The use of the phrase "constitutionally protect one-man, one-woman marriage" regarding heterosexual marriage is strange. Rarely do you hear that those opposed to same gender marriage are flat out against it as a matter of principle. That point of view would seem to have some legs, albeit arbitrary legs rooted in tradition – which by its nature is not absolute (just observe the very existence of mixed marriages) – but could at least merit a consistent set of assertions.
Said Gary Glenn of American Family Association of Michigan: “California voted overwhelmingly Democratic and at the same time voted to constitutionally protect one-man, one-woman marriage, with minority voters overwhelmingly supporting the Marriage Protection Amendment. In Hamtramck, Michigan, a Detroit suburb, residents voted nearly 90 percent for Barak Obama, while rejecting a so-called “gay rights” ordinance by a 10-point margin.
“As the Republican Party’s braintrust starts casting about for issues consistent with their party’s values that appeal to minorities and Democrats, perhaps they’ll choose to embrace — rather than keep running away from — the issue of stopping the threat that the homosexual activists’ political agenda poses to marriage, traditional family values and religious freedom,” Glenn said.
The American Family Association has an unabashedly fundamentalist religious agenda which can be discerned easily from visiting their home site and associated materials. But if we pull out the religious rhetoric to define the issue constitutionally, what is left that would actually pose a "threat" to heterosexual marriage?
The question is this: What are we actually threatening if people of the same gender are to be married? How would people of the same gender who decide to marry and have their union legally recognized in those terms actually damage heterosexual marriages? How would this have any palpable effect on heterosexual marriage at all?
Related posts:
I have been asking for years, literally years, for one person to give an example, any example of a single married heterosexual couple who had gotten divorced simply because my husband and I got married 7 years ago.
Still waiting.
But "protect marriage" as a phrase means, I guess, that those folks are just fine with loveless heterosexual marriages, Britney Spears' 55 hour Las Vegas marriage, arranged marriages, third marriages, Russian brides, or marriages between abusive alcoholic codependents locked in a cycle of violence and despair. But two guys? That's just wrong.
If people actually wanted to do something to "protect marriage" they'd do something to stop or reduce the one single thing that most threatens marriage: divorce.
BTW, Gary Glenn is the guy who worked to get the anti-gay marriage amendment passed here in Michigan. Throughout the campaign he claimed over and over that passage of the amendment would in no way affect domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples. Then basically the day after it was passed, they filed lawsuits to ban domestic partnership benefits, which the MI Supreme Court went along with. He's a liar and a fraud.
"Gary Glenn is the guy who worked to get the anti-gay marriage amendment passed here in Michigan. Throughout the campaign he claimed over and over that passage of the amendment would in no way affect domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples. Then basically the day after it was passed, they filed lawsuits to ban domestic partnership benefits, which the MI Supreme Court went along with. He's a liar and a fraud."
If this is true, Alan, you should have no trouble identifying even one citizen of Michigan who has lost his or her benefits. We'll wait patiently.
"If this is true…."
You're actually claiming the case didn't happen? Wow. Good luck with that, Mr/Ms "Factcheck"
http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2008...
"you should have no trouble identifying even one citizen of Michigan who has lost his or her benefits. We'll wait patiently."
I lost my domestic partnership benefits, as did everyone else in the state of Michigan, after being told repeatedly that the anti-gay marriage amendment would do no such thing.
Want some fact checking on that statement? See this blog post where I offer numerous quotes and citations:
http://homepage.mac.com/akiste/iblog/C207694355...
Now Mr/Ms Factchecker is playing a little interesting game of rhetorical bait and switch. Notice the question he/she poses is not "point out someone who lost his or her domestic partnership benefits", but rather "point out someone who lost his or her benefits."
In fact, everyone who previously had domestic partnership benefits, who worked for the state, had them taken away. Period. Fortunately most employers have found creative ways around the law, and have since started offering benefits in other ways, however none of them now offer domestic partnership benefits. Because of this mess, I lost my benefits for about 3 months, but I do, fortunately, have them again, though they are not in any way domestic partnership benefits. So yes, I did indeed lose my benefits, and had to pay for my own health care out of pocket.
So there's one.
Point of rhetoric lest we dissolve into a red herring. Alan wrote: "they filed lawsuits to ban domestic partnership benefits" which I take to mean that said lawsuits are under litigation. The outcome is not the issue, but the action taken by Glenn. As someone who is not familiar with the MI statutes, are you in disagreement about Glenn's action to which Alan refers? Did he NOT do this? If he did, then it is a troubling pattern of bait and switch politics in my judgment regardless of the outcomes that may result.
Looks like we were responding at the same time then
The lawsuits are over and the MI Supreme Court ruled that, based on the amendment, state employers cannot offer domestic partnership benefits.
Hmm… Wonder if someone is doing a little self-googling here?
Tag! LOL
I have been asking for years, literally years, for one person to give an example, any example of a single married heterosexual couple who had gotten divorced simply because my husband and I got married 7 years ago.
Still waiting.
But "protect marriage" as a phrase means, I guess, that those folks are just fine with loveless heterosexual marriages, Britney Spears' 55 hour Las Vegas marriage, arranged marriages, third marriages, Russian brides, or marriages between abusive alcoholic codependents locked in a cycle of violence and despair. But two guys? That's just wrong.
If people actually wanted to do something to "protect marriage" they'd do something to stop or reduce the one single thing that most threatens marriage: divorce.
BTW, Gary Glenn is the guy who worked to get the anti-gay marriage amendment passed here in Michigan. Throughout the campaign he claimed over and over that passage of the amendment would in no way affect domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples. Then basically the day after it was passed, they filed lawsuits to ban domestic partnership benefits, which the MI Supreme Court went along with. He's a liar and a fraud.
"Gary Glenn is the guy who worked to get the anti-gay marriage amendment passed here in Michigan. Throughout the campaign he claimed over and over that passage of the amendment would in no way affect domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples. Then basically the day after it was passed, they filed lawsuits to ban domestic partnership benefits, which the MI Supreme Court went along with. He's a liar and a fraud."
If this is true, Alan, you should have no trouble identifying even one citizen of Michigan who has lost his or her benefits. We'll wait patiently.
"If this is true…."
You're actually claiming the case didn't happen? Wow. Good luck with that, Mr/Ms "Factcheck"
http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2008...
"you should have no trouble identifying even one citizen of Michigan who has lost his or her benefits. We'll wait patiently."
I lost my domestic partnership benefits, as did everyone else in the state of Michigan, after being told repeatedly that the anti-gay marriage amendment would do no such thing.
Want some fact checking on that statement? See this blog post where I offer numerous quotes and citations:
http://homepage.mac.com/akiste/iblog/C207694355...
Now Mr/Ms Factchecker is playing a little interesting game of rhetorical bait and switch. Notice the question he/she poses is not "point out someone who lost his or her domestic partnership benefits", but rather "point out someone who lost his or her benefits."
In fact, everyone who previously had domestic partnership benefits, who worked for the state, had them taken away. Period. Fortunately most employers have found creative ways around the law, and have since started offering benefits in other ways, however none of them now offer domestic partnership benefits. Because of this mess, I lost my benefits for about 3 months, but I do, fortunately, have them again, though they are not in any way domestic partnership benefits. So yes, I did indeed lose my benefits, and had to pay for my own health care out of pocket.
So there's one.
Point of rhetoric lest we dissolve into a red herring. Alan wrote: "they filed lawsuits to ban domestic partnership benefits" which I take to mean that said lawsuits are under litigation. The outcome is not the issue, but the action taken by Glenn. As someone who is not familiar with the MI statutes, are you in disagreement about Glenn's action to which Alan refers? Did he NOT do this? If he did, then it is a troubling pattern of bait and switch politics in my judgment regardless of the outcomes that may result.
Looks like we were responding at the same time then
The lawsuits are over and the MI Supreme Court ruled that, based on the amendment, state employers cannot offer domestic partnership benefits.
Hmm… Wonder if someone is doing a little self-googling here?
Tag! LOL