Saturday, September 19, 2009

A not-so-triumphant return

Anonymous It's interesting. When you speak of allowing gay marriage, and have supposidly dug into this issue, that you have neglected to learn that when our fat government legislates what has traditionally been a religious issue, the government inserts it self into religion...hmm. Oh, and when they start doing that, they will then have the right to tell churches and clergy who they can and can't marry based on the law and not on the religious beliefs of the particular church or clergy; once again inserting itself into traditionally religious issues. hmm. me thinks you have a little more lernin to do, ya think?

I can't tell you how happy I am to see our dear Anonymous pay us another visit here at Nutwood. Things have been so peaceful and quiet here, and we've been feeling a distinct lack of rancor, judgment, and general sanctimonious priggishness! Welcome back, Anon!

You say that marriage is traditionally a religious issue. I hate to spring this on you, but legal marriage has nothing to do with religion. Ken and I were married by the city clerk of Mishawaka, not a member of the clergy. We were married at Tippecanoe Place, a restaurant located in a Studebaker mansion, not a place of worship. Our ceremony was a civil one, with no religious element at all.

We are every bit as legally married as anyone who might have their ceremony performed by the Pope at the Sistine Chapel. You obviously don’t get it. It’s not about people wanting to get married in a church, or married in the eyes of whatever god. It’s about being granted the rights that every other person in this country has to marry the person they love and to have the rights of insurance, a say in medical treatments, the right to adopt children and raise them together, and to be a partner in every sense of the word. Marriage is not sanctioned by religion; it is defined by the government.

Thanks for proving my point, Anon. Legal marriage has nothing to do with the church. It has everything to do with equality of rights to everyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof, or of their race, or of their orientation. Ergo, gays should be allowed to legally marry. Q.E. freakin' D.

30 comments:

  1. Hi Beth,
    Here, here ... (actually, very similar to my reply to your previous post). Anon: I hope you do realize that not everyone shares -- or needs to share -- your religious views. Thank God we live in a country that DOES separate church and state.
    Best,
    Marty

    ReplyDelete
  2. My first marriage was "condoned" under the blessing of the church, and we know how that ended :o)

    Our marriage, condoned by the city/state, while not as traditional, is so much stronger, it pretty much makes Anon's entry silly, silly, stupid :o) LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was trying to read this excellent article, but something went wrong.

    Perhaps I had the wrong URL? I tried the one my name links to.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Someone should also point out to Anon that the only reason clergy CAN marry people is that they ae endowed with that right by the state laws that allow them to by recognizing the legitimacy of the church. Marriage is a legal ceremony.

    Here's a follow up comment to the stoning of non-virgins.

    Years ago there was a story about a high school homecoming queen who was dethroned when it was discovered that she was pregnant. She was not married, of course. Well that's one thing. But dig this. The pricipal of the high school came out in public and said "We have never had a homecoming queen at this school who wasn't a virgin." Think about that in the light of day.

    D

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wish I have the linguistic abilities that you have to dismantle mediocre brain dead assholes arguments. Well said. Hi to Bucko and sheeba.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry to hear, Beth, that you don't see the bigger picture. Your blinders are doing a great job there! What's good for the goose ain't good for the gander I see! Let government insert itself into religion, but watch the claws come out when you feel like religion is getting all up in your face! LOL

    And as for a marriage "condoned" by the church that subsequently failed: You neglected to keep church, and God, in your marriage. Who's fault was that?

    Hope you all enjoy yourselves here! Glad I could help amuse you! That's my calling in life you know, to amuse silly, stupid people like you all!

    So Long!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love you, Beth! Well said! Those kooks out there who just don't get it are so threatened by things they don't (want to) understand... and then scream their rights are being infringed upon... but don't see any problem with others' rights being trampled on. your essay says it eloquently!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon, how do you know anything about my previous marriage, or Ken's? Do you know me? Do you know Ken? Do tell. Your presumptuousness is intriguing. Your judgmental attitude is fascinating, in a clinical, disturbing sort of way.

    You ARE amusing, Anon, in your willingness to judge others and insert yourself into this discussion, when you so obviously don't have a leg to stand on. You write about religious views, but you accuse me and my readers of being silly and stupid. I wonder how much your version of God approves of your methods of "spreading the word?"

    Even worse, you don't have the courage of your convictions to stand up and write as anything other than "Anonymous." Peter denied Christ three times. You don't have the balls to write as your true self even once.

    ReplyDelete
  9. At last, something sensible from Anon. (S)he finally acknowledges his/her role in life: To be the Court Jester of Cyberspace! And a damn good one, too, I might add ...

    ReplyDelete
  10. You exposed yourself, dear Beth. I don't know you nor do I care to. But, sweetie, go back and re-read what you wrote. You uncovered yourself.

    (Poor little thing. Can't remember what she wrote. Seems she's too wound up! :) )

    And Ken, well, his comment speaks for itself.

    And you are correct. I will remain "Anon" as you so affectionately refer to me as.

    Love ya!,
    Anon.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Methinks this anonymous coward has a comically over-inflated sense of worth and relevance of their religion in our society.

    Aside from that, Anon? You seem to have no other intention of commenting here than to be a keening, little, witless gnat. Indeed, in the handful of comments you've posted on this simple entry wanders as clueless and as aimlessly as a drunken whore on nickel-beer night during Fleet Week. Seriously, your thoughts ramble in such a random, plinko-esque manner that even an ADHD sufferer out there would pity you.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And yet another reason why I absolutely love Dan! :) I have nothing (nice) to say to the bitch above so I will say nothing further. However, Beth you know my stance on this all too well, especially now. I, personally, want nothing to do with any church - ever. And I WAS a virgin when I got married. :D Jasmine was a month old almost to the day as well. It was immaculate, I swear.
    Love,
    Jamie

    ReplyDelete
  13. those who think they have their own golden throne beside God in heaven and can pass down judgment to all the pitiful sinners on Earth will try to make this all about gays not having the "right" to marry since the Bible is against it.

    it will be interesting when they die if Jesus is going to read to them all the times these also pathetic pitiful non perfect people judged others when they had no right to.

    i am with you on this. All Americans should be allowed to be married legally and have the same benefits. Anon needs to find a hobby.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You hit the nail on the head. First time in on the gay marriage act but I agree whole heartedly with you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Marriage is not a religious institution.
    You can get married in EVERY church in the land, in EVERY denomination in the land, and NOT be legally married until the government says so.
    Keep religion out of the LEGALITIES of marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I believe in the separation of church and state. church should not interfere with state as state should not interfere with church. one cannot effect the other. simply stated. marriage should be open to anyone who wants to get married.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Beth - Anonymous here reminded me of what was said in the "Tiki Mail" segment of TIKI BAR TV Episode 4: "I think it's commendable of you to come out in front of the whole world and speak your mind...Anonymous...."

    To see the entire hilarious smackdown of THEIR anonymous trollboi, along with how to make a heavily alcoholic Hulla Balloo cocktail, go here - http://www.tikibartv.com/?page_id=170 .

    ReplyDelete
  18. It is entertaining to have anon come out every once in a while and help make you point, with exclamation :o)

    ReplyDelete
  19. As for the issue at hand - you can also get married by any Justice of the Peace in the United States, or by the captain of a ship at sea, neither of whom are required to be churchmen.

    Much as I would LOVE to force bigoted churches to be REQUIRED to perform same-sex marriages, their homophobia is sadly protected by the same First Amendment that protects free speech. Since unlike Republicans and other moronic cowardly scumbags, I have no desire to throw the baby of civil liberties out with the bathwater, I suppose we'll have to live for now with only allowing civil same-sex marriages, or same-sex marriages in churches willing to perform them - like Unitarian Universalist (which is where Tammy and I got married), United Church of Christ, or SOME bishops of the Episcopalian Church....

    ReplyDelete
  20. Fascinating! Anon, the Judge and Jury, finds us guilt-
    I have three buttons which I wear, COEXIST, GOD IS TOO BIG to fit inside Of One RELIGION, and GOD BLESS THE WHOLE WORLD-NO EXCEPTIONS!
    I finished Dan Brown's new book, The Lost Symbol, Friday. It has an interesting conclusion- I recommend it highly. Sort of gives one a new perspective on God and Man, besides being a darn good read!

    ReplyDelete
  21. What an idiot! And, he exposes himself yet again! If you find a flaw in the arguement then point it out, coward?

    No... I didn't think so.

    Q e f'ing D!! LOVE IT!!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Look how many readers (s)he's bringing in to your blog... LOL!!! You Go, Beth!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Gay couples are currently denied a phenomenal and embarrassing amount of rights (both spousal and otherwise), yet they are also required to pay the exact same amount of taxes as everyone else.

    So, the solutions are simple. Either give them the rights they are denied, or give them some equally phenomenal tax breaks to compensate for such discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I loved this piece, straight (no pun intended) and to the point.

    Gay marriage has been a bone of contention for many people. I personally have nothing against gays getting married. Christians make it seem that when and if gays are legally free to marry then suddenly we will have lowered our moral standing and we would have committed a sin.

    I do agree with you that it is a rights and freedom issue. I wish the USA would lead on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  25. equal rights for all americans.

    the constitution: not just for white male landowners anymore!


    xxalainaxx

    ReplyDelete
  26. Wow, I was away for just 24 hours and missed all the fun with another show-stopper (and I don't mean that in a good way) from Anon.
    Frankly, I think the name is perfect,
    since he/she's "A NON"entity!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Good grief, Beth, where DID you find this Anon idiot?

    In order for the US to fulfil its constitutional promise, federal government MUST assert that fundamental non-religious human rights - gay marriage being just one example - are protected FROM religious zealots of the Anon variety. That was the point in the beginning, but it seems Anon would have you all regress to pre-constitution times. Perhaps Anon would like us to send you a Cromwell, too. :-p

    Anon, I recommend you learn some British history of the period leading up to (and causing) your declaration of independence. It seems plain that you don't have even the slightest grasp of the context of your own nation's call for independence. The premise of freedom from religious persecution is not simply that you are free to worship whatever religion you wish, but ALSO that the American peoples must NOT be subjected to religious imposition by morons like you.

    Perhaps you are KNOWINGLY rejecting the very basis of the US constitution itself, and my presumption that you are ignorant rather than deliberately anti-"American" is erroneous. Maybe you really DO think it was JUST about taxes. That WOULD be a sorry state of affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  28. lelocolon said...
    I wish I have the linguistic abilities that you have to dismantle mediocre brain dead assholes arguments. Well said. Hi to Bucko and sheeba.


    cause I wished that I could have said it first!!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I can't speak for all countries, but I believe in France and Germany, couples must marry in a CIVIL ceremony before they can have a Church wedding. I don't know why this can't be the same thing here... a civil contract for any couple that desires marriage. Seems to me the fairest solution. :)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Wow, Look at all the comments on this post! I was going to suggest ways to successfully make Anonymous go away, but I can see that you wouldn't want that at all. He/she is really promoting discussion here. Good job, anonymous. We need people talking about this issue, so the way you are bringing light to it is very helpful. Gay people around the world applaud you.

    ReplyDelete

I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you?