Reading Jase Wells today I notice he has a pointer to the American Family Association’s gay marriage poll. Interestingly, the polls shows those in favour of homosexual marriage ahead of those against (albeit by a slight margin). I’m going to be interested to read the final results and – should they stay in support of gay unions – how the AFA interprets them. Use your vote wisely!
2003: Three Hundred Million
Apparently, if you’re in the United States, this week is Marriage Protection Week 2003 thanks to George Bush. It really is just plan silly – a knee jerk reaction to fear and prejudice. The hypocrisy of the line, “And we must continue our work to create a compassionate, welcoming society, where all people are treated with dignity and respect” is not lost on me. The overtones about marriage and good parenting are the scary aspects to me. Please support Marriage Equality Week instead (thanks to Eric for the pointer).
2003: Returning from Holidays
2002: Starmaker, Dream Breaker
I’m not entirely sure where New Brunswick is, nor the political leanings of the New Brunswick Post. However, after this little gem, I am certainly going to find out.
The crux of their “discussion” was that they both felt gays should not be allowed to marry. The reason: Marriage should be reserved for people who truly love each other and are willing to commit to each other for the rest of their lives. [Source: Absurd reasoning on gay marriage]
And also I am very interested in the concept of a “Packet” publication … but I’ll leave that for another time. Full marks to the Managing Editor.
2004: Commons Protest
2002: An American in London
Yet again Maggie Gallagher is off on a mission to tie same-sex partnership recognition to the end of the human race (if a few gay men have equal partnership rights then nobody is going to make babies anymore).
Eric, on the other hand, posts some interesting comments about equality.
After reading an article that stated Bush’s intention to sponsor a legislation that seeks to permanently bar same-sex marriage I am quite frustrated. We live in a country that claims to be the land of the free, yet not all of its citizens are not allowed to marry who they love.
EQUALITY & THE HYPOCRISY OF A NATION, http://eric.everydaylies.com/archives/002918.php
2006: Changes At Red Bull Racing
2005: Swiss Re Tower, London
2004: Back Ache
2002: Water, Water Everywhere
Last week I mentioned that I wanted to comment on Maggie Gallagher’s piece on the marriage debate for it angered me greatly when I read it (of course reading this ultra-conservative approach will always anger me so I don’t know why I do it). Of course, there’s a whole blog related to the topic at marriagedebate.com.
Apparently, losing the marriage argument ‘means losing the idea that children need mothers and fathers’. How? Why does the fact that you allow same-sex couples to marry suddenly mean heterosexual couples won’t form unions and families (married or not) and somehow deprive children of their parents?
And how do you get to “The consequences of our current retreat from marriage is not a flourishing libertarian social order, but a gigantic expansion of state power and a vast increase in social disorder and human suffering”?
There is a huge misunderstanding here. Why is it always assumed that, by allowing same-sex couples to form recognised partnerships, that everybody else will stop. It’s not as if all the straight people in the world are suddenly going to decide not to marry because another group of people can. Why would they? If Maggie’s quoted ‘marriage recovery’ exists then it is from a change in the way people relate to each other and not because gay couples can not marry. It’s not a choice of one or the other for gay couples. They will not form heterosexual marriages because they can’t have a legally binding partnership of their own. They will simply continue to suffer.
I believe I have a reasonably wide circle of friends both gay and straight. Of all the gay couples I know many have been together for a very long time. By allowing those couples to marry we do not stop children from having mothers and fathers nor suddenly see an expansion of state power.
So, why are traditional marriage supporters so afraid?
2002: Nearly The End of July
It seems this little debate will rumble on with the homophobic element of the church showing how the “do unto others” and “love thy neighbour” messages can, it appears, be ignored if you don’t happen to like what’s going on.
BBC NEWS | Williams: ‘No objection’ to gay bishop:
I was informed that Cannon Jeffrey John was regarded as a highly gifted candidate, was acceptable to the diocese, that he had given explicit assurances on various matters, including his personal circumstances, and his willingness to work loyally in the framework of doctrine and discipline as expressed in issues of human sexuality.
2005: Beach Boy Becks
2003: US to extradite whoever they want, for any reason.
Hoorah for Canada. Ontario’s Court of Appeal announced existing common-law marriage definitions violate a gay couple’s equality rights on the basis of sexual orientation.
Michael Leshner and Michael Stark were the first couple to legally wed.
“We’re blissfully happy,” Leshner, a Toronto Crown attorney, declared after exchanging rings with his partner of 22 years and offering a champagne toast outside the courthouse
No other posts on this day.
I wonder where this leaves those who thought the Anglican church was moving towards a more liberal attitude to gay and lesbian couples? The new Archbishop seemed perfectly reasonable in a television interview before he was ordained. I do hope this is taken out of context and that his condemnation is for the Canadians defying the rules of the church to which they belong rather than the act itself.
Latest Link: Archbishop condemns same-sex rites
The Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the world’s 70 million Anglicans, says he is dismayed that a bishop in Canada has decided to authorise blessing ceremonies for homosexual couples.
2004: Troy
2004: Polo Shirts: A Fashion Idea For 2004
2003: Open Secret
2003: Crossroads ‘was all a dream’
2003: Pop Life
2003: Unfortunately There Are Effectively No Funds Available To Pay The Salaries
2003: Dr Kildare is a Sissy