Ok, I am in the process of updating the national stories on the Dallas Voice Web site, and I just came across this quote in a story about a new effort to amend the Wyoming state Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage:
Sen. Curt Meier, R-LaGrange said the proposal to change Wyoming’s constitution isn’t motivated by any dislike of gays and lesbians. “I really think what we’re trying to do is protect the institution of marriage, and trying to make the family unit as strong as it can be for the future,†he said.
It pissed me off so bad that I had to stop what I was doing and put this post on Instant Tea.
I wish these “protect marriage” jokers would just drop the B.S. and at least be honest about what they are doing and why. “Not motivated by any dislike of gays and lesbians” — B.S.!! That’s exactly what’s behind it and everybody freakin knows it!
Tell me Curt ol’ buddy, just what the hell are you trying to protect marriage from? People not like you getting married? And just so you know, your stupid amendment to “protect marriage” and “make the family unit as strong as it can be” does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT HARM to my marriage and my family unit and hundreds of thousands of other marriages and family units like mine.
You’re a freakin’ bigot! Just admit it! You don’t like gay people, and this whole marriage amendment crap is just your way of trying to keep us homos as second-class citizens! At least be honest about that!
Ok. I am calmer now. I can go back to what I was doing.
I just love it when you get steamed! So much passion.
Personally I think the government has no reason to be in the marriage business. Marriage is a sacrament of the church and if you recall there is a separation of that institution and the government. The government should sanction civil unions only, for everyone. That would be the legal instrument that gives couples all the legal advantages. Then they can get their church to perform the marriage sacrament, not the government.
The problem is most folks never think that far and just go with whatever they hear in a sound bite.
Stay angry!
Hardy is absolutely correct. Marriage should be performed in churches by churches and according to standards adopted by each church individually. Any two people should be able to have a legal instrument that gives them the legal rights now afforded to married couples. A couple should be allowed to choose either marriage, civil union or both according to their own beliefs and needs.
In answer to “Protect marriage from what?!” I say let’s protect marriage from all of the heterosexual couples who marry, have kids, fight, divorce and fight some more or from domestic violence and any number of other dysfunctional situations that people put their children through.
If these right-wing biggots REALLY wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage, they would outlaw Divorce! “Protecting marriage” is a red herring. Anyone who’s bothered to pick up a Bible and read what JC had to say about it can see that.
I’d rather not use the bible to seek answers on 21st century relationships… And I fail to see why so many people so desperately want to be part of religious denominations (and indeed, entire religions) that have actively persecuted and ridiculed their personal, private practice since they began. Enough already! It’d be better if the USA just followed the “civil partnership” example and be done with it already. Happened a few years ago in the UK now and it’s hardly mentioned in the media, as far as I can tell. A fair bit of money must’ve been spent on inserting new “maritial status” options in so many silly application forms — it’d be funny if they went the whole hog and just put “It’s complicated!” like on Facebook…