For about 20 frustrating minutes, say those in attendance who Boston Spirit interviewed recently, they shared their stories, pled their case, and tried to explain how equal marriage would protect them and their families. Romney sat stone-faced and almost entirely silent.
“Is there anything else?” Romney asked when they finished. With that, the meeting was over.
. . .
“I didn’t know you had families,” remarked Romney to the group, according to Wilson.
. . .
“I looked him in the eye as we were leaving,” recalls Goodridge. “And I said, ‘Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?’”
His response, according to Goodridge: “I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.”
Romney’s retort enraged a speechless Goodridge; he didn’t care, and by referring to her biological daughter as “adopted,” it was clear he hadn’t even been listening. By the time she was back in the hallway, she was reduced to tears.
The first thing that pops out at me with the "article" (which is followed with "This blog is not written or edited by Boston.com or the Boston Globe. The author is solely responsible for the content. " meaning it's an Opinion piece.)
Then I noted that it's from 2003-2004. Why so old? There wasn't a problem until now?
There were other things, but I'm tired and I'm sure there will be more responses.
The first thing that pops out at me with the "article" (which is followed with "This blog is not written or edited by Boston.com or the Boston Globe. The author is solely responsible for the content. " meaning it's an Opinion piece.)
Then I noted that it's from 2003-2004. Why so old? There wasn't a problem until now?
There were other things, but I'm tired and I'm sure there will be more responses.
Brad
I got it from a friend on Facebook bit it was a Think Progress link so I found this one. I'm usually one to look into those things, but I didn't for this. The Think Progress article was written today.
Whoops, but I'd still like to hear opinions. Can this be trusted as true?
Sure-- you can trust it as being true--haven't ya heard? There's always at least a tiny, microscopically small, almost indiscernible bit of truth in every single article ever published.
'Mommy and Ma..'???? For heaven's sake..you want to play at being Mother Nature and cheat, and produce an offspring in a manner never planned...suck it up and stop whining. Sounds like two pre-school little girls playing with their dolls, and pretending to be 'Mommy and Daddy'. IT ISN'T A GAME, producing children. And IF it is so 'protecting and supportive' of one's family...why do so many heterosexual couple never bother with it? If it costs the Tax Payer MORE to finance these people having their cake and eating it,than they are allowed for their NATURAL BORN CHILDREN, then why the HE!! should they have to fund this selfishness and deviant behaviour of others? THEY MAKE THE CHOICE...let THEM pay for it. And if they CAN'T, then DON'T FREAKING DO IT. 'Human Rights' now far exceed those that NATURE provided. ANd we wonder why the World is in the mess it IS in. A World that is AWASH with surplus Human Beings...and we are expected to fund even MORE being brought into it by un-natural means. Madness. Talk about having your cake and eating it, AND taking a bite out of everybody elses' too. Sheer unadulterated madness.
'Mommy and Ma..'???? For heaven's sake..you want to play at being Mother Nature and cheat, and produce an offspring in a manner never planned...suck it up and stop whining. Sounds like two pre-school little girls playing with their dolls, and pretending to be 'Mommy and Daddy'. IT ISN'T A GAME, producing children. And IF it is so 'protecting and supportive' of one's family...why do so many heterosexual couple never bother with it? If it costs the Tax Payer MORE to finance these people having their cake and eating it,than they are allowed for their NATURAL BORN CHILDREN, then why the HE!! should they have to fund this selfishness and deviant behaviour of others? THEY MAKE THE CHOICE...let THEM pay for it. And if they CAN'T, then DON'T FREAKING DO IT. 'Human Rights' now far exceed those that NATURE provided. ANd we wonder why the World is in the mess it IS in. A World that is AWASH with surplus Human Beings...and we are expected to fund even MORE being brought into it by un-natural means. Madness. Talk about having your cake and eating it, AND taking a bite out of everybody elses' too. Sheer unadulterated madness.
huh? Two adults want to raise a child and under the law, they want the same rights as a man/woman couple. Where does it say that the tax payer is paying? Maybe I missed that part.
I doubt this article is true, but I thought we were in the land of freedom. Heck, there are a lot worse things out there and if the kid has a loving "family" who raises her to be a wonderful person, what is wrong with that?
Anyway...I say the article is bogus until we have a real source. I wouldn't put it past Mitt, but we need real documentation.
http://www.piton.org/article5 Tax credits, schooling, transport subsidies, etc etc. ANY tax relief and subsidy is paid for by everybody else's tax commitments. Single people paying higher taxes to support somebody else's child or children. Parents who restrain themselves from having more children than they can support are punished by having to pay for OTHER people who aren't so responsible. LBGT people wanting to get ' married' is, in my opinion, much more about getting support and relief from the Tax system etc, than the actual desire to be MARRIED. If you choose to adopt a different type of lifestyle, then pay for it yourself.
http://www.piton.org/article5 Tax credits, schooling, transport subsidies, etc etc. ANY tax relief and subsidy is paid for by everybody else's tax commitments. Single people paying higher taxes to support somebody else's child or children. Parents who restrain themselves from having more children than they can support are punished by having to pay for OTHER people who aren't so responsible. LBGT people wanting to get ' married' is, in my opinion, much more about getting support and relief from the Tax system etc, than the actual desire to be MARRIED. If you choose to adopt a different type of lifestyle, then pay for it yourself.
who is to say what a "different type of lifestyle" is?
BTW, the child tax credit doesn't always lower your taxes. To think that people want to get "married" for tax benefits is wrong. Frankly, it would be better if my wife and I were not married. We would have more benefits from the government and the insurance company, and the child would have more scholarships/grants/loans for college. Heck, the child would even get free breakfast/lunch, sport passes and such at school.
I don't support tax breaks for having children, as I think that is just silly. But if the government offers it to one group, then they need to do it for all.
I know of couples who make great parents and yet, they are not what you would call "normal". I also know of parents who leave their young child in the home alone while they are out drinking at the bar. The kid is screwed up. But this is OK, as long as the mother is female and the father is male? wow.... that is just screwed up.
who is to say what a "different type of lifestyle" is? The MAJORITY upon whom the expenses for their lifestyle CAN impinge on people who are living a normal lifestyle
BTW, the child tax credit doesn't always lower your taxes. To think that people want to get "married" for tax benefits is wrong. Frankly, it would be better if my wife and I were not married. We would have more benefits from the government and the insurance company, and the child would have more scholarships/grants/loans for college. Heck, the child would even get free breakfast/lunch, sport passes and such at school. And who brought about that situation? Minorities lobbying for 'equality', and end up even better off than the majority...you just demonstrated that yourself
I don't support tax breaks for having children, as I think that is just silly. But if the government offers it to one group, then they need to do it for all. IMHO, that is wrong too...you have to QUALIFY to benefit, not just LOBBY
I know of couples who make great parents and yet, they are not what you would call "normal". I also know of parents who leave their young child in the home alone while they are out drinking at the bar. The kid is screwed up. But this is OK, as long as the mother is female and the father is male? wow.... that is just screwed up.Where did I condone this? Again, a minority amongst the majority should not prejudice AGAINST the Majority, nor either benefit MORE from doing so
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 09-12-2012).]
The definition of marriage and what constitutes a family was reconsidered by American society after the decision of Loving v. Virginia. Following Loving v. Virginia, The Changing Nature of Interracial Marriage in Georgia: A Research Note states "there was a 448 per cent increase in the number of interracial marriages (from 21 in 1967 to 115 in 1970)" (Aldridge, 1973). These numbers are only from the state of Georgia after the Supreme Court ruling, but the numbers and percentages only continued to increase across the United States.[citation needed] However, interracial couples still had to overcome many fears of possibly losing respect from friends, family, and the community.
Some people believe that the Loving ruling will eventually aid the marriage equality movement for same-sex partnerships, if courts allow the Equal Protection Clause to be used. F.C. Decoste states, "If the only arguments against same sex marriage are sectarian, then opposing the legalization of same sex marriage is invidious in a fashion no different from supporting anti miscegenation laws".
On June 12, 2007, Mildred Loving issued a rare public statement, which commented on same-sex marriage, prepared for delivery on the fortieth anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia decision of the US Supreme Court.[12] The concluding paragraphs of her statement read as follows: “ Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about. ”
Although the Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (2006) (which was overridden by the New York State Legislature via enactment of the Marriage Equality Act in 2011) 'rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that: “ [T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.[13] ”
In the August 4, 2010 federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which overturned California's Proposition 8 (which restricted marriage to opposite-sex couples), Judge Vaughn Walker cited Loving v. Virginia to conclude that "the [constitutional] right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender".[14] On more narrow grounds, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.[15][16]
..or hetrosexual. Lots of life procreates with only one sex.
'Lots', Roger? Can you be more specific? Are they a majority in ALL species, or just single cell and very basic creatures? If you are thinking of, say, earthworms as an example, you would be wrong. An earthworm is an hermaphrodite, which is basically BOTH sexes combined in one creature..so one creature, two sexes. BUT..they are unable to mate with themselves..they need a partner too. Some even simpler creatures are able to CHANGE their sex, if one or the other is in short supply. But they do it NATURALLY, not by medical assistance . Ogre's sig always springs to mind "They were so busy proving they COULD do it, they didn't stop to think if they SHOULD be doing it"
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 09-12-2012).]
I take great comfort in the fact that the generation making the rules now are going to die soon, and the next generation will see how pointless denying homosexuals the right to marry is. Sure, one or two old bigots will last into Strom Thurmond style anachronisms, but society will progress despite the best effort of reactionaries.
"So when they continued asking him, he lifted himself up, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
So, what I understand is that there is only one god and our government must follow that god's word? Hmm, I think I heard this somewhere.... hmm, yeah.... somewhere in the middle east.
You know, that is the beauty of the United States. If you don't like who is running, you don't have to vote for him/her. A non-vote is also valid. Why should we be forced to vote for someone? If we don't agree with either candidate, then we don't vote. Of course, we could force people to vote... but I think that has been done and the results don't work so well.
"So when they continued asking him, he lifted himself up, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
So, what I understand is that there is only one god and our government must follow that god's word? Hmm, I think I heard this somewhere.... hmm, yeah.... somewhere in the middle east.
Like Jesus said about homosexuals "..."
I hope all of the people pounding out Leviticus stays away from shellfish, cheeseburgers, pork, and cotton-poly blend slacks. All of these are abomination before the lord.
"So when they continued asking him, he lifted himself up, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
So, what I understand is that there is only one god and our government must follow that god's word? Hmm, I think I heard this somewhere.... hmm, yeah.... somewhere in the middle east.
The context in your quote deals with the stoning of a harlot (prostitute), not LGBT. Our country was founded on Christian principles, but nowhere does it say that we must follow God's word to the letter. One of our founding principles is the freedom to worship whatever God you choose, unlike those middle eastern countries you mention.
Vote for a religious fanatic involved in a cult or a communist?
Cop out?
Yes.
First, how do you define "fanatic"?
Second, SOMEONE will be elected. Obama is a milquetoast and a socialist. This country will literally NOT survive the stuff he's pushing (or failing to push). With Romney and Ryan, we have a *chance* to save the country from collapse under deficits, debt and unfunded liabilities. Obama and the Democrats have done NOTHING on those things. A choice has to be made. If you choose not to choose, that is a choice. You're voting for the status quo.
Gay marriage won't do you a damn bit of good if the country collapses under its debt.
The context in your quote deals with the stoning of a harlot (prostitute), not LGBT. Our country was founded on Christian principles, but nowhere does it say that we must follow God's word to the letter. One of our founding principles is the freedom to worship whatever God you choose, unlike those middle eastern countries you mention.
Pretty convenient that you can pick and choose for God what sins you feel are worth avoiding.
"And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." -- Leviticus 26:29
I wouldn't read Leviticus if I were you. No one else does.
Instead, I'll summarize it for you: Get an animal, kill it, sprinkle the blood around, cut the dead animal into pieces, and burn it for a "sweet savor unto the Lord."
Here are the gory details:
"All the fat is the Lord's." 3:16 Moses puts blood on Aaron's right ear, thumb, and big toe. 8:23-24 God's 13th Killing: God kills Aaron's sons for offering "strange fire before the Lord." 10:1-2 Hares are unclean since they chew the cud. 11:6 Bats are just unclean birds. 11:13,19 Four-legged birds are an abomination to God. 11:20 Insects have four legs. 11:21, 23 Baby girls are twice as dirty as baby boys. 12:1-8 God's cure for leprosy. 14:2-32 What to do if "he that hath the issue spit upon him that is clean." 15:8 What to do "if any man's seed of copulation go out from him." 15:16-18 Menstruating women are unclean to God. 15:19-30 God's law for wet dreams. 15:16-17, 32 Don't look at any naked menstruating women. 18:19 Homosexuality is an abomination to God. 18:22 Don't mix seeds when sowing a field or wear a garment with mixed fibers. 19:19 If you have sex with a slave woman, you must then scourge her. 19:20 Don't round the corners of your head or mar the corners of your beard. 19:27 Children who curse their parents, adulterers, and homosexuals must be killed. 20:9-12 Woman with "familiar spirits" must be stoned to death. 20:27 The unchaste daughters of priests must be burnt to death. 21:9 Handicapped people must not approach the altar. 21:16-23 God's 14th Killing: A man curses and blasphemes while disputing with another man. Moses asks God what to do about it. God says that the whole community must stone him to death. "And the children of Israel did as the Lord and Moses commanded." 24:10-23 God's instructions for buying slaves. 25:45-46 "Ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it." 26:16 God will "send wild beasts among you, which shall rob your of your children." 26:22 "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." 26:29 God places a dollar value on human life; women are worth less (50 - 60%) than men. 27:3-7
OK, as a non believer ALL of the bible quotes mean absolutely nothing to me.
With that being written, I do not support gay marriage. I do not support it, BUT I strongly feel that what two people do, is what they do. Is it that hard to turn the other cheek? It is not for me to decide with a vote something that does not bother, or concern me. Who are we to take away a person's happiness? Why do we even care?
I actually am friends with quite a few people of the gay persuasion. All good folks. All I would share a beer with if I drank. It is not for anyone to decide another's happiness.
So if true, both candidates are NOT pro gay whatever. The Obummer only recently changed his “official” position in hopes of votes. I think that most don’t give a crap one way or the other.
the g'ment should have NOTHING to do with marriage, it is none of the g'ment concern, unless of course, you are for "big g'ment".
marriage is a thing which existed long before governments & current religions. governments & religions only try to harness marriage for their own device.
So if true, both candidates are NOT pro gay whatever. The Obummer only recently changed his “official” position in hopes of votes. I think that most don’t give a crap one way or the other.
True. That is why we NEED someone like Gary Johnson to take strong independent actions to save the nation financially and counter the extremists. Please make sure Gary makes it on to your states ballot, the two party system is a failure.
the g'ment should have NOTHING to do with marriage, it is none of the g'ment concern, unless of course, you are for "big g'ment".
marriage is a thing which existed long before governments & current religions. governments & religions only try to harness marriage for their own device.
No cherry-picking on this end, just a simple statement that is germaine to the original topic of this posting.
I have read Leviticus.
God's views on sodomites are mentioned throughout the Bible. He's not a fan of butt-buddies.
Ok, that must include the New Testament. Please let us know where Jesus' opinion on homosexuals is. You know, the single guy who hung out with a bunch of other dudes all the time.
And let's try to have a mature conversation without disparaging terms like "butt buddy". You don't let someone call your wife a "**** -carrier", at least I hope not.
No cherry-picking on this end, just a simple statement that is germaine to the original topic of this posting.
ah, yes you are. Are you without sin? That is the point...
But anyway, it is pretty funny that we still have the need to control people's liberties, even though they have no impact upon ours. (I keep seeing Archie Bunker for some reason)....
Second, SOMEONE will be elected. Obama is a milquetoast and a socialist. This country will literally NOT survive the stuff he's pushing (or failing to push). With Romney and Ryan, we have a *chance* to save the country from collapse under deficits, debt and unfunded liabilities. Obama and the Democrats have done NOTHING on those things. A choice has to be made. If you choose not to choose, that is a choice. You're voting for the status quo.
Gay marriage won't do you a damn bit of good if the country collapses under its debt.
THE DEBT FROM VOODOO ? OR THE VERY NEAR DEPRESSION THE NUT-CON'S DOGMA PRODUCED IN 08 ? MORMONS ARE A BIG CULT THEY FIT EVERY DEFINITION OF A CULT
BUT I THINK YOUR CUT CUT CUT DOGMA WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A FULL DEPRESSION AND IS A STRONG HINDRANCE TO FULL RECOVERY NOW
WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE DOGMA THAT IS PROVEN TO FAIL WE TRYED NUT-CON RULE IT IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRASH AND RECESSION
ah, yes you are. Are you without sin? That is the point...
But anyway, it is pretty funny that we still have the need to control people's liberties, even though they have no impact upon ours. (I keep seeing Archie Bunker for some reason)....
I am a sinner just like the rest of mankind.
I am not casting stones. Live the way you want. Just don't ask for special treatment from the government, or special recognition for your sins.
