According to Columnist: "Why CA Gays Shouldn't Celebrate State Court Ruling"

Jim
May 21, 2008 at 2:17 PM
9 comments

Why California gays shouldn't celebrate state court ruling
By DAVID BENKOF
GUEST COLUMNIST

Champagne corks have been popping wherever gays and lesbians gather throughout the Golden State after the California Supreme Court's ruling in In Re Marriage Cases, which opens the way for same-sex couples to legally wed beginning next month. But the gay community shouldn't be celebrating. This decision does next to nothing for California gays and lesbians and causes real harm to people who believe in the "old" definition of marriage. It's nothing to be proud of.....MORE

9 comments

Tags:

This also appears in:

Comments

I don't get how this is imposing any limitation on freedom of speech or the media beyond what is already generally acceptable for all other equality areas. You can still voice your opinions on the subject, you just can't allow your bias to extend to unequal treatment of people in society because you don't consider them married while the state does (just like you couldn't refuse service to someone because of their race or sex just because YOU don't consider them equal to everyone else while the state/country does).

Just because California already provides rights for same-sex domestic partners close to if not equivalent to those of currently married non-same-sex couples doesn't mean this isn't big news. Many other states don't have these advances in domestic partnership laws, but could be influenced by the precedent California is setting to enact some of their own state rulings.

A better reason to avoid celebrating would be the fact that it could be overturned in November if they don't start a vicious campaign to ensure their privilege...

Society has a vested interest in promoting only traditional marriage. Men and women are not interchangeable, and same-sex unions—no matter how devoted and enduring—cannot take the place of a married husband and wife. The essential function of marriage is to unite male and female. That is the only kind of union that can produce new life, and therefore the only kind of union in which society has a survival stake.” —Jeff Jacoby

The comments in question do not reflect the full email conversation. I could say they have been taken out of context, but that would be an understatement

In addition I guess I am lucky here in Washington State the conservative Christians I know, no matter how right wing would never think of using of term "faggot."
Sincerely,
Ed Murray

Dear commenters. Use of derogatory names does not engage a fair debate. Please focus the energy of the content to the subject matter. I welcome all side of views, but let’s keep dialogue free of name calling. I don’t have a moderator ability, and do not want to delete items as that will leave holes in the thread. Thanks for commenting.

[this is good]

I fail to see how I quoted Murray "out of context" when I didn't quote him at all. I simply summarized the things he wrote me. If he disagrees with some or all of the statement, he should write me to clarify and I will try to get the other newspapers that have yet to run this piece to correct it if it is not too late. I am committed to being both fair and accurate. If, for example, Murray thinks nobody should ever be fined for using what they consider to be G-d's definition of marriage, I'd like to know that so I can correct it in future versions of the piece.

Madonna has no evidence I am "ex-gay" other than a headline I did not write in a publication hostile to my ideas. I am not "ex-gay" and never have been. I am an antagonist of the Jewish "ex-gays" who use Christian ideas about sexuality to promote reparative therapy and other fraudulent techniques with Jews.

Just because I think the disease syphilis (mostly contracted through gay sex), the FDA's gay blood ban, and the Florida prohibition of gay adoption are more important LGBT issues than redefining marriage for everyone whether they like it or not does not mean I'm not a gay activist.

[this is good]

All unions should be civil unions, as far as the state is concerned. Leave marriage in the church where each faith can define it however they like, observe whatever rituals they like, etc.

Because of the use of deg. lanq. and personal attacks, several comments to this post have been deleted. Remember - Your point can be made by using tact and better use of words, and thefore not put in such predicament.

According to Columnist: "Why CA Gays Shouldn't Celebrate State Court Ruling"

Comments

Post a comment

Advertisement