Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
If you have not read about the Miss USA/Miss California controversy, you either have purposely stayed out of it our you live in a cave somewhere in Africa. While I do not agree with her belief in any way at all, (obviously, lol. If this is a surprise to you, then you have not read my blog) I do believe that all Americans are entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, as long as they remain their own. What I do not agree with is when they try to force them onto other unwilling people. I agree whole-heatedly with what Perez Hilton proposed as an alternative answer:
Friday, April 24, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in the world.
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans
The House narrowly passed the measure last month. Democratic Gov. John Lynch opposes gay marriage but has not said specifically that he would veto it.
Two years ago, the Legislature approved, and Lynch signed, civil unions for gays, which provide all the rights of marriage, except in name.
Currently, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts allow gay couples to marry.
Artice Found Here
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
All of this time I have seen her seem so unhappy and unsatisfied. Who would have known this job would transform her? She worked so hard and waited so long to be offered a job that was worth something. I can't begin to put into words how much I love and adore her, and how incredibly proud of her I am.
I can't wait to really marry her.
My generation (I am 23) sees conservatives railing against homosexuality and we see stupid, shallow arguments like NR's thrown around with utter disregard for their cost in human lives and human deaths, and we want to distance ourselves with all deliberate speed from the people who make those sloppy arguments and the movements who smile upon them.
My generation does not view homosexuality as a condition to be confronted or thwarted or weakened--we view it as just a thing that people are. Like many other things people are, like being blonde or tall or selfish or fat or brilliant, homosexuality carries baggage and preconceived notions that people believe or reject, but at this point it probably wouldn't even matter to my generation if homosexuality were a choice. As a whole, we know that it is a waste of our collective breath to hold homosexuals in disdain in much the same way it is a waste to hold in disdain any demographic we live with. But we know that it is not a waste of our breath to confront those who, in the midst of their second or third marriages, speak with smug self-satisfaction about the meaninglessness of the committed relationships of our siblings and cousins and friends.
As someone who is young, and whose family is very religious, same-sex marriage is as much an issue of public respect for those I love as it is a moral or religious matter. The fact that it is good public policy is secondary to the reality that it is the right thing to embrace."
Also from the Daily Dish
"Email Of The Day
A reader writes:
So Gallagher and her followers are afraid of a 'coming storm.' Well, I would love to tell her about the many storms which my partner of 25 years and I have already weathered. There was the time 11 years ago when she was doubled over in pain and unable to speak. I had to carry her to the ER, but was denied entrance into her room and not consulted on medical decisions because I was not her 'legal next of kin.' Then there was the time a year ago when I changed jobs and could no longer cover Mary or our 10 year old child Emily under my health insurance because I am not 'related' to either of them by biology, adoption, or marriage. Or how about the time when I feared losing my job because a man, accused and found guilty of sexual harassment of women, accused me of favoritism to the women on my staff.
Oh, yeah, what about all the questions we have to answer to verify that we are eligible for a joint or family membership every time we fill out a health form for camp for our daughter, or join a gym, pool, or other community services center. Finally, what about the rudeness that our daughter endures from the kids of her followers asking about her "GAY" parents. Should we really have to live through those storms?
The reality is that those who stand against gay marriage have no logical, legal, or societal arguments against the simple acknowledgment of fairness, equality, and liberty so they have to resort to lies. It is the beginning of the end for them. If only we didn't have to wait so long to taste the fairness we deserve."
"Did I say too much? Perhaps. But the National Review editorial was a summation of so much that is wrong on the right. Instead of a conservatism that seeks to expand freedom and opportunity and responsibility for all people, we have a conservatism that views some people as expendable, as creatures whose health and well-being are simply not "important governmental goals."
Instead of a conservatism that values the family and all its members, we have a conservatism that seeks to remove and stigmatize key members of families and ensure that they will never have access to the same rights as their brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers.
Remember: civil marriage for gay couples is not some kind of liberal special right. It requires no concession from anyone else; it requires no individual recognition from anyone who disapproves; it coerces no one; it taxes no one; it spends nothing; it takes not an iota from the rights and dignity of heterosexual marriages, which gave birth to gay people and give many of us our sense of morality and duty and civility. If the right is concerned about religious freedom, please reach out to those of us who favor civil equality and free speech and help protect both. But no, this is not what they are interested in, preferring to construct ads in which actors pretend to be people allegedly persecuted by gays for being Christians. Really, this is pure animus at this point - a decision to define a political movement by the people it excludes and the families it despises.
The next generation sees this most clearly, although plenty of fair-minded older folk see the cruelty and obtuseness involved here. What we have seen on the right since their devastating and deserved loss last November is a worsening of their bitterness, a calcification of their ideas, a poisoning of their discourse.
May they enjoy the fruits of their anger; and may the rest of us be saved from its logical conclusion."
I have to be honest, as I sat there in the car, and watched all of these cops driving by behind the hearses, I got teary eyed. Part of it was because I let my mind go to far and started to worry about Sarah in the future. The other part of me was just so sad because those officers had kids and families. What a shame. It could have been prevented if that 911 dispatacher had just spoken up and said what seems so obviously should have been communicated.
Some LGB rights advocates criticized this law as creating a second-class status for same-sex couples. Others had a more pragmatic reaction, suggesting that some recognition is better than none at all. And others said civil unions might help clear a path to marriage. In ten years, it seems, Vermonters have come to realize hell has not frozen over and different-sex relationships have not been undermined simply because same-sex relationships are recognized."
Taken from the Huffington Post
Now, I do have comments on the portion of the article posted above, I always have comments, you should get use to this, lol. "Some recognition is better than none at all." Okay, I suppose I can understand how some would feel that way, but a larger part of me is so offended by that statement. I don't want to settle for "better than none at all!" I want to be equal with heterosexual couples. What I do and who I love has absolutely NO effect on anyone. I really and truly believe that.
I have heard/read some truly ridiculous and pathetic comments regarding equal marriage laws. One of these comments was, "If you let them get married, they will be kissing and making out on the streets in public and in front of my kids." I have to say, to be honest, I don't see many gay/lesbian/bi/trans couples in public doing more than holding hands. I see plenty of straight girls shopping, walking down the street, arm in arm, and I know they are straight, but would a child know? No one complains about them. I have seen plenty of straight couples making out bordering on heavy petting in public, I never one time heard anyone say one word to them. I see more public affection between straight couples then gay/les/bi/trans couples. We are not the disgusting pigs the republicans want to make us into in order to promote the propaganda they are shouting from their soap boxes!
"In ten years, it seems, Vermonters have come to realize hell has not frozen over and different-sex relationships have not been undermined simply because same-sex relationships are recognized." Okay, I am glad that people are starting to realize this, but seriously, ten years? A little slow on the uptake, aren't we? I really feel that people are just terrified of what they do not understand or care to, at that rate. They didn't care to understand why women wanted to vote, or why African-Americans didn't want to be enslaved, and then why they had the nerve to want equal rights, the nerve of them, being human! Now, they can't understand why I would want to marry the woman that I have been in love with for three years or why my best friend would want to marry the woman she has been with for 11. Gosh, what were we thinking about? [Can you hear my words dripping with sarcasm?]
In closing, in the last week we have made progress, good progress. Lets just hope it does not take another ten years for the rest of the country to catch up!
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Now, I was not completly sure what this Pork in the Park festival intalied, so I checked out the website. From what i see on the site, there will be food, duh, bands, crafts, beer, and a BBQ competition.
I am SO excited to go to this thing! I will absolutly be posting pictures, so check back!
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
In my opinion, not much experience is needed to know that information, which the dispatcher was provided with, was absolutley something that needed to be communicated. Read the entire story here.
The Vermont legislature today overrode a veto by the governor and decisively passed a bill to end the exclusion of gay couples from marriage. Vermont now joins Iowa, Massachusetts, and Connecticut in upholding the freedom to marry.
"With a decisive vote of its legislature, Vermont today moved past civil union to full equality in marriage," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry and author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality and Gay People's Right to Marry. "Following the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous freedom to marry decision last week, Vermont shows that the arc of justice is now bending toward equality for all."
Vermont is the fourth state to uphold the freedom to marry, the first to do so through the legislature. Following a decision by the Vermont Supreme Court in 1999 directing the state to provide marital protections and benefits to gay couples, Vermont was the first state to create civil unions in 2000. Today's action by the legislature reinforces the reality that civil unions are a form of second class citizenship, and marriage indeed is the only way to achieve true equality.
"Over the last nine years in Vermont and then in other states, we've seen the inadequacy of civil union, which both gives and withholds important protections," Wolfson said. "The legislature's action to push past civil union to equality in marriage itself today underscores that civil union is no substitute for the freedom to marry, and there is enough marriage to share."
Freedom to Marry salutes the leadership of Vermont Freedom to Marry, who worked intensely in the legislature over the last few years, and brought together a gay and non-gay coalition to build support for marriage equality in Vermont.
Momentum for the freedom to marry continues across the nation. New Hampshire's House of Representatives passed a marriage bill in March, which now awaits a vote in the Senate. Marriage bills are pending in the New Jersey and New York legislatures, and the governors of both states have pledged to sign the bills once they reach their desks. Maine's legislature will hold hearings this month on a marriage bill, and the California Supreme Court is weighing a challenge to the discriminatory Proposition 8, brought by a broad array of civil rights and other groups.
With your help, the momentum for the freedom to marry is continuing across the nation.
--Freedom to Marry Staff"
Monday, April 6, 2009
Hope this helps.
Read more about it here.
"The Iowa Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex marriage is protected under that state’s constitution. [yay!!] As in California, there will of course be an effort to amend the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage. […]
Most likely, […] Iowans won’t vote on the issue until 2012. […]
The state has roughly average levels of religiosity, including a fair number of white evangelicals, and the model predicts that if Iowans voted on a marriage ban today, it would pass with 56.0 percent of the vote.
By 2012, however, the model projects a toss-up: 50.4 percent of Iowans voting to approve the ban, and 49.6 percent opposed. In 2013 and all subsequent years, the model thinks the marriage ban would fail."
Friday, March 27, 2009
Just last week I was unable to join my girlfriends Gym membership, because I am not her legal spouse. I was told that I would have to sign up for a separate membership. Now, I know that I could join and have my own membership, but that's not my point. I didn't want my own membership, I wanted to be on with my girlfriend, and I was not allowed to be because of my sexual orientation. My girlfriend and I would have been married long ago, if it were legally possible. Now, we canceled her membership at that particular gym, went down the road, and signed up at another gym that same day, and yes, we are on the same account, thank you. The gym that we withdrew our business from was Bally's. I refuse to continue to patronize a business that discriminates against me.