Buoyed by their demonstrated ability to silence the voters of Massachusetts, homosexual activists are now pushing to repeal a 1913 law that prevents homosexuals from coming from other states to "marry" in Massachusetts. The goal is to set the table for same-sex couples to "marry" in Massachusetts and to then return to their home states to file federal lawsuits raising the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution in an attempt to force those states to recognize Massachusetts "gay marriages." True to form, liberals plan to once again use activist courts to achieve what they were unable to accomplish through legitimate and democratic means.
If the 1913 law is repealed and homosexual activists have success with like-minded judges, then we can expect the "gay marriage" levy to break, flooding the countryside with Hurricane Katrina-like destruction to the marriage and family foundation upon which our society rests.
62 comments
Am I the only one who thinks that Hurricane Katrina is not such a good analogy for conservatives to use? Also, if homosexual marriages will destroy your marriage, that doesn't say much for your marriage, does it?
Concerned Idiots of America. Just answer quick this question. If two consenting adults marry legally somewhere else and live their lives and they have their rights recognised as human beings they are(and this time there are not even kids involved), which voters are they silencing?, what's next?, Jewish and Germans who didn't believe in Hitler's rubbish were silencing German voters?. And by the way, in 1913, what was forbidden was recognising interfaith or interratial marriages, are they bad too?
If the success of your marriage depends on denying rights to others, your marriage is a sham.
I love how fundies are casting this as "silencing voters," as if any time a piece of legislation is not brought to a popular vote the people are being deprived of their right to vote. Why aren't they whining about not being allowed to vote on all the other measures the legislature considers?
Sometime I wonder if the fundies are that fragile in their lives and marraiges that they have to scapegoat everything they're not.
The Katrina analogy isn't exactly the best idea. But then again Fundies praise Katrina as God's punishment.
'Am I the only one who thinks that Hurricane Katrina is not such a good analogy for conservatives to use?'
No, I was just thinking the same thing.
So campaigning to repeat an unjust and discriminatory law qualifies as "silencing the voters", but beavering away to find quasi-legalistic devices to overturn the Establishment Clause, push God into schools, force "intelligent design" (i.e., religious creationism via the back door) onto the curriculum, and trample all over the reproductive rights of women who don't want some creepy fundies putting their bodies in religious shackles is somehow legitimate?
Nice world view you have there Matt. Perhaps if you took your blinkers off for a moment, you'd wake up and smell the roses, and see why millions of people regard your world view as being roughly on a par with rabies in the desirability stakes.
Oh, does anyone else here find it ironic that anop-ed piece for Concerned Women For America is written by a man? If these women are so 'concerned', couldn't one of them have written the piece?
Oh I notice this paragraph in the article ... this one deserves an FSTDT submission all of its own:
@Matt Barber
Prior to Goodridge, the concept of a man "marrying" a man or a woman "marrying" a woman was widely and properly considered preposterous. However, with their decision in Goodridge, four of the court's seven social mad scientists have zapped artificial life into a cultural "gay-marriage" Frankenstein monster. And that radical and bizarre new concept has been terrorizing the countryside every since.
Oh look, the kind of hyperbolic hate rhetoric that is all too familiar a part of the fundie aetiology.
Later on we have this:
@Matt Barber
If two people of the same sex must be allowed to "marry," then what of bisexuals? Don't they have a "right" to marry the persons of their choosing? Don't they have a "right" to marry both the man and the woman they love? What possible justification would there be for preventing polygamist marriages once the true definition of marriage is done away with?
Polygamy? If it's OK for Mormons, why not the rest of us? Don't notice you complaining about that in Utah ...
Calilasseia:
I love it when they throw polygamy in there. I always end up pointing them to the bit in the bible about Solomon.
Of course, I've noticed that a lot of the people who think gay marriage will "destroy the family and the sanctity of marriage" say the same thing about interracial marriages.
Birds of a feather, eh?
Hurrican Katrina as an analogy, eh? You mean, that big-ass storm that whupped New Orleans but left the most 'sinful' parts of town relatively untouched? Why not use the San Francisco earthquake/fire of 1906, the one that burned down all the churches but left the whisky distillery in operation?
Man, these fundies are fucking stupid.
Matt, I think you make a lovely woman; I'll bet you can hardly wait to have the surgery. That being said; I just wanted to remind you that your article forgot to mention bestiality and marrying inanimate objects. I'm sure it was an oversight and will be corrected in your next article. After all we can't forget three parts of the big four ( Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Bestiality, and marrying inanimate objects) Would you like some Teflon spray for that slippery slope?
Could somebody please explain to me, how gay-marriage is a thread to traditional families? I don't think it will have any effect on my kids, if our lesbian neighbors could get married?
I should join CWA - I'm a woman and I'm concerened - probably about the wrong things though ....
"If the 1913 law is repealed and homosexual activists have success with like-minded judges, then we can expect the "gay marriage" levy to break, flooding the countryside with design sense and fabulosity of an unprecedented nature. "
Fixed in a major way.
Explain to me again exactly how same-sex marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage? Seems to me it is only a threat to conservatives' ability to openly hate others.
And yes, the Katrina analogy is inappropriate.
Gawrsh, how DID I ever obtain a divorce? No state I've ever lived in permits gay marriages, and yet, and yet....
To those of us living in countries that have already legalized gay unions of one kind or another, the whole debate in the US seems childish.
As in Canada a couple of years ago, the only objections brought up against gay marriage are religious in nature. Try as they might to disguise their arguments and make them appear to be primarily social or legal, it all boils down to "the Babble says it's a sin so I'm against it".
The babble says its an 'abomination' not a sin. And it says screwing another man is an abomination, not marrying them.
Fundies are an abomination too, but they get to marry each other.
It is the duty of the courts to silence voters when the voters are attempting to deny the rights of minorities.
And let the floodgates burst! Marriage is still marriage in Canada, and in The Netherlands... same sex marriages are not detrimental to opposite sex marriages in any way. They're just detrimental to some people's sensibilities.
The effects of Katrina are evident. As Colin Powell said, it was like a war zone. Ok, can you say the same about this?, can you cynically repeat that two consenting adults who live together and seek certain protection are damaging your marriage?. In that case, why don't you forbid celibacy?, or sterility?, or people marrying over 55?
"Buoyed by their demonstrated ability to silence the voters of Massachusetts, civil rights activists are now pushing to repeal a 1913 law that prevents mixed race couples from coming from other states to "marry" in Massachusetts. The goal is to set the table for mixed race couples to "marry" in Massachusetts and to then return to their home states to file federal lawsuits raising the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution in an attempt to force those states to recognize Massachusetts "mixed race marriages." True to form, liberals plan to once again use activist courts to achieve what they were unable to accomplish through legitimate and democratic means.
If the 1913 law is repealed and civil rights activists have success with like-minded judges, then we can expect the "civil rights" levy to break, flooding the countryside with Hurricane Katrina-like destruction to the marriage and family foundation upon which our society rests. "
Since the 1913 law was passed to prevent niggers from marrying white people, fixed.
Wow, where to begin? First of all, our society does not rest on traditional Christian marriage and "family foundations)," it rests on the exercise of individual political liberty. Peoplecould get married to blow up sex dolls and the only affect it would have on our society is to open up the legal question as to whether or not a latex doll in the passenger seat qualifies you to drive in the car-pool lane.
Secondly, you compare gay marriage to the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina? I'll bet you dollars to raspberry danishes that you weren't in New Orleans when it hit. Huddling in the Superdome waiting for rescue while slowly dieing of thirst does not compare to a gay married couple existing somewhere in the USA.
Hey, I've got an idea; how about ALL marriage stops being government-sanctioned and returns to its oh-so-sacred religious roots. That way churches can decide who marries or not within their respective faith. Of course, you'd complain about that, wouldn't you? Discriminating just isn't the same when you don't have the big bad government on your side.
I don't understand this... why the hell do fundies think that gay marriage is going to ruin the sanctity of marriage and so-called "family values?" Those two things have been "destroyed." thousands of years before the gay issue was a blip in these people's minds.
Yes, the Katrina analogy is just plain wrong and sick. Fundies just loooooovve using natural disasters to further push their sick and twisted agendas down our throats. Hurricane Katrina was a frickin' STORM, ok? Not some ideology.
Weather
Watch out, Concerned Wackos for America! The "gays" going to destroy stable, loving families by creating more stable, loving families!!!111!!!!
@szena
"I love how fundies are casting this as "silencing voters," as if any time a piece of legislation is not brought to a popular vote the people are being deprived of their right to vote."
Never mind that the rules these "evil vote-silencers" are trying to overturn weren't brought to a popular vote, either.
Thousands of years of history, every major world religion and good ole' fashioned common sense dictate that legitimate marriage exists only between a male and female and that it's a sacred and fundamental cornerstone to any healthy society.
And the same was believed of slavery, racism, and misogyny. Should we turn the clock back for those evils, too?
For those of you who think it's hilarious that Matt Barber is writing for "Concerned Women for America," I agree with you. I even spent an entire Fundie Watch blog entry referring to him as "Barbie."
Oh, speaking of Fundie Watch: if someone read my entry and submitted this quote, thanks so much :) I always relish the opportunity to plug my blog!
"Activist judges" again? Last I checked, the "activist" Supreme Court just legalized public funding of religious groups. I don't think they're likely to deny all civil rights to heterosexuals any time soon.
I'm not sure which is worse, the "[liberal] activist judges" canard or the "liberal media" one.
Let me get this straight. You believe that if gay people are allowed to marry god will strike down america with natural disasters? It's not like Hurricane Katrina came into america with a note pinned to it saying "Stop being gay or I'll send annother one. God"
What makes america such a special place in the world? You would think that if your god hated gay people as much as you do he would have done something about it by now.
And thus far, straights are the ever shining beacon of moralness with huge divorce rates, cheating, and abuse....yeah, I can see how gays will destroy marraige as we know it.
What a tripe.
Why is it always men running these kinds of organizations "for women"? I'll take them seriously when a man...well, that would be too long a list. [No offense to all the decent males in the world. =) ]
It's been said here a few times, but I've been wanting an excuse to use a certain non-word: I don't think those writing the law in 1913 had homosecksuals (misspelling intentional) in mind.
I am reminded of a Back In Black segment of the Daily Show where the spokesman for CWA speaks.
Yeah. 'Spokesman.'
Leading our good friend Lewis Black to say, "The spokesperson for Concerned WOMEN for America...is a DUDE?!? I'm sorry, please continue...ma'am."
And here, again, we have a man speaking on behalf of Concerned WOMEN of America, unless 'Matt' is short for 'Matthilda' or something.
I'm not even going to go into the fact that CWA is nothing more than an Astroturf group founded by the wife of the writer of what is quite possibly the second-worst piece of fiction in the universe.
Absolute democracy == mob rule. While liberals, as a general rule, value the democratic process very much, it is considered a truism among progressives in Massachusetts that if the people had been allowed to vote, we'd still have Jim Crow in the South. Based on that logic, therefore, it is a general liberal belief that civil rights should not be subject to popular referendum, because it's easy to lead crowds by their prejudices and the more liberal position loses out every time. It's not that uncommon around here to hear "well, I support gay marriage, but the people should have been allowed to vote", which sounds admirable until you realize that someone is putting principle before common sense.
And it's not even a slippery slope, really -- we've still got things like "informed consent" to protect us from the ravages of legalized pedophilia.
Oh wait. He helped write the Left Behind series, didn't he?
We need our edit function back, please.
OK, it's time to debunk one of the great myths of the Christian Right: that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would compel all states to recognize the marriage laws of one state. Bullshit. The U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the legislative policy of one state must be applied to all others; such a ruling would destroy the rights of the states and obliterate federalism.
The FF&C clause requires states to uphold out-of-state judgments (i.e. for monetary damages, child support, etc.), but it does not mean that when one state passes a law, that all other states must follow suit. In fact, states may not even uphold the judgments of out-of-state courts if the judgment would violate the second state's public policy. This is not even a legal doctrine, it is simply pure common sense.
And while we are on the subject, how exactly have gay rights activists "silenced" Massachusetts voters? I lived in MA for three years, and I actually worked at the Mass. State Senate when the legislature decided not to amend the state constitution to band gay marriage. That's how the democratic process works. You don't like it? Move to Iran.
</rant>
@Nekhbet: Most men are married to their TVs anyway, so why not just legalise it.
In my case it's to my computer, which got me to wonder: do I have to count the keyboard, mouse, screen and other peripherals as independant entities? Would that make me an inadvertant polygamist?
Can someone please explain to me how a judge ruling a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts to be legal in another state based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause is activist ? The very nature of the FF&C Clause makes the DOMA implicitly un-Constitutional .
And what's more, champ, is that using the courts is part of our democracy . Of course, wingnuts like yourself have no respect for the courts or the rule of law, so I can see how you'd have missed that.
-pb
I decided to read the article further and found this gem of deductive reasoning further in:
"And what about incest? A brother and a sister? A father and a daughter? If it's discrimination to prevent same-sex couples from "marrying," then why not couples who just happen to be blood relatives? Once the castle gate of traditional marriage bursts open and that "gay marriage" creature escapes - there's nothing to contain him
anything goes."
This "levee breaks" mentality seems to be popular amongst fundies. "If we allow this to happen, then...anything can happen!" It's remnicent of "Do we want to be up to our necks in owls, or do we want jobs for Americans?" (conserning forest preservation -- can anyone remember who said it?)
And yeah, I agree -- how queer <cough> of them to use Hurricane Katrina as a paradigm here.
Thousands of years of history, every major world religion and good ole' fashioned common sense dictate that legitimate marriage exists only between a male and female and that it's a sacred and fundamental cornerstone to any healthy society.
Except for all those that didn't. For example: Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism... shall I go on?
Yeah, the woman who founded Concerned Women for America is Babs LaHaye. Her job as chief of an organization that advocates traditional roles for women (e.g., homemaker) requires her to spend lots of money maintaining a posh office in Washington, D.C., several thousand miles away from where her husband ministers and slaves away over the next <i>Left Behind</i> book. I know the series has ended, but since when has that stopped any moneygrubbers?
And the whole thing about "defending marriage" is really about punishing nontraditional folk, specifically gays and lesbians, and denying them equal rights until they buckle down and submit to the fundies' authority.
It's all a power game, and one that has begun to gall.
If the 1913 law is repealed and homosexual activists have success with like-minded judges, then we can expect the "gay marriage" levy to break, flooding the countryside with Hurricane Katrina-like destruction to the marriage and family foundation upon which our society rests.
This reminds me of the old Rita Rudner joke: "I asked my husband if he wanted to renew our vows. He got all excited ... he thought they had expired!" No, Matt. Even if Massachusetts marries a million gay couples, I'm pretty sure my wife and I will still be legally (and happily) married! Maybe you'll suddenly be tempted to marry a guy, but I assure you I won't.
True to form, liberals plan to once again use activist courts to achieve what they were unable to accomplish through legitimate and democratic means.
"Activist court" = fundie-speak for "any court that disagrees with ME". If the definition of an "activist judge" is one who votes to override laws duly passed by the legislature elected by "legitimate and democratic means", then the number one "activist judge" on the SCOTUS is arch-conservative Clarence Thomas. Of course fundies only count judges' votes that go against laws THEY like - not the many more that go against "liberal" laws.
"...then we can expect the "gay marriage" levy to break, flooding the countryside with Hurricane Katrina-like destruction to the marriage and family foundation upon which our society rests."
Inflationary language doesn't prove a point; it merely causes idiots who already agree with you to become even more stupid.
Each time a fundie idiot is converted, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens!
How do 2 consenting, loving adults cheapen marriage? Be they 2 men, 2 women, black, white, blue green, or undecided? And how do you reconcile the fact that the sanctity of marriage boat already sailed with Britney's 42 hour marriage and reality TV? Not to mention a 50% divorce rate. Please, do tell.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.