|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Way to go!!!! (Reply to this comment)
by IrishMa4
I couldn't agree with you more sweetie!! :)
Bobbie
|
Apr 04 '05
6:57 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Blankity-Blank Dial-Up Computer!!! (Reply to this comment)
by laryan
Jo, you misread my statement. The government cannot force a church to perform marriages of any kind. However, the churches are dictating their policies onto the government. The most frequently heard argument against legal recognition of same-sex marriages is based on religion.
I'm sorry I didn't make my meaning clear enough for you to understand. If the government cannot dictate policies to the church, then the church should not force the government to make policies based on religion.
Thanks!
~Lisa
|
Jan 08 '05
2:40 am PST
|
|
Blankity-Blank Dial-Up Computer!!! (Reply to this comment)
by AinsleyJo
I noticed that I didn't leave you the comment I'd been planning to. I think my computer did one of its numbers on me at the time, but I'm back to leave one now.
You wrote (boldfacing is mine):
I often hear how the fight is to make churches perform "gay marriages". That is just male cow fertilizer to confuse the issue. The Government does not have the right to dictate policy to churches. The opposite should be true, but sadly, isn't. If your church or denomination has no interest in performing a "gay marriage", then legal recognition of same sex unions will not force them to do so.
I totally disagree that any congregation "should" be forced to do something that goes against its beliefs.
Like, what if a Seventh Day Adventist church should be forced to serve pork at their church dinners? Or, what if a Catholic church should be forced to sponsor a Pro-Choice rally? Or, what if the Metropolitan Church should be forced to stop performing gay marriage ceremonies!?!
Other than that, I totally agree with your opinion piece when it comes to protecting the rights of gay people to do everything that your married heterosexual couple has the right to do such as owning property together, one being considered next-of-kin in the case of a partner's passing and/or illness; etc.
Call it a marriage license or call it something else--just so long as it's registered so that it can't be disputed when the time comes that it's needed!!!
Write On!
AJ :o)
|
Jan 07 '05
10:45 am PST
|
|
Gay Marriages (Reply to this comment)
by calwaone
I am all for gay marriages being put in the books! Why should a gay couple be denied the rights they have earned through being together? Taxes don't recognize the marriage, if one becomes ill, the hospital won't recognize the partner as nearest relative, or any relative at all! How horrible it is to see such injustice going on in most states, as to not accept two people in love, sharing life and money, and love.........my son is gay, and I totally believe in the stability that is allowed through gay marriages. When people understand that gay people are as God made them....that it was not a personal choice, maybe........maybe. Calwaone
|
Aug 18 '04
8:13 am PDT
|
|
Very well written. (Reply to this comment)
by imprimis2
Even though you may think this piece was written solely on emotion, your thoughts and use of sarcasm with the intent to strike down the opposition was swift, slick, and double-edged.
Sometimes you have to write with emotion to say anything anyone will hear. Dramatic, but damn good.
=Aaron=
|
Aug 05 '04
9:00 am PDT
|
|
Yipes! (Reply to this comment)
by Penguinlady
I didn't realize that my stray comment would generate such an impassioned and articulate essay. I never cease to be amazed at the somewhat unhealthy interest some religious conservatives take in the sex lives of their neighbors. Me, the only people whose intimate lives are of interest to me are myself and my husband - but I'm sorta selfish that way!
You go, girl -
Margaret
|
Jul 08 '04
9:10 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Wow (Reply to this comment)
by dizzybint
No problemo! Come on down, I mean up!
Caroline
|
Jun 26 '04
12:48 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Wow (Reply to this comment)
by laryan
At times like this I'm proud to live in Canada. Fantastic Lisa, you did great.
Thanks, Caroline, but you do realize you're now on my "Doorstep" List... the list of lovely Canadians who may find me on their doorstep on November 3rd, depending on how these elections run.
~Lisa
|
Jun 25 '04
7:41 pm PDT
|
|
Wow (Reply to this comment)
by dizzybint
I'm disgusted, repulsed and downright annoyed at this. I wish I could say I am also surprised but sadly that's not the case. The discrimination sickens me and you have my thanks for bringing this to our attention.
Equality is for all or it's not equality.
Yes, yes, yes!!!!!!!!! Wonderfully said. I wish I had a bumper sticker of that.
At times like this I'm proud to live in Canada. Fantastic Lisa, you did great.
Caroline
|
Jun 25 '04
6:01 pm PDT
|
|
Re: I disagree (Reply to this comment)
by laryan
Thank you, Jennifer! I appreciate the kind words!
~Lisa
|
Jun 25 '04
5:43 pm PDT
|
|
Re: ... (Reply to this comment)
by laryan
If Bush and his fellow Taliban Republicans (which is exactly what they are - instead of fundamentalist muslims, they are fundamentalist christians pushing their religous beliefs on everyone else) get in for another four years, Canada might just look better since there won't be anything resembling America left if Bush keeps it up.
Ah, you mean Bu$h & Co with the Religious Reich? Sure you don't want to become an American citizen just long enough to vote? Because we seem to agree politically. If not, how about putting me up a few nights after the election? If Bush loses, of course then I'll wait for an invitation.
~Lisa
|
Jun 25 '04
5:42 pm PDT
|
|
Re: *spit* (Reply to this comment)
by laryan
Virginia should just be nuked. It's so backwards it's almost surreal.
:-D Stepford is in Virginia?
I don't think it needs to be nuked... just brought into the 20th century. Once that's comfortable with the natives, we'll move them all into the 21st century, perhaps teaching them compassion, tolerance, and something about the freaking Constitution!
Thank you, Doc!
~Lisa
|
Jun 25 '04
5:31 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Capernicus's two cents (Reply to this comment)
by laryan
Thanks, Capernicus. :-D I try not to write much high on emotion. I'm glad this came through the red-tinged rage I was feeling when I first heard about it.
~Lisa
|
Jun 25 '04
5:28 pm PDT
|
|
I disagree (Reply to this comment)
by videoprincess
only with your statement that your comments were not well thought out. I found this to be incredibly well-written, well-informed, and most importantly--it came from the heart.
America is supposed to be the greatest nation on earth, we're the "Free Country" yet we have so much that we do that is as s backwards including our thoughts on gays and the laws that (don't) protect them... there's a lot of room to grow here--I'm hoping that we figure it all out.
People need to realize that by supporting gay marriage they are not saying that they are gay, want to be gay, or will be gay in the future--they are merely saying that they believe that a person has the right to love at their own will and deserve the same rights that every hetero couple in love receive.
Good write, I'm glad that I came across your name on mothra8's w/o
-Jennifer
|
Jun 25 '04
8:49 am PDT
|
|
... (Reply to this comment)
by jps246
I always thought Canada was a cold place to live, but it seems a hell of a lot warmer than America these days
Sadly you're right...and at least we'd also get to enjoy universal health care.
Of course, winter lasts for 9 months of the year, so there are some drawbacks.
If Bush and his fellow Taliban Republicans (which is exactly what they are - instead of fundamentalist muslims, they are fundamentalist christians pushing their religous beliefs on everyone else) get in for another four years, Canada might just look better since there won't be anything resembling America left if Bush keeps it up.
Jeff
|
Jun 25 '04
5:27 am PDT
|
|
Re: Marshall sounds like a bozo (Reply to this comment)
by laryan
The whole idea of somehow banning gay marriage while retaining and supporting straight marriage is just bizarre. The biggest danger to straight marriage in the US is straight couples, plain and simple. There are more idiots walking around who have already failed at marriage 2-3 times and waiting for another shot then you would believe. To deny the same ability to gay couples to screw up their personal lives is un-American.
:-D I've yet to figure out how my (hypothetical) marriage will destroy that of my neighbors. Perhaps it's because it's their second marriage for both of them and fragile enough that if they should see my and my (hypothetical) spouse planting roses in the yard or having a barbeque, it will cause their marriage to implode?
The fact is the religious ceremony (as you indicated) is not affected by any legislation or court order affirming gay marriage rights. Marriage rights are defined under the civil laws of every state. The reason the yahoos on the right are freaking out is that marriage rights in one state are upheld in another state. So, the yahoos losing in Massachusetts need to stem the tide in other states.
Loving vs Virgina overturned the ruling on one state only marriages. Ironic Virginia again is turning to discriminatory clauses and laws. I hate to insult everyone living there, but I always thought Virginia was beautiful with nice people. Perhaps I didn't look gay the few days I spent there?
I believe it’s just a matter of time before the Supreme Court is faced with upholding the constitutionality of any attempt to deny marriage rights that are granted in one state from being recognized nationwide.
I wish I had more faith in our Government, but the Court is made up of Reagan-appointees and can go either way. By definition of the Constitution or by definition of "I have my head stuck so far up my rectal cavity... help". I'm still a little bitter... cynical... untrusting...
I read in the paper the other day that there is a current case in NY where a gay partner is suing a hospital over care his deceased partner received. They were married in a Civil Union in Vermont. If his rights to sue as a spouse are upheld, then NY will then have to accept gay marriage across the state. (I think that’s how the argument goes, anyway)
Actually, I believe it is a lesbian couple where one has terminal breast cancer, very advanced due to medical malpractice. The malpractice suit is being brought by the spouse for pain and suffering and loss of companionship. First time a gay couple can sue for those as they have been restricted to husband/wife only. Considering the evidence supports it was the doctor's fault for mis-reading results; postponing needed tests; and suggesting non-surgical alternatives when he should have been away it was too late... I hope they win big.
Anyway, shouldn’t we be worried about defenses in Iraq and such, rather than defending straight marriage?
Personally, I think that's what The Powers That Be want. We're no longer asking about WMDs or links between Saddam and al-qeaeda and the Taliban. We're not asking about our soldiers not getting adequate food and water due to Halliburton contract mis-management or why Halliburton got so many no-bid contracts.
How many legislators are divorced, adulterers, and piss-poor parents already?
Let's just run a roll-call down the House, then in the State capitols.
Cheers? Not really,
~Lisa
|
Jun 24 '04
11:52 pm PDT
|
|
*spit* (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
I have lived in Richmond a bit over 7 years now. 6 1/2 of those have been spent trying to convince Nick to leave this idiot state.
Virginia should just be nuked. It's so backwards it's almost surreal.
This is just one more proof of how despicable this place really is.
RestlessDoc
|
Jun 24 '04
10:44 pm PDT
|
|
Capernicus's two cents (Reply to this comment)
by capernicus
Great review, Lisa! You have some very strong arguments and provide plenty of examples and proofs to support your view. I like your honesty and strong-willed attitude in this review, for it did make it very, and I mean VERY persausive. Great job, again, and I look forward to reading more of your reviews.
Capernicus
|
Jun 24 '04
5:50 pm PDT
|
|
Marshall sounds like a bozo (Reply to this comment)
by MiDoyle
The whole idea of somehow banning gay marriage while retaining and supporting straight marriage is just bizarre. The biggest danger to straight marriage in the US is straight couples, plain and simple. There are more idiots walking around who have already failed at marriage 2-3 times and waiting for another shot then you would believe. To deny the same ability to gay couples to screw up their personal lives is un-American.
The fact is the religious ceremony (as you indicated) is not affected by any legislation or court order affirming gay marriage rights. Marriage rights are defined under the civil laws of every state. The reason the yahoos on the right are freaking out is that marriage rights in one state are upheld in another state. So, the yahoos losing in Massachusetts need to stem the tide in other states.
I believe it’s just a matter of time before the Supreme Court is faced with upholding the constitutionality of any attempt to deny marriage rights that are granted in one state from being recognized nationwide.
I read in the paper the other day that there is a current case in NY where a gay partner is suing a hospital over care his deceased partner received. They were married in a Civil Union in Vermont. If his rights to sue as a spouse are upheld, then NY will then have to accept gay marriage across the state. (I think that’s how the argument goes, anyway)
Anyway, shouldn’t we be worried about defenses in Iraq and such, rather than defending straight marriage? How many legislators are divorced, adulterers, and piss-poor parents already?
cheers
|
Jun 24 '04
10:30 am PDT
|
|
|
|
