CA Supreme Court to rule on Gay Marriage today (5/15) at 10:00am

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Can't we get a ballot initiative to define religion as a superstitious cult ... just to show them what it's like to have other people stick their nose in their business where it doesn't belong?

Fighting intolerance with intolerance, blech, almost not even funny.

[innerSpaceman]

Sometimes empathy must be forced where it is not naturally felt.

Do you think the fundies have a clue that so many Americans feel their farcical religious doctrines are the danger to the fabric of society? Perhaps if some people tried to make it unconstitutional, they'd understand what it means to mind your own freaking business, whether your moral code agrees with other people's or not.

[Alex]

I just wonder if it would do much to change anybody's minds or just further boost the anti-gay crowd into voting so that they can ensure trouncing this one...and oh since they're in the booth they might as well vote against gay marriage.

They know they are being intolerant. They think it is a correct and proper intolerance. Such a retaliatory measure wouldn't phase them. To them it would be just as silly as if child rapists gathered together and proposed a measure to make consensual sex between adults illegal.

[Pirate Bill]

Does anybody watch 30 Days?

Produced and hosted by Morgan Spurlock, the guy that made Super Size Me. The premise of the show is for someone to live 30 days in someone else's shoes. Either someone with views different from their own or to try something different and controversial.

The last episode was about gay couples adopting. A Mormon woman (with the opinion that gays should not be allowed to adopt) moved in with a family consisting of 2 gay men with 3 adopted boys. The show seems to make an attempt to give equal treatment to both sides of each issue. But in this episode I think both sides were equally not adequately represented. I suppose that makes it fair, but it fell short of what I think it could have been.

They brought up a few pros and cons and talked to people "in the know" of each argument but spent the majority of the time just showing the difficulty that both sides have in discussing the issue.

Anyway, aside from the argument of immorality brought up by those who oppose gay marriage, I think adoption rights is another big issue that certainly comes up should gay partners be granted legal married status.

I feel like I understand and can empathize with both sides of the issue. However I think I still fall on the side of less government regulation. I don't think the government should be in the marriage business, or even the adoption business.

[innerSpaceman]

Hmmm, I wonder if an epsiode could really shoot for a Live-in-Their-Shoes experiment ... have a straight man be gay for 30 days. Watch him try every day for a month to "choose" his sexuality, as all us homos are supposed to be able to do.


And, no, Alex, that's no more a real suggestion for programming as my one about unconstitutional religiousity was an actual proscription for political strategy.


Thanks for pointing out there'd be a backlash if I managed to go out and get the signatures needed to put that on the ballot. Whew, now I won't bother.




* * * * *


On a more serious note, I'm wondering if there will be a significant backlash from the Supreme Court ruling that affects the election. I believe there was quite a backlash in Massachusetts, and it took nearly two years for widespread acceptance of gay marriage to take hold in that state.




We don't have that much time.

[Gemini Cricket]

Pirate Bill ~
I haven't seen the episode, but GLAAD issued a statement about it.

Regrettably, the episode also features a defamatory statement by Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, an anti-gay activist organization, who claims: "Homosexuality is associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse, and those are all reasons for us to be concerned about placing children into that kind of setting." While there is no credible scientific research that backs Sprigg’s claim - and much that disputes it - the episode presents his assertion as if it were fact and offers no credible social science experts or child health authorities to challenge Sprigg’s assertion. Indeed, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, and many other child health and social services authorities who support parenting by qualified lesbian and gay parents dispute Sprigg’s claim.

Source

I think letting his statement stand alone makes it sound like fact. I think a differing opinion from someone else should have been presented also.

I also don't agree with some gay activists who say the FX Network as a whole is anti-gay. Nip/Tuck is tre gay if you ask me.

[Gemini Cricket]

In an e-mail last Sunday morning, I asked my son in California (and indirectly my entire family) to walk out of church on Sunday, June 29, 2008 when their bishop stands up to read a letter from the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (otherwise known as the Mormons). I disagree with the reading of this letter because in it the Mormon prophet has asked all California Mormons to “…do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of [their] means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.”

Source
Religious Disobedience. Yes yes yes and totally yes.
It's a neat editorial. I think it's a valid request. In time, I think his family will agree with him.

[Pirate Bill]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Source

I thought that by asking my family to do this, I was simply asking them to send a strong message to Salt Lake City that they disagree with the idea that any church has a right to entrench clearly religious dogma into the constitution of a state or country.

Unfortunately, that's not really the right way to send a message to Salt Lake City. Nobody in church headquarters is going to know about a family getting up and walking out of church, even if the church is located in the heart of Salt Lake. It will only send a message to the local authorities (the bishop and perhaps the stake president depending on how things escalate).

The appropriate thing for anyone to do, if they feel so inclined, is to talk to the bishop directly about it. Before he reads it in front of the congregation if possible. Or afterward if not. Even speak to the stake president if necessary.

These face to face conversations are going to have to take place anyway, even if they do a walkout. People get up and walk out of the church service all the time for all sorts of reasons, and rarely as a means of protest or "disobedience."

Letters can also be sent directly into Salt Lake, but they get so many letters that there's no way for anyone in the presidency of the church to read all of them and still have time to do anything else. I'm sure though, that if the pre-screeners see an abundance of letters on one particular topic they will communicate it up the chain. Otherwise, any problems or concerns that can be handled locally are deferred locally.

[Gemini Cricket]

I think if enough people did it, it would be a clear message. It's got to start somewhere. My best method for a Mormon to disagree with the LDS church is to not give them money, but seeing as how tithing is required... well... oh well.

I think the LDS church is totally off base on this issue. No one is forcing the Mormon church to have gay weddings. This is about civil marriage, not marriage within a church. The LDS church is trying to scare people into working against marriage equality, I find that pathetic.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Hmmm, I wonder if an epsiode could really shoot for a Live-in-Their-Shoes experiment ... have a straight man be gay for 30 days. Watch him try every day for a month to "choose" his sexuality, as all us homos are supposed to be able to do.

I didn't see it, but I think 30 Days did that on a first season episode. Obviously, the guy didn't go "all the way", so maybe this isn't germane to what you were suggesting.