Upper class twits/snobs the lot of them.
Posted on 06/19/2005 5:34:10 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
The small but grandiose building at the corner of Eighth and G Streets NW in Washington, tucked directly behind the National Portrait Gallery, holds its own in a city packed with monumental architecture. You step into the lobby and automatically look around for a plaque, figuring that with its dark wood paneling and marble columns, this must be the onetime home of Rutherford B. Hayes or some other historical personage heavy with Victorian-era dignity. As it turns out, the structure, with its architectural signals of tradition and power, was built in 1996 for its tenant: the Family Research Council, the conservative public policy center.
In the gift shop just off the lobby -- where you can buy research-council thermoses and paperweights and the latest titles by Peggy Noonan, Alan Keyes, John Ashcroft and Pat Buchanan -- sits one of Washington's most unusual museum displays. Moms and dads who are planning to take the kids to the nation's capital this summer for an infusion of American history might want to add it to their itinerary, since it carries the lesson up to the present and right into their own living rooms. Beneath a large wall-mounted plaque emblazoned with the group's slogan -- Defending Family, Faith and Freedom -- and flanking a rather ferocious-looking American eagle statue are two large, museum-quality glass cases. The one on the left contains a complete groom's outfit -- tux, tie, fluffy shirt -- and the one on the right holds a bridal gown and all the trimmings, right down to the dried bouquet. Color snapshots of happy wedding parties festoon both display cases, and the back wall of the bridal unit features verses from the book of Genesis...
This shrine to marriage as a heterosexual, Judeo-Christian institution is a totem of conservative Christianity's mighty political wing
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I don't see a problem with this. I like it! I'd like to see allot more of it!!!
This article is appalling
The NYT Magazine and the rest of the (liberal) media continus to refuse to believe that there could be any such person who actual wants to keep marriage for normal families. They spread slander that says anti-gay MARRIAGE (not gay) supporters are actually demon, non tolerant people. It is simply untrue, and stories like these will never cease to amaze me
Yes, they are. God bless all of them for it.
Suppose Keanu and Brad and Tom decided they all wanted to marry each other?
And then adopt their very own little boy toys.
I saw the funniest show last night. Queer Eye and the Redsox. Well I have not had such a good laugh in a long time watching TV. The best was the Johnny Damon remark by one of the queer eye guys, he told Daman he looked like a caveman. Then he dressed him up in a suite and told he "now you look like a caveman at a garden party" LOL they were so funny the Redsox (I hate them) but this was great.
the nyt has 2 kinds of political articles:
1. articles about the democrat plantation, and defining liberal conduct on the plantation.
2. articles warning the democrat plantation about the evil republicans and christians.
this article is #2.
Everyone has to realize that these NY Times articles on social issues are not balanced. They are "faux" balanced: they mention the conservative point of view, and then explain that the professionals (such as the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, etc.) have decided/proven that the conservatives are wrong. This article is, then, talking points for the left, disguised as a "balanced" article. We should all see these things for what they are...
Upper class twits/snobs the lot of them.
here is the last bit of the article.....
What's Their Real Problem With Gay Marriage? (It's the Gay Part)
E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Published: June 19, 2005
(Page 11 of 11)
If you are one of the many millions of people who are vaguely opposed to gay marriage -- who perhaps have no problem with homosexuality but also think marriage is simply a uniquely male-female enterprise -- sitting in Polyak and Deane's living room might put that notion to the test. Watching their kids play, listening to stories of how, for their family, small things like taking a child to the pediatrician can become huge headaches, you might come around to thinking that this is, after all, a matter of giving a particular minority certain basic rights and along with them legitimacy and stability.
Skip to next paragraph
Complete Coverage: The Law and Same-Sex Marriage (from findlaw.com)
Forum: Gay Rights
But, of course, the Christian activists aren't vague in their opposition. For them, the issue isn't one of civil rights, because the term implies something inherent in the individual -- being black, say, or a woman -- and they deny that homosexuality is inherent. It can't be, because that would mean God had created some people who are damned from birth, morally blackened. This really is the inescapable root of the whole issue, the key to understanding those working against gay marriage as well as the engine driving their vehicle in the larger culture war: the commitment, on the part of a growing number of people, to a variety of religious belief that is so thoroughgoing it permeates every facet of life and thought, that rejects the secular, pluralistic grounding of society and that answers all questions internally.
The speakers at the rally in Annapolis made it plain they were committed to squelching not just gay marriage but civil unions and the extension of specific rights to same-sex couples. A few weeks later, however, when the State Legislature ended its session, it included some modest victories for the gay rights forces. A bill passed allowing unmarried partners -- gay or straight -- to make medical decisions for one another in the event of an emergency. So did another that would add sexual orientation to a list of punishable ''hate crimes.'' And the central goal of the conservative activists, a state constitutional amendment, was tabled for the year.
When I talked with Laura Clark afterward, she was undeterred. ''The purpose of the hate-crime legislation seems to be just to silence those of us who oppose homosexuality,'' she said. As to the medical-decision-making bill, she added, ''We know it's a back-door way for the homosexual activists to get gay marriage.'' She said that she was taking part in petition drives that would force referendums on both issues. ''I'm collecting signatures from everyone I know,'' she said.
A few days later, the Republican governor, Bob Ehrlich, vetoed the medical-decision-making bill on the grounds that it created a new term -- ''life partner'' -- that ''could lead to the erosion of the sanctity of traditional marriage.'' But some members of the Legislature said they had enough votes to override his veto in the future, and the governor declined to veto the hate-crime bill, so the conservatives' petition drives are going forward.
When I last spoke with Lisa Polyak, she said she was pleased that the Legislature had shown courage in addressing the civil rights of gay couples but sickened that conservative activists and the state's governor wanted to deny them those rights. Oddly enough, though, Polyak, who once thought of this whole issue as essentially about civil rights, says that she is now in it for something more profound: she doesn't want her children to grow up with a stigma. ''I want to lift the psychic burden on my family,'' she said.
That means changing hearts. How difficult that will be was illustrated by a single vignette. When I met Polyak, she told me how, when she first testified before a legislative committee, an anti-gay-marriage activist, a woman, confronted her with bitter language, asking her why she was ''doing this'' to the woman's children and grandchildren. Polyak said the encounter left her shaken. A few days later, as I sat in Evalena Gray's Christmas-lighted basement office, she told me a story of how during the same testimony she approached a blond lesbian and talked to her about the effect that gay marriage would have on her grandchildren. ''Then I hugged her neck,'' she said, ''and I said, 'We love you.' I was kind of consoling her to some extent, out of compassion.''
I realized I was hearing about the same encounter from both sides. What was expressed as love was received as something close to hate. That's a hard gap to bridge.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/magazine/19ANTIGAY.html?pagewanted=11
Just imagine the totem pole that the liberal's pathetic political wing will erect for a shrine to flameboy marriage.
All the aspects of marriage that are of concern to government could be handled very well by business partnership law.
There is no reason for a seperate legal institution of marriage and divorce.
Before you ask, children are simply a contingent liability, nothing new, custody is just allocation of assets at the disolution of a partnership.
That leaves the religious aspect of marriage solely up to the church of your choice, or to none.
So9
Don't ever be ashamed to say that you are not tolerant.
Homosexuals can't breed. They're unnatural. It's just another perverted sex fetish, like a man screwing his pet dog.
This has nothing to do with marriage.
or his neighbor's pet dog.
And if the dog stands still, it's "consensual."
At least the dog was female. He's got one up on the homosexuals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.