically, APA has been very much in front on social justice issues of different kinds, and I'm delighted to see us step forward on this," she says.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov04/action.htmlhttp://www.apa.org/monitor/nov04/action.html The psychological association backs gay marriage

OK back to the idiot......

And if they had given the issue a thought, they certainly would have considered it a state issue and not a federal one. Not sure what Kent is getting at here because the issue was very clearly made a federal one by his camp with the Federal Marriage Amendment.

When Massachusetts became the first state to allow homosexual marriages, many other states, including Nevada, banned the practice. Here Kent uses the term "practice". Like it's some wierd cult experience. What is so hard for people to grasp two gay people wanting to get married?

Clinton signed the Protection of Marriage Act in 1996. Another politician using a small segment of society for political gain. What did he have to lose? In 1996, it was such a no brainer that even a Democrat would do it. When these types of moves become political liabilities (like now in 2007), making the politician seem pro-discrimination, how many will do it? The time is very near when being specifically "pro-marriage" will be seen for what it is: "anti-gay." The first states to stop using this technique will be the most liberal, blue states in New England and California. They already have. They realize that the right thing to do is snuff out discrimination in every last form. In these states, gay Americans are treated as equals.

In a few years, we will see it drop off significantly in middle states like Ohio, Michigan, Arizona.

Then last but not least, fighting it tooth and nail, will be Mississippi and Alabama. It may take many years, but even Mississippi will stop using gays as a tool for votes. (It only took them until 2000 to let blacks and whites marry......)

But any law passed by Congress can be overturned by the courts on constitutional grounds. While the judiciary can rule a law unconstitutional, the judges can do nothing to overturn a legally ratified amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This, thank God, is why it is so hard to do.

Notice the little jab at all Democrats here. Once again we have the insane insinuation that one party is more religious than another. (See the section on Republican leaders that have been convicted of sex offenses on this website under politics. The list is quite long.)

We are glad that this sentence was in here because it backs up our point that gays were used as "political pawns." Here, a hard core right winger, is stating that the amendment had no chance of passing. Instead it was used to "rally up" fundamentalist Christians. How much money and time did our lawmakers spend debating this? Is this making the best use of our tax dollars? How much did the average American pay in taxes last year? So that our lawmakers could debate a bill with no chance of passing solely to portray Gay Americans as less than equal. Because of this hate crimes will rise. Stereotypes will continue. People will be fired for being gay. People will be denied housing for being gay. Teenagers will be thrown out of the house for being gay. The prejudice will be strengthened all because "Dubya", Karl Rove, and the GOP thinks nothing of using gay citizens as pawns for political gain. (See political section on political pawns in this website for greater detail.)This is compasionate conservatism?What is compasionate about using your citizens? Using your family members? Oh the almighty dollar is powerful.

What does George Bush really believe about gay marriage?

This from an inside source at the White House:

(Google gay marriage and political pawn)

Gays are comparing their fight for same-sex marriage rights to the Civil Rights movement, which has angered many in the Black community -- especially the leaders of the Black Christian churches who view homosexuality as a sin.

Unfortunately, because someone has experienced discrimination it does not automatically make them pro-equality. People are people and there will be bigots in every race, creed, income level, political party. For some the chance to feel better than someone else is hard to resist. Gays were not hanged, or shackled but we are every bit as much discriminated against based on false stereotypes, as any other minority. Gays can blend in. If gays could somehow be easily recognized do not think for one minute they would not be terrorized as much, or more than blacks. Martin Luther King wanted equality for all including gays.

Here is a quote from his widow stating as much:

Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King's widow, has called gay marriage a civil rights issue and denounced proposed amendments to ban it. "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of gays and lesbians and I should stick to the issue of racial injustice. I hasten to remind them that my husband once said, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

It's to bad all African Americans can not see the similarities. Discrimination does not make everyone open minded and accepting. That comes from within.

There are a few similarities, however, in the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and the old laws that prohibited mixed-race marriages -- the anti-miscegenation laws.

We agree. What is sad is that we can't learn from our mistakes. Why is history doomed to repeat itself? Look at what was said about interracial marriage compared to the quotes from James Dobson on gay marriage. It is almost identical.

In 1911(almost 100 years ago) there was a federal amendment to the constitution proposing banning marriage between citizens of different races.

After Johnson (a black man) married Lucille Cameron (a white woman), two ministers in the South recommended lynching him. Isn't that special? Ministers recommending murder. In a reaction to the Johnson-Cameron marriage, in 1911 Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry of Georgia introduced a constitutional amendment to ban interracial marriages. In his appeal to congress, Roddenberry stated:

"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant. It is subversive to social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery to black beasts will bring this nation to a fatal conflict". Representative Roddenberry

Why does this doom and gloom sound so familiar? Here it is 95 years later and the same apocalyptic and pessimistic "the sky will come crashing down" view is portrayed by James Dobson of Focus on the Family:

1. "For more than 40 years, the homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the family..

2. "The institution of the family will have been destroyed" (1911 it was "subversive to social peace")

3. "Death of the family"

4. "Demise of families"

5. "Will cause Chaotic culture" (1911 it was subversive to social peace), (1911 bring this nation to a fatal conflict)

6. "Homosexuality is repulsive", Concerned Women of America. (1911 mixed marriage is repulsive, abhorrent, and repugnant)

That was the way people thought in 1911. Is the Republican Party not embarrassed that they think the same way 100 years later? Even with the advent of technology, TV, movies, planes, travel, and education, these members of society refuse to evolve. Yet another Yabba "Dubya" Doooooo from the party of the caveman.....

Let's go back even further to 1779. This quote from our founding father Thomas Jefferson shows what the founders really wanted for this country.

"That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities." Thomas Jefferson 1779

So, in other words, religious beliefs should not effect civic rights. Uh huh.....

Such doom and gloom over two people who fall in love. What must it feel like to be so wrong? To spend your entire life in a fog of confusion. So un-evolved that your critical thinking is non-existent. People used to think the earth was flat. They used to think that the sun revolved around the earth. They used to burn people who they thought were witches. They used to beat the hands of the left handed. It must be like prison living in that box...

Evolve: To develop or work out arrive at gradually.

Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes gradually (why is it that in the Rubblecan party it is at a snails pace?)

Massachusetts, the first state to recognize same-sex marriages, was also the first state to overturn its anti-miscegenation laws way back in 1843. Progressive states tend to progress.

Those laws had existed since Maryland, a colony at the time, passed the first anti-miscegenation law in 1664. It wasn't until the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 case,

Loving vs. Virginia, that it ruled the anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. States began repealing their laws under the High Court's orders. The process took until 2000, when Alabama was the last state to rid itself of the racist regulations. From the first law against mixed-race marriages until the law was overturned took more than 300 years. 300 years? This is not something to be proud of. Massachusetts first. Alabama last. Dollars to doughnuts history will repeat itself.

The fight over homosexual relationships has gone on longer.

There are records of homosexuality in ancient Egypt and China. Greece in the Classic Age condoned the practice; it wasn't unusual for some older samurai in the shogun's service to have a young boy companion. Most North American native cultures honored their "twin souls," men who dressed in women's clothing. The Celtic warriors of pre-Roman Europe were teamed in homosexual pairs, although they still had wives and families at home. Ok they may have been paired up but it does not mean they were homosexuals. This is a huge misconception here. A lot of the biblical verses and what Kent is referring to here are heterosexual men having homosexual sex. They are not homosexuals. In 2006, we are not talking about heterosexual men wanting to marry each other. There are homosexuals that only have relationships, fall in love, and date the same sex. It is the only thing natural to them. Kent is discussing varying forms of was sexually acceptable through the ages.

Homosexuality has been a part of every human culture since the beginning of time.

Here Kent is calling what different cultures did through the ages "homosexuality." "Pairing up" soldiers does not make them homosexuals. Just like the whole town in Sodom wasn't gay.

This next point will be the toughest thing for the closed minded to absorb. Take your time and absorb this. Until this can be understood then there is no reasoning. Intelligent debate can not occur. Here we go:

Having sex with the same gender does not make you gay. That is not homosexuality.

Plenty of heterosexuals have had a homosexual "experience." Plenty of gays have had a heterosexual "experience."

You are either gay or not. The "act" does not make you gay. That would be like saying that every woman that has a threesome, because her husband begs her, is gay. She is a straight woman having sex with another woman. Most likely, for her husband's fantasy. Doesn't make her gay. That is not homosexuality. It's two straight women having sex. Many gay people fake heterosexual sex because of the pressure from society to conform. It doesn't make them straight. Until the people can think "out of the box", the realities of this issue will not be understood. Ken, unfortunately, is deeply in "the box."

So what.

It's plain (through polling) that most Americans are willing to tolerate homosexuals,

Here we go with "tolerate." "Tolerate" congers up something negative to be endured like a screaming baby on a plane. Gays get up, go to work, come home, eat dinner, and go to bed only to do it all over again the next day. What part of that does society need to "tolerate?"

What part of that is bothersome to anyone? Most people don't even know gays exist. We are an invisible part of society. Many of these "fundamentalists" are friends with gays and they don't even know it. Why do you need to "tolerate" something that you can't even tell is there? Instead of teaching "tolerance" we should be teaching to "live and let live." Using the word "tolerate" automatically sets a bad tone. People "tolerate" things that are bothering them. Gay people don't bother anyone. If gay people bother you by existing then it says a lot more about you than it does the gay person.

even many of those who believe for moral or religious reasons that homosexuality is a sin. God, religion, and the Bible say nothing against gay people. People have a problem with gay people not God. (Read the Religion/bible section on this website.) Even if that is their religious belief then they should only apply it to their own life. Religious beliefs are different for different people. They are "beliefs." They are not called religious "facts". They are "beliefs."

A belief is something that has not been proven as fact. If you feel strongly about it then don't be gay. But to force your "belief" on another human's life is wrong. It goes against everything our founders wanted for this country. To each his own. Live and let live. Two people in love do nothing to hurt society. This country needs a lot more love. Gender doesn't matter. Love is love. Love is God in any form. I am Catholic. I love God. I believe in God. My religious belief is that people use religion for their advantage. I belive God wants us to love each other. I believe God is hurting so bad when He sees what these radical right fundamentals do to gays. He sent his son here to tell people to stop hating. Jesus taught love and compassion. He did not mention gay as being wrong. Not once.

My religious belief is that humans invented this hatred for gays because humans are fallible. The least evolved humans gravitate toward the basic of survival mechanisms. The most primal instinct is to fear something that looks or acts different. If it is different then it may hurt you. Kill it before it kills you. As human beings have evolved we have learned to not fear things that are different. Those of us that have evolved learn to use our experiences to form our opinions and ideas. In this day and age, everyone must know someone gay. Think about that person. Are they any different than most people?

My religious belief is that God will feel what you feel deep in your heart. If you hate or try to hurt someone else, God will feel that. That is what He will judge you on. If you love someone and take care of them, He does not care if they are the same gender. Why would he? Love is God. God is Love. He loves when people are truly in love. He hates when people are miserable with their partners. He hates abuse of any kind. That is my religious belief.

Why should their religous beliefs weigh any more than mine politically?

These state marriage amendments go directly against what our founders wanted. Thomas Jefferson could not be any clearer on this:

1. "Because freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. , Thomas Jefferson speech, 1808
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

2. "Our act for freedom of religion will produce considerable good even in those countries where ignorance, superstition, poverty and oppression of body and mind in every form, are so firmly settled on the mass of the people, that their redemption from them can never be hoped." Thomas Jefferson

3. "I never told my religion nor scrutinize that of another. I never attempted to make a convert nor wished to change another's creed. I have judged of others' religion by their lives, for it is from our lives and not from our words that our religion must be read. By the same test must the world judge me." Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

4. "That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities" Thomas Jefferson 1779

These state amendments are passing 70% to 30%.

What part of not using religion to discriminate are 70% of Americans not getting?

People, this is so un-American. Everything that this country stands for is completely being thrown out the window. We are a great nation because we do not allow discrimination. 2006 will be remembered as the darkest year in our history. Everything that we are considered great for is now null and void. We just changed our Constitution to:

We the people, (except the Gays....)

When fundamentalists religious folk feel strongly about their beliefs they feel that everyone must believe the same thing. This is the problem. They don't respect American Values. This includes respecting different views. This includes freedom to believe what you want when it comes to religion. We do not have a national religion. We do not have a national religious "belief". We are a melting pot of several religious "beliefs".

When we are children the very first lesson we learn is to share.

This country is not owned by any one group. It is not owned by gays. It is not owned by straights. It is not owned by atheists. It is not owned by fundamental Christians. We need to learn to share. We need to respect differing beliefs. We need to make civic laws that only protect citizens from each other. We need not civic laws or constitutional amendments that do nothing except penalize gay Americans for being gay. That is what sets us apart from many other countries. We desperately want to separate ourselves from extremists in Iraq and Iran. Those countries have discriminated against gays severely through the ages. The passion and energy that our fundamental Christians put into discriminating against gay Americans seems a lot closer to what the extremists in Iraq do to their citizens than what our founders wanted for this country.

We must be careful about taking our religion to the extreme that it violates our principles and foundations as a country. No matter how much you fear, hate, or disgust gays you must remember American Values. We are not a theocracy. This is not Natzi Germany. Our government was set up specifically to protect the minorities from the majorities. Our government was set up to protect gays from Evangelical Christians.

George Bush completely abandoned Americas values. He did the opposite of what America stands for. He will go down in history as the worst president this country has ever seen. He does not understand what America stands for. He only understands what he stands for. He wants to be a king. By now don't we realize that all we need to do is the opposite of what he wants. He is ruining our country and people are just now starting to see it.

This is what happens when a rich, clueless, born-again Christian is elected to the White house. We need leaders that live in reality. We need leaders that care about every last citizen not just the ones that look, act, and think like them.

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

The room erupted into applause.

But toleration is one thing. Elevating homosexuality to the level of an acceptable, alternate lifestyle is quite another. (Read the section on this website on Myth #3 There is a Gay "lifestyle.") Anyone who uses the term "lifestyle" when referring to gays announces their ignorance about gays. How can falling in love with a certain gender give you a certain lifestyle? Lifestyle involves choice. Some gays have materialistic lifestyles. Some gays have simplistic lifestyles. Some gays have healthy lifestyles. Some gays have unhealthy lifestyles. Some gays, like Kent, eat a lot of fat and sugar and never exercise. Some gays are tri-athletes. How can you say there is a gay "lifestyle?" Is there a heterosexual "lifestyle?" No two gays are exactly alike as no two straights are exactly alike. The reason Kent use the term "lifestyle" is to convey to the reader/listener that it is a "choice". The person has chosen a "bad path." That "gay lifestyle."

Does Bishop Robertson live the same "lifestyle" as Elton John? Does Ellen Degeneres live the same "lifestyle" as Ken Melhman? There are gay bikers, gay priests, gay mailmen, gay doctors, gay republicans, gay democrats, gays in the projects, gays in high society. Many gays have absolutely nothing in common. Fat gays, skinny gays, tall gays, short gays, rich gays, poor gays, rude gays, nice gays. How can you say they all live the same "lifestyle." There is no such thing. It is just another myth conjured up to make stereotyping and discrimination easier to do. We have no common physical traits so we must have a common "lifestyle."

Who you love is not a "lifestyle."

Please Kent back it up. Write to http://www.valueallfamilies.com/ and give us some characteristics of the "gay lifestyle." We will give you examples of everything you write in the heterosexual world. We will also give you examples of many gay people that do not have those traits. So be very careful when you call something a "lifestyle" and apply it to 6-10 percent of the population. People that you obviously don't know.

I don't object to homosexuals having all the rights the rest of us have. They are fellow citizens. I don't even object to homosexuals being able to form domestic unions.

How un-American does that sound? Kent, why on earth do you think you have any right to object or not to another person's rights? You should be embarrassed as an American to even be able to say those words. You don't see how you sound? You are saying, "I am so much better than you. You are lucky that I will allow you some rights." Pathetic Kent, just pathetic. You do not understand what this country stands for at all. Maybe you should go down to immigration with the illegals and take the test to become an American. Either that or go back to history class.

Kent touches on a huge misperception here. Here is where the spin comes in. "We just don't think gays should be "married". But they deserve to form "civil unions." President Bush had a conference at the Whitehouse to talk up the marriage amendment. At the very end he says, "but gays should have some legal protections." He says that but his amendment specifically makes even existing rights that gays have null and void. How can Bush push an amendment that would make gay legal partnerships that are in Massachusetts, California, Vermont null and void and then say, "But they deserve some legal rights"?

You can't have it both ways. If you are pushing for discrimination then own up to it and state that is what you are doing. If you are going to be the bad guy then you can not turn around and try to look like the good guy.

This is where the proposed amendments pull the wool over the average Joe's eye. The average person hears this and thinks, "well I'll vote for marriage between a man and a woman. That sounds like the right thing to do. The gays can have their unions or whatever..." Some people actually have a conscience and to deal with it they need to believe they are not stripping important protections from fellow Americans. By now everyone knows someone gay so when you vote on these amendments think of them. You are voting to deny that person many rights you take for granted. You are voting for discrimination period.

There are very real consequences to how you vote. Here is what you will vote for:

Two women were in a loving relationship for 12 years. Susan and Bea. Bea got sick. Her partner took care of her for the last 5 years of her life. On March 23, 2001 Bea passed away. She had a terminal illness and they knew she was going to die. They discussed it and planned on spending her last moments together. They made this clear to the hospital and if Susan was not there and Bea turned for the worse the hospital was instructed to call Susan so she could say good bye.

The hospital staff had anti-gay prejudice in their hearts. They purposely did not warn Susan that Bea was close to death and did not call her to come see Bea before she died. They did not even call Susan until 4 hours after her partner died. She wanted to hold her lifelong companion's hand and tell her goodbye and that she loved her. Her phone number was on the front of the chart and the hospital was instructed to call her if it looked bad. The staff purposely ignored this and stole this very precious moment from her. This woman's life partner was dead for 4 hours and she didn't even know it. That is what you just voted for. What if it was you? What if you did not get the chance to say goodbye to the one person you loved the most in the world? What if the reason was because your fellow citizens voted to discriminate against you and the United States Government decided that majority opinion was more important than protecting every citizen's civil rights. You would probably take three years of your life to make a website too.

If you want to keep marriage between a man and woman it is one thing. But these amendments specifically are written to target gays for this abuse. No legal protections. What the hospital did was disgusting but perfectly legal. The amendments that just passed this year to all those state amendments solidified it. If you believe that this is ok then there is nothing we can do. If you do not think this is ok. If you feel for this woman and realize that contacting her to give her the chance to say goodbye to the one person in the world who meant most to her is the right thing to do. If you feel that by her saying goodbye and holding her partners hand as she passes away in no way infringes on your life then you can not vote for these amendments. It is that black and white.

You must reword the amendments to not include the second sentence "legal incidents thereof." They can not say "legal rights associated with marriage are only for a man and a woman." If you leave them worded as they are. Then you are responsible for what that hospital did. You are responsible for this woman's deep pain and heartache of not being able to say goodbye to the one person in the world who meant most to her. If that is not the definition of mean-spirited we do not know what is. Like it or not this is the reality of these amendments. God does not care what you say. Anyone can put up a facade. God feels what you feel deep in your heart. These are difficult times. God can see everything that everyone is doing to gay people. Don't think for one minute that God will not judge you on how you treat gay people.

Know what you are voting for. Who talks like this "and legal incidents thereof?" What is a legal "incident?" What does "thereof" mean? Word the amendment plain and simple so that that average person can understand it.

What "and legal incidents thereof" means is this: All legal responsibilities. All legal benefits. All associations of being legally tied with marriage can only be legally associated with marriage. Not domestic partnerships. Not civil unions. Not someone other than a man and a woman. Not a woman and a woman. Not a man and a man. They are targeting gays to receive separate treatment in a variety of laws.

The state amendments should be worded like this:

Do you believe that gay Americans deserve no legal recognition of their partnerships?

Do you believe that gay Americans do not deserve to cover each other with health care from work?

Do you believe that gay Americans should be barred from visiting each other in the hospital if one is hurt. If the administrator of the hospital thinks that homosexuality is a sin?

Do you believe that all assets belonging to one gay belongs to his/her family not his or her partner even if they have been in a committed loving relationship for 50 years? Do you believe that gay relationships do not matter? Do you believe that you deserve more protections than your fellow man? Do you believe that discrimination is ok in some instances?

If they were worded like that then guarenteed people would not vote on them by 70%. That is why they word them the way they do.

If they were worded like that then guaranteed people would not vote on them by 70%. That is why they word them the way they do.

It is so wrong. This will be recorded as the darkest time in our history as a country. Right up there with slavery. Just because the majority votes for something doesn't make it right. The majority can be wrong. The majority can be manipulated and fooled. The government is using gays as a tool to stay in power. It is not only gays that are suffering. Look at our country right now. Absolute mess. $3,000,000,000,000 debt. If every single citizen gave the government $30,000 right now we would break even. You are worried about taxes so you vote republican. Look what it got you. Every citizen now owes $30,000. I doubt you saved that much in taxes. You will pay some how. Social security? Ya right. Government programs? Ya right. Programs for first time home owners will be gone. Help with education will be gone. Taxes will rise. Medicare? Ya right. This is not a game. That money will have to be paid back.

Look at our reputation around the world. Is it even safe to travel? Would anyone feel safe anywhere outside the United States wrapped in an American flag? The world hates us right now. The entire world hates America. Inflation rises but this administration refuses to give a minimum wage hike. they give themselves a 10% raise every year. They take about 2 months off for vacation and have the best health care that exists. For what? To sit around and sell their votes to the highest bidder. They don't care about any of us. They care about themselves. They were all born into rich families and have no concept of what it is like to worry. Worry about getting fired. Worry about keeping the electricity on. They are a bunch of showmen and America fell for it. They conceived and enemy within (the gays) and it kept a lot of them in office for 8 years. Complete chiffons are running the country right now because of prejudice and ignorance about gays. This website was designed so that it doesn't happen in 2008. We are not tell anyone who to vote for. We are just making it clear that if they run on "family values" be very wary of them. Ask them about real issues. What the hell is a family value? We all have families. We all have values. That was the biggest scam in the history of our nation.

We need candidates that run in American values. Values like equality for every citizen. Values like telling the truth. Values like caring about the average Joe and not huge corporations. This administration and Karl Rove knew that if they could keep the citizens fighting about domestic civil issues then they can go and do what they really want unnoticed. Divide and Conquer. What do they want? Stack the courts with conservative judges that will be anti-women, anti-minority, anti-gay, and anti-middle class. They are protecting themselves for the future. When they pollute and we all get cancer don't think any of the judges will hear a class action suit. They are setting the future up to benefit huge corporations. Someone in your family ill and you have to stop work to take care of them? Credit card dept increasing?

You could file bankruptcy in the past. Kiss that goodbye. Now you can sell your house cause you are going to pay that bill. The credit card company gave the rubblecans millions to make sure of it. Are you in pain or need meds to keep you alive? Get ready to pay hundreds of dollars for the meds. The pharmaceutical companies paid Billions of dollars to the rubblecans to make sure of that. Gas at $5 a gallon. Get ready for that. The Bush administration are the oil companies. Cheney's little secret group that wrote the laws for pollution and energy laws. Come on.....It was the oil companies. We have no idea what has gone on this past 6 years. It will be interesting to find out. Hopefully the planet will even be around much longer to find out. The Bush administration has made everything so unstable I would not be surprised if we have a recession or even depression. I would not be surprised if we have a nuclear missile launched at us. America, you are not that stupid. The only way out of this is for democracy to be a part of our process again. No discrimination amendments. No more laws that benefit oil, pharmaceutical, and credit card companies. They control the media. The own ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox. Think every thing through. Don't just believe everything you see on TV. If discrimination against gays is more important that our countries future than there is nothing I can do. All I can do is educate and wait. Please think about what you vote for. Look at all sides. Don't be scammed into the "values voter" garbage.

Let them have responsibility for their partners, share debt, jointly own property and license their relationship with the state. Your amendments specifically deny us these things. Our president has used the constitution as a political tool. What you just said you really don't mean.

But don't include same-sex, domestic partnerships in marriage. They are not the same thing and shouldn't be linked together. Let's have a look at the "sanctity" shall we?

Domestic violence

http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc3.htmlhttp://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc3.html

Once every 15 seconds in the U.S. a woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend.

One of every eight women -- at least 12.1 million -- has been raped sometime in her life.

Violence is the prime cause of injuries to women ages 15 to 44, more common than auto accidents, muggings, and cancer combined, according to the U.S. Surgeon General. The perpetrators overwhelmingly are male.

In terms of both raw numbers and severity of violence, that of heterosexuals certainly ranks well over twenty times that of the homosexual segment of society. For restrictive theologians to provide no such context for their judgments about homosexuality suggests an attempt to use homosexuality as a means of camouflaging the violent and non-violent sexual failures of heterosexuals. A hermeneutic that neglects the Fall in Genesis 1-3 where it is a major part of the story but inserts it into Romans 1 where the text does not mention it is also consistent with efforts to simultaneously demean homosexuality and idealize heterosexuality.

http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc3.htmlhttp://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc3.html

Was that written for you Kent?

A married couple can go to a judge today and adopt two unrelated, orphaned boys. The court action will make the boys brothers. But the judge can't declare them sisters. That's a decision of biology and not the judiciary. Here again trying to cheapen gays, gay relationships. Biology equals "natural" you may get your laws but it's not "natural." The only people implying that gays are "unnatural" are usually quoting scripture. The professionals in health, human genetics, biology, psychology, and psychiatry all agree it is completely natural. (see myth#3 religion the bible section on this website.)(see the myth #1 choice section on this website.)

Marriage in all its civil and religious finery, came out of biological necessity.

Actually marriage came out of ownership. A father would sell his daughter to the highest bidder.

From the 1690s to the 1870s, "wife sale" was common in rural and small-town England. To divorce his wife, a husband could present her with a rope around her neck in a public sale to another man. Marriage was strictly a civil and not an ecclesiastical ceremony for the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay until 1686. Under English common law, and in all American colonies and states until the middle of the 19th century, married women had no legal standing. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn. Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most American states was 10 years. In Delaware it was only 7 years. As late as 1930, twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry (with parental consent).

As late as 1940, married women were not allowed to make a legal contract in twelve states.

In 1978, New York became the first state to outlaw rape in marriage. By 1990, only a total of ten states outlawed rape in marriage. In thirty-six states rape in marriage was a crime only in certain circumstances. In four states, rape in marriage was never a crime. These examples, and there are more, clearly document that marriage has not been an unchanging institution with unchanging definitions of who can marry and under what circumstances. Those who claim otherwise distort the historical record.

http://www.buddybuddy.com/peters-1.html

That's reflected in all forms of marriage through the ages, even those that allowed multiple partners. It's always been a male-female thing for biological reasons and should remain so. It wasn't always a male-female only thing. From the 5th to the 14th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church conducted special ceremonies to bless same-sex unions which were almost identical for those to bless heterosexual unions. At the very least, these were spiritual, if not sexual, unions. http://www.buddybuddy.com/peters-1.html

By all means, give gay men and their lesbian counterparts the right to form legal pair-bounds with whomever they choose, since we no longer outlaw their behavior through sodomy laws. "Sodomy laws" included heterosexual "behaviors."

Allow them the same rights and privileges in their relationships that married people have. Here again the marriage amendments specifically say the opposite of this. You guys can not have it both ways. Accept what you are doing and take responsibility for it. Your amendments do not allow any rights and specifically take away any rights that have been gained. If you are going to be "the bad guy" you can not act like "the good guy." You vote for and pass these amendments and then write articles like this. "Allow them the same rights..." Your camp does not want to allow "them" the same rights and is spending millions of dollars to push discrimination disguised as marriage protection.

But please, don't label those unions marriages.

Kent Harper

Here is a quote that could not be more perfect for you, Kent.

"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices -- to be found in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to the Twilight Zone." Rod Serling, US actor, producer, & screenwriter (1924 - 1975)

************************************************************************

It would be one thing if the state of heterosexual marriage was solid. But to make a statement like that with a 50% failure rate and domestic violence as rampant as it is is just straight up denial about the real state of heterosexual marriages. Think about these stats for a minute.....

Once every 15 seconds in the U.S. a woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend. While you have been on my website every 15 seconds some woman is being brutally beaten by her heterosexual mate.

One of every eight women -- at least 12.1 million -- has been raped sometime in her life.

One in 8 women has been raped? And you're all running around saying values this and values that? Rape? Rape has got to be one of the worst crimes against him humanity that exists. We are not talking about some stranger in an alley either. Most women that are raped know the rapist. Maybe instead of blaming the gays for everything America should concentrate on respecting women. Maybe heterosexuals should marry for love only. Maybe then marriage will be "saved."

http://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc3.htmlhttp://perham.eot.com/~vati/peterson/doc3.html

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.htmlhttp://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.html

What is really going on here?

Scapegoating

Scapegoating is the practice of blaming an individual or group for a real or perceived failure of others. The origin of the term comes from the Bible. The high priest in Biblical times would place his hand upon a goat's head and transfer the sins of the community to the goat, which was then released into the desert.

It is not uncommon to blame others for our own mistakes (i.e. bad marriages), and especially to affix blame on those who are unable or unwilling to defend themselves against the charges. Minorities are often the targets of scapegoating. First, minorities are often isolated within society and are thus an easy target. Those in the majority are more easily convinced about the negative characteristics of a minority with which they have no direct contact. Violence, persecution, and genocide directed against minorities often occur when a minority group is being blamed for some social ill. Unemployment, inflation, food shortages, the plague, and crime in the streets are all examples of ills which have been blamed on minority groups.

*****************************************************************************************

Kent, there are some great heterosexual marriages out there and there are some great homosexual marriages out there. These relationships are about love and commitment. People taking care of each other. What the world needs is more of this gay or straight. What the world needs less of is people like you shooting off at the mouth about something that you really don't understand at all. This country is torn apart about this. Gay teens try suicide 5 times that of straight teens. Because of articles like this. 95% of the educated professional psychiatrist, psychologist, anthropologist have declared gays as a normal variation of humanity. A completely biological normal part of life. Every gay person knew this the second they hit puberty.

The only people with issues on it are fundamental religious folk. The same people who were last to accept that the earth was not flat. The same people that were last to accept that the we revolve around the sun not the other way around. The same people who thought left handed people were witches. The same people who thought races shouldn't mix. The thing about these fundamental religious people? They all seem to know how to tell everyone else how to live.

No gay person is telling anyone else to be gay. We are saying it is ok if you are. If that is what the person feels. We are not trying to turn straight people gay. This is myth #1. Sexual orientation is unchangeable. We are saying that if you are gay then it is ok. It is for every individual to figure out. If it is even a question then you are probably not gay. It is not something one is unsure of. We believe in living our own life and that is it. Each person has their own life to live. Why do fundamentals profess to know what is right for someone else? God specifically says, "do not call what I have sent unclean." He also says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." He also says, "do not judge." Leave judgment up to Him. He also says, "love your neighbor as yourself."

So instead of a government that should be fostering civil tranquillity, the Bush administration has fostered insurrection. Go read the Declaration of Independence. Causing "domestic insurrection" is one of the things America listed that King George did wrong. The reason we started America is because of a king that tried to keep the people fighting. George Bush, (under Oinkalina Rove's direction), does the same thing. He should be tried as a criminal for many different things. He is a criminal. Using gays for political gain was probably the least offensive act he did. This administration's God is a green piece of paper and has numbers in the four corners. They pretend to be the holiest in the nation, when in reality, they are the most evil.

Sincerely,

http://www.valueALLfamilies.com/