Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

I'm an a-hole.
The other day I posted something about my so-called "squeamishness" about gays who carry an agenda everywhere they go.
Then after reading all the coverage on Prop 8 and its eventual passage I realized why.
If I were a gay person you would never hear the end of it from me.
I'd use it in my signature much the way I used to use "Occupied TX" but it wouldn't stop there. I'd be the guy with a hammer who sees everything as a nail, and I'd never stop hammering on everything I see.
Last night I listened to Keith Olbermann's reaction and it struck me that I might be one of those people standing on ceremony, one of those people who represent "separate but equal".
We all know that separate but equal doesn't work.
I apologize for my thickheadedness and I've decided it doesn't matter if the churchies get their panties in a wad over the issue.
Gays should be allowed to participate in the institution of marriage as fully as any other couple. There should be no restrictions whatsoever.
I wish my head would catch up to my heart but my heart acknowledges that something is very wrong with a community that can pass a proposition aimed at depriving one group of people happiness.

At least you're a handsome one. I forgive you Jeff.



Panties...wad - oh my!

Here's a factoid that many outside of the Bay Area may not know.

The "Yes on 8" people ran ads stating that children in Kindergarten would be taught about gay marriage in school.

Then the "No on 8" people ran the California Superintendent of Schools stating that using children in this issue is shameful as California does not teach about "marriage" of any kind in school.


Then...


This idiot Bay Area lesbian couple invited their entire first grade class to their wedding, during school hours, allowing parents to opt out.

The "Yes on 8" people seized on this event and said: See? See? They're teaching the kids about gay marriage.


Stupid lesbian couple. They should be tarred and feathered. How could they not see the "political" ramifications of inviting their students to their wedding - especially before the election!!

Congratulations, Jeff. It is that kind of revelation that will someday get this nation past its obsession over gay marriage and really, gay people in general.

On a serious note - both of them are cute - what a cute couple!!

For anyone interested there will be a nationwide protest for gay rights this coming Saturday. There will be events in cities in every State here is a list: Join The Impact

Brentwood and Walnut Creek aren't on that list.

I know, weird, huh? My boss lives in Walnut Creek - his was the only house in his neighborhood with a "No on 8" sign

Well, I didn't really have any obsession over it, really.
The way I see it is like this:

Look, marriage is a contract between four parties, two spouses, a church and the state, but first and foremost it has always historically been a church sacrament. I mean, that's what it was first, before the state ever entered into it.

So, regardless of whatever the church folks feel, one can understand why some of them might feel that this is an attack on their holy rites. After all, if a "Bible believing" church (whatever that is, I thought all Christian churches believed the Bible) centers their philosophy on the marriage of a man and a woman, having gay marriage enter into it will cause a fight.

I think what's going to have to happen is the state is going to have to declare that the civil side of marriage is the only one that counts, and the church side is ceremonial and spiritual only.

And, in a sense this has already happened.
For 35 bucks I can get a piece of paper that says I am empowered to perform marriages.
Why aren't the churchies getting all upset over people performing marriages on top of speeding airplanes, underwater, in the municipal zoo, on top of landfills, inside hash bars in Amsterdam?
Where's the holy aspect of that?
And, look at some of the Hollywood marriages over the years.
You want a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage, there you go.
So, in essence the state has already shown that it is the civil side of the union that counts, and what the f**k does the state care if the couple is a man and a woman?

And, it turns out, as Keith Olbermann and many others have pointed out, it doesn't matter. But in reality it does...it matters to lot of people who think it's their business to inject the church into what is, for all practical and legal purposes, a state contract.
The churchies should have started getting up in arms when folks started getting married at the circus or something.
If they cared so much about defiling the sacred institution, then where were they when it was being performed under the Big Top amongst elephant droppings?

So this is going to wind up going to the Supreme Court.
I think it will ultimately win.
I don't think that will change things much, it will be a lot like the South after the Feds forced the states to abandon their Jim Crow laws. A lot of prejudice will still exist.

But not from me. I just don't see the point.
People should be allowed to be happy, and it's none of anyone's business if a married couple is gay or straight.