Front page
Archive
Silflay Hraka?


Bigwig is a systems administrator at a public university
Hrairoo is the proprietor of a quality used bookstore
Kehaar is.
Woundwort is a professor of counseling at a private university

The Hraka RSS feed

Email
bigwig AT nc.rr.com

Friends of Hraka
InstaPundit
Daily Pundit
cut on the bias
Meryl Yourish
This Blog Is Full Of Crap
Winds of Change
A Small Victory
Silent Running
Dr. Weevil
Little Green Footballs
ColdFury
Oceanguy
Fragments from Floyd
VodkaPundit
Allah
The Feces Flinging Monkey
the skwib
Dean's World
Little Tiny Lies
The Redsugar Muse
Sperari
Natalie Solent
From the Mrs.
ErosBlog
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
On the Third Hand
Public Nuisance
Not a Fish
Rantburg
AMCGLTD
WeckUpToThees!
Electric Venom
Skippy, The Bush Kangaroo
Common Sense and Wonder
Neither Here Nor There
Wizbang!
Bogieblog
ObscuroRant
RocketJones
The Greatest Jeneration
Ravenwolf
Ipse Dixit
TarHeelPundit
Blog On the Run
blogatron
Redwood Dragon
Notables
Greeblie Blog
Have A Cuppa Tea
A Dog's Life
IMAO
Zonitics.com
Iberian Notes
Midwest Conservative Journal
A Voyage to Arcturus
HokiePundit
Trojan Horseshoes
In Context
dcthornton.blog
The People's Republic of Seabrook
Country Store
Blog Critics
Chicago Boyz
Hippy Hill News
Kyle Still Free Press
The Devil's Excrement
The Fat Guy
War Liberal
Assume the Position
Balloon Juice
Iron Pen In A Velvet Glove
IsraPundit
Freedom Lives
Where Worlds Collide
Knot by Numbers
How Appealing
South Knox Bubba
Heretical Ideas
The Kitchen Cabinet
Dustbury.com
tonecluster
Bo Cowgill
mtpolitics.net
Raving Atheist
The Short Strange Trip
Shark Blog
Hoplites
Jimspot
Ron Bailey's Weblog
Cornfield Commentary
Testify!
Northwest Notes
pseudorandom
The Blog from the Core
Ain'tNoBadDude
CroMagnon
The Talking Dog
WTF Is It Now??
Blue Streak
Smarter Harper's Index
nikita demosthenes
Bloviating Inanities
Sneakeasy's Joint
Ravenwood's Universe
The Eleven Day Empire
World Wide Rant
All American
Pdawwg
The Rant
The Johnny Bacardi Show
The Head Heeb
Viking Pundit
Mercurial
Oscar Jr. Was Here
Just Some Poor Schmuck
Katy & Bruce Loebrich
But How's The Coffee?
Roscoe Ellis
Foolsblog
Sasha Castel
Dodgeblogium
Susskins Central Dispatch
DoggerelPundit
Josh Heit
Attaboy
Aaron's Rantblog
MojoMark
As I was saying...
Blog O' Dob
Dr. Frank's Blogs Of War
Betsy's Page
A Knob for Brightness
Fresh Bilge
The Politburo Diktat
Drumwaster's rants
Curt's Page
The Razor
An Unsealed Room
The Legal Bean
Helloooo chapter two!
As I Was Saying...
SkeptiLog AGOG!
Tong family blog
Vox Beth
Velociblog
I was thinking
Judicious Asininity
This Woman's Work
Fragrant Lotus
DaGoddess
Single Southern Guy
Caerdroia
GrahamLester.Com
Jay Solo's Verbosity
TacJammer
Snooze Button Dreams
Horologium
You Big Mouth, You!
From the Inside looking Out
Night of the Lepus
No Watermelons Allowed
From The Inside Looking Out
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
Suburban Blight
Aimless
The SmarterCop
Dog of Flanders
From Behind the Wall of Sleep
Beaker's Corner
Bad State of Gruntledness
Who Tends The Fires
Granny Rant
Elegance Against Ignorance
Moxie.nu
Eccentricity
Say What?
Blown Fuse
Wait 'til Next Year
The Pryhills
The Whomping Willow
The National Debate
The Skeptician
Zach Everson
MonkeyWatch
Geekward Ho
Argghhh!!!
Life in New Orleans
Rotten Miracles
Fringe
The Biomes Blog
illinigirl
See What You Share
Truthprobe
Blog d’Elisson
Your Philosophy Sucks
Watauga Rambler
Socialized Medicine
Consternations
Verging on Pertinence
Read My Lips
ambivablog
Soccerdad
The Flannel Avenger
Butch Howard's WebLog
Castle Argghhh!
Andrew Hofer
kschlenker.com
Moron Abroad
White Pebble
Darn Floor
Wizblog
tweedler
Pajama Pundits
BabyTrollBlog
Cadmusings
Goddess Training 101
A & W
Medical Madhouse
Slowly Going Sane
The Oubliette
American Future
Right Side Redux
See The Donkey
Newbie Trucker
The Right Scale
Running Scared
Ramblings Journal
Focus On Reality
Wyatt's Torch

November 18, 2003

Adam and Steve

The decision is in. A Massachusetts' court ruled today that the state cannot deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, however marriage licenses are not being allowed just yet. Surely this will not be the end of the debate, as President Bush has promised to fight this tooth and nail. Perhaps we can attack Massachusetts since there is obviously an imminent threat growing there.

Why do we fight this type of ruling so strongly? Most likely it is because we are scared silly at the thought of gay people getting legally married. Our belief is that it threatens the very fabric of our lives, and tears down the foundation of this country's religious beliefs. Of course, we also felt that way about giving women the right to vote, legalizing alcohol, and allowing Blacks to attend the same schools as the rest of society. If you truly believe that God hates this population and will send them to hell then your minds are most likely already made up, but I end up sitting on the fence about this one. For me, being gay is not a religious issue, and if you believe that gay people are bigger sinners than the rest of us I think your focus might be out-of-whack. I think a lot of people should clean up their own backyards before damning another population to hell, quoting scripture all the while.

We are scared of what this will mean to the rest of us if this is allowed. Sure, I admit it would be a little strange to get an invitation to a gay marriage, and the ceremony would be equally as bizarre.........at first. But it isn't as if allowing marriages would be that different from today, is it? Gay people are in plenty of committed relationships, with or without the paper that makes it legal. Will cats and dogs live together? Will monkeys fly out of my ass? Or will it just be a little odd to get invited to a wedding where both sides of the isle are reserved for the groom's family and friends?

Posted by Woundwort at November 18, 2003 11:34 AM | TrackBack
Postscript:
First time visitor to House Hraka? Wondering if everything we produce could possibly be as brilliant/stupid/evil/pedantic/insipid/inspired as the post you just read? Check out the Hraka Essentials, the (mostly) reader-selected guide to Hraka's best posts, and decide for yourself.
Comments

It just seems to me that this has become a litmust test for pomo hipness,rather less important to a large number of actual gay people than to people who desperatly want to drive BMW's but can only afford Hondas(yes,I'm including Sullivan who's never been entirely rational over anything remotely deemed a gay issue).


(y llivan,who's never been entirely rational over anything remotely deemed a gay issue).

Posted by: M at November 18, 2003 02:04 PM

I don't believe this is about fairness. If it were just about fairness I would support gay civil unions and rights for couples. The reason they insist on marriage is because the radicals pushing it want to shove their lifestyle down our throats.
It is not enough to have a gay pride parade, it must be a display of ludeness that should not be allowed on most public streets and certainly something I would not want my children to see.

Posted by: Starhawk at November 18, 2003 02:18 PM

I agree that I don't care to see two gay guys bumping uglies on the street, but that "ludeness" would be unlawful, just as it would be for two straight people to do it, right? So, what's the big deal? Gays can be lude now without being married so I don't see this as being the straw that creates chaos.

Posted by: Woundwort at November 18, 2003 02:46 PM

I've heard a statistic that most Americans favor legal rights for gay couples that are completely equivalent to those for married couples; they just object to calling gay unions "marriages." Rather, people seem to prefer terms like "civil unions." Could it really just be a question of semantics?

Posted by: lotus at November 18, 2003 04:26 PM

Read your Marcuse and Gramsci, Woundwort. It's not about fairness, it's about destroying existing social institutions to create utopia.

Today: The Mass. Supreme Court says that the law must allow any two "persons" to marry, regardless of sex. Fairness demands it.

Next on deck: Professor Lawrence Tribe argues that dogs and cats are "persons" with rights under the meaning of the 14th Amendment. (By the way, it's not next on deck. It's what our nation's top Constitutional law professor, Tribe, has been arguing for about a year now, give or take.)

For fuck's sake, y'all made fun of Rick Santorum not 8 months ago for saying we were on a slippery slope leading to man-on-dog sex.

Well, the good Senator clearly overreacted.

It's not leading to man-on-dog sex. That would be immoral and we'd never sanction it.

It's leading to man-on-dog marriage.

Clearly, that's much better, don't you think? I mean, if you are pro-marriage and pro-family, how could you object?

As with many things in the law, it's not where you go, it's how you get there, and the gay rights movement is getting there in the most destructive manner possible. As Judge Bork said not too long ago, homosexuals don't bear all the blame for destruction of the social institution of marriage - heterosexuals with no-fault divorce and bad behavior bear much of the blame. But the full on legal assault on the special status of marriage doesn't help. It makes me doubt the gay rights movement's sincerity and good will. Ya know, I'm not a homophobe, but by God, I could become one at this rate.

Posted by: Blackavar at November 18, 2003 04:49 PM

Strangely enough, the only gay member of the MA. supreme court voted against the ruling. Her motive was that by ruling so forth, the judicial branch of the government would be enacting the creation of law. (Judges do not make laws!!!) Judges only enforce existing laws. She is correct, I wish all judges had the ability to seperate their personal convictions from their rulings. Anyway, the ruling itself is on hold anyway... In effect, the court threw the ball back to the legislature. There is a six month hold on the ruling until the "elected" (not appointed) represenatives decide how to amend the state's constitution, or let the ruling stand.

Quite frankly, I'm probably "for" gay marrige, they should suffer just as much as everyone else!!

Okay, perhaps the solution is equal rights, (legal, visitation, inheritance... anything that matters according to the law) just give it another name... "Civil Union" sounds fine, (the South may disagree, key words being "Civil & Union")

Okay, bad idea, perhaps another name, nuf said?
S.

Posted by: Sully at November 18, 2003 07:03 PM

Sully, well said, loved the "everyone should suffer" comment.

Lotus, I think semantics are definitely a part of the argument and many people would support such a "union" if the terms were different.

Blackavar, dear God. The whole man-on-dog argument just doesn't wash with me. The difference is that people, yes gays are people, are asking for some equal rights, not animals, which, as of today, are unable to ask for a marriage. By the way, there have been plenty of "dog marriages" performed by dog owners with too much time on their hands and so far the streets are still not on fire. Do I want to have sex with a man? No. But the fact is that men are having sex with men and so far our society seems to be operating the same. Maybe we could round up all of the gays and give them Delaware to live in and then they could do what they want there and not affect the rest of us.

Posted by: Woundwort at November 18, 2003 08:53 PM

You think the world owes you something. Think twice (although we know you aren't able )- it is NOT normal what you are - that is the fact. you can scream and yell till your blue in the face - itwill never change the truth.
Toodledooooooooo

Posted by: normal at November 18, 2003 10:59 PM

Normal, who are you talking to? Is it gay people in general? Is it us here at Silflay Hraka? You know, none of us are gay........although there is nothing wrong with it.

Posted by: Woundwort at November 19, 2003 07:09 AM

Some of my best friends are normal.

Posted by: Sully at November 19, 2003 08:22 AM

I think the bigger issue in our society is, why do people focus on sexuality when it comes to talk of gay marriage? It's only a fifth of the package, once you include the intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and social aspects of relationships. Does it really matter so much what parts people have when they get into bed? They're people. They love each. They want to spend their lives together and get the few benefits afforded married couples (although the differential tax rate will kill you). We certainly don't ask heteros who puts what part in what orifice. Opponents aren't scared silly of gay people getting legally marries; they're just scared silly of gay people.

Frankly, heteros have done such an admirable job of fucking up and fucking with the institution of marriage that I find it amusing that anybody would want it to begin with.

Posted by: Calypso at November 19, 2003 08:46 AM

Just a point... So long as heterosexist attitudes prevail and gay people are denied the right to marry, then the gays are being subjected to the rank of a second class citizen. Any type of "civil union" or equivalent is just a way of trying to appease without actually acknowledging a gay person's dignity as an equal human being... It would be as if, in the time of racial segregation, white people said to the blacks, "You can come half way up the bus, but we still don't want you sitting in the first four seats."

Posted by: Mr. Picher at November 19, 2003 09:21 AM

I just don't buy the Afro-American comparison, (but I'll give it a shot!!) I live just outside Boston. There is a high school in the suburbs, Walpole, MA. to be precise. The name's of their athletic teams are, "The Rebels" & they use the "Confederate" flag on their equipment & attire.

I understand perfectly well that when this was thought up early in the last century, they were not doing it to offend Afro-Americans. Nevertheless, it does!!, and they should put an end to it ASAP.

Using the term "marriage" to describe a civil partnership, offends many people as well. "Marriage" was recognized by the Catholic Church in 1215, contrary to the windbags who claim it has been a standard for thousands of years.

Most of the Homosexual couples I am friends with are far more concerned with the legal rights associated with marriage than the actual term itself. There is however, a small group within that comunity that is always looking for a fight. If you don't agree with every absurd thing that spews forth from their mouth, then you are obviously a biggot. There is also the same people on the other side who simply want to deny all homosexuals equal rights altogether. The one thing I think they have in common is that they are both motivated by a hatred of people who do not think as they do.

If "Civil Unions" are legalized nationwide with the provision that it cannot be called a "Marriage" Good!! Both extremests loose, I'm happy.

Besides, everyone will call it marriage anyway.

Posted by: Sully at November 19, 2003 06:25 PM
Post a comment Note: Comments with more than two dashes per line will be blocked as spam.









Remember personal info?