France Comes Together For Marriage Equality

The French know how to make their opinion heard and they are not timid when it comes to turning out on the street in numbers. Their lawmakers are currently debating the marriage equality issue.

(My mom wants to adopt me. What bothers you about that?)

more photos here

What Makes Gay Soldiers Different?

What Gay Agenda? (TED Talk)

Watch out America. The Gay Agenda is apparently more dangerous than terrorism! Watch and find out why. 

Let's get real about using the bible to define marriage!

Note: This article from Robert Stalling's blog Out in the Wild

Moby Dick, the Great Green Whale and Biblical Definitions of Marriage Posted: 08 Aug 2012 03:31 PM PDT If I were to claim that Moby Dick is God, many people might disagree and say I am wrong, but nobody could definitively prove otherwise. But if I were to claim that the great white whale in Herman Melville’s classic book is depicted as being green and others disagree, they could easily prove me wrong by picking up the book and pointing out the passages in which Melville clearly describes the great white whale as being white. If I were an influential, well-known person, the press might likely report it something like this: “Although Dave Stalling continues to insist that the great white whale Moby Dick is depicted as being green, several thorough readings of the book find no evidence to back his claims. To the contrary, there are numerous passages in which writer Herman Melville describes the great white whale as being white as well as great.  According to Yale Literary Professor Elijah Ishmael, widely considered the world’s expert scholar and authority of Melville’s work, the great white whale is indeed depicted as white. “As ludicrous as it may be, Mr. Stalling is well within his rights to believe Moby Dick is God,” Ishmael says. “But to persist with his false notions that Melville depicted the great white sperm whale in his story as being green is absolutely absurd and easily refuted. Stalling should actually read the book he ignorantly professes to understand before perpetuating lies and ridiculous misinterpretations.” I’m sure I would be justifiable scoffed at, but at least such lies and misinterpretations would not harm others, or inspire hundreds of thousands of Americans to flock to a fast food restaurant to support the denial of equal rights to a large segment of American citizens. Yet every day, I read reports of people such as Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Robert Jeffress, Dan Cathy, Bryan Fisher, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and dozens of other influential, well-known people claiming that God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman, that the bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and that they support and defend the biblical definition of marriage. Hundreds of thousands of American share these beliefs – beliefs that often ignite bigotry, hate, violence, and the desire to deny equal rights to many Americans.  And when others disagree, the media reports it simply as a difference in opinion, a “cultural war,” a matter of a religious faith vs. other beliefs where neither side can be definitively proven right or wrong. But what about the facts? Although many Americans continue to insist that the bible depicts marriage as being between one man and one woman, several thorough readings of the book find no evidence to back these claims. To the contrary, there are numerous passages that define marriage in ways that include polygamy, incest, rape, slavery and even calls for the stoning to death of women who fail to prove their virginity before marriage.  As ludicrous as it may be, people are well within their rights to believe God opposes same sex marriage. But to persist with false notions that the bible depicts marriage as being between one man and one woman is absolutely absurd and easily refuted. People making such claims should actually read the book they ignorantly profess to understand before perpetuating lies and ridiculous misinterpretations. Here are the undeniable, irrefutable, easily demonstrated facts of what the bible says about marriage: Marriage consists of one man and one or more than one woman (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3); Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines or sexual slaves in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron 3:9, 2 Chron 11:21, Dan 5:2-3); A man might choose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen 6:2, Deut 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man’s wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or a relative (Lev 18:11, 20:17, Lev 20:14, Lev 18:18). The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is not in the Bible. If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned to death (Deut 22:13-21); A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29), unless she was already a fiancé, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27); If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen 38:6-10, Deut 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28); Women must marry the man of their father’s choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron 2:35, Jer 29:6, Dan 11:17); Women are the property of their fathers until married and the property of their husbands thereafter (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25); The value of a woman might be approximately seven years’ work (Gen 29:14-30); Inter-faith marriages are prohibited (Gen 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh 10:30, 2 Cor 6:14); Divorce is forbidden (Deut 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor 7:10-11, 7:39); It is better to not get married at all—although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38). People who claim the biblical definition of marriage is between one man and one woman can easily and clearly be proven wrong – and yet such dangerous lies (which fuel ignorance, hate, bigotry and violence against others) are commonly and continually passed on as faith, as a simple difference in opinion. Why do they get away with it? Where’s the accountability?

Legalize Love

Prop 8; The film

The proceedings were blocked from public view, but the transcript was turned into a dramatic re-creation of the proceedings. Important viewing to understand the drivers behind the issue.

Resist being considered a second class citizen!

Watch this touching video of same sex couples asking to be granted a marriage licence in Asheville, NC. In this country, no one should be denied basic human rights and protections under the law. There should be no compromise on this. Ever!

Hope and Hesitation in Obama's Conversion (Robert Scheer/Truthdig)

By Robert Scheer

Once again President Barack Obama has come tantalizingly close to being terrific. But his failure of courage on the gay marriage issue, in the end, undermined the point he hoped to make Wednesday. As with his prior rhetorical flashes of principle in denouncing torture, commiserating with the victims of Wall Street fraud and resolving to end unjustifiable wars, he quickly waffled and the result was a continuation of that which is fundamentally wrong.

There is only one essential point to be made about gay marriage: To acknowledge one’s own sexual being and to define the relationships that follow is a basic human right. How dare anyone intrude on a life choice that is not his to make for others? Whether the president’s family knows gay couples who are monogamous and nice to their children has no more to do with the issue than the old argument of enlightened racists in the American South that there were many fine Negroes who were not at all uppity.

Uppity as in the case of gays who were not satisfied with Obama’s prior endorsement of civil unions: “I had hesitated on gay marriages in part because I thought that civil unions would be sufficient.” As in knowing your place and being content with the bone you are tossed rather than demanding the full meal you’re entitled to.

There is enormous condescension in Obama’s assertion that “I’ve always been adamant that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally.” He had not been adamant enough to push for an amendment to the Civil Rights Act to end discrimination based on sexual orientation. Nor did he issue an executive order banning government agencies from contracting with businesses guilty of such discrimination.

Surely one could not have always been in favor of fairness and equality and yet succumbed to pressure from those who claimed that allowing gays to marry was somehow ungodly. “I was sensitive to the fact that for a lot of people, the word ‘marriage’ was something that invokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs,” Obama told us, as if sensitivity is admirable when the bigots hide behind cultural norms.

Advertisement

So too did the word “slavery” invoke powerful religious beliefs for the American slaveholders who frequently cited Scripture as endorsing their degenerate oppression of others. The deciphering of divine intention that is so common among today’s anti-gay fanatics is exemplified by a statement made Tuesday by Tami Fitzgerald, the chairwoman of the successful North Carolina campaign to ban gay marriage under that state’s constitution: “...  you don’t rewrite the nature of God’s design for marriage.” 

No, what you don’t do is selectively cite Scripture to justify denying basic freedoms to your fellow citizens. That’s precisely why our federal Constitution bans the governmental establishment of any religion.

Failure to insist on an inviolable freedom for all Americans is the key weakness in the position that Obama stated in his carefully scripted interview with ABC News on Wednesday. He not only didn’t embrace a federal guarantee of the human rights of homosexuals, he endorsed the notion that the matter is one to be decided by the states, such as North Carolina, where the Democrats will hold their national convention in September. Since the voters of that state have now decided to deny gay people their rights, it would seem logical for the Democrats to refuse to hold their convention in such a retrograde environment. Perhaps if Obama’s opinion had evolved just a few days earlier he might have successfully made an argument to North Carolinians before they voted in the Tuesday referendum that produced a constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions.

The host state of the 2012 Democratic National Convention boasts of being on the cutting edge of scientific innovation, but it is mired in the swamp of primitive religious dogma. Let’s never forget that invocations of “God’s design” have historically been an invitation to religious pogroms and genocide. Only this time, as Obama’s sudden conversion suggests, the forces of intolerance just might be in decline.

The good news is that young voters have returned to the sanity of the nation’s Founders and are unwelcoming of the government’s imposing its will on their pursuit of happiness. Surely Obama was mindful that the gay marriage issue is trending sharply in that direction, and certainly his response is a reason for optimism among those fighting against second-class citizenship for gays.

A prediction that Obama’s shift will lead to deep and lasting change for the nation was offered by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an equally skilled political trend spotter: “No American president has ever supported a major expansion of civil rights that has not ultimately been adopted by the American people, and I have no doubt that this will be no exception.” From the mayor’s lips to God’s ears.