MEMO TO MSM: Rush & Elton John Agree on Same-Sex Marriage
by Steven Crowder“What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage… I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership… You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.” – Elton John
Sir Elton John and his Civil Partner David Furnish
Ain’t that a kick in the pants? As it would seem, Elton John and Rush Limbaugh share the exact same opinion in regards to gay marriage. Coincidentally, so do a majority of Americans. So does this mean that everyday Americans, politicians (both Republican and Democrat), Rush Limbaugh and –gulp– Elton John all hate… the gays?
At least that’s how mainstream media would try and spin it. Most leftists in the press have simply tried to bury those less than “typically gay” quotes. Why? Well, when Elton John speaks the truth, it disrupts the sensationalized narrative that the media and Hollywood have been setting for years; If you don’t support gay marriage, you must secretly despise gay people.
It’s Hate Vs. Gay. Period.
Clearly there are some people even in the gay community tired of the blatant pandering and simple-mindedness. Elton John most likely understands that 57% (those who support same-sex civil unions) of Americans don’t revile his tiny-dancing self. Sure they may recommend some serious orthodonture, but that really only comes from a place of love. The fact is that Americans continue to purchase his albums and support him as an artist, yet still uphold a traditional view of marriage.
See how that works?
Now, the Rocket Man’s opinion could be based on a multitude of reasons, be it cultural, political or ethical. Either way, it shouldn’t matter. People should be entitled to express their personal viewpoint without being called a “whore,” as Mike Musto so eloquently put it last night on Olbermann.
Let’s just boil down the Rush Limbaugh/Elton John controversy for a second:
Rush Limbaugh: ANTI gay marriage and PRO civil union.
Elton John: ANTI gay marriage and PRO civil union.
Here we have two incredibly different people with two wildly different worldviews actually agreeing on something! How can that be construed as anything other than a thing of beauty? Where’s the “We Are the World” choir?
The truth is that the gossip-hounds in Tinseltown and the cackling hags at “The View” don’t want civility. They want catty gossip and sensational headlines that provide them with an opportunity to hop on the bully pulpit. When it comes to the liberal agenda, it’s more important to pigeonhole people than it is to speak the truth.
Poor Elton… Why couldn’t he just learn his role? He shouldn’t be reaching across the aisle, making friends with those of a different stripe or articulating his personal worldviews. He’s just our gay little song-monkey. At the end of the day, Elton, isn’t that enough?
Apart from that, wouldn’t you rather perform at Sean Penn’s wedding? I hear he’s got a few left in him.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
481 Comments
Since I believe in equal treatment under the law, whatever legal priviliges hetero couples get should be extended to homosexual couples.
The difference lies in how we define the relationships. I can put a saddle and a bridle on a cow and ride it like a horse or use it to pull wagons like a horse, but that won't make the cow itself a horse. Similarly, a same-sex couple can havea relationship that serves many of the functions of a marriage, but that doesn't make the relationship a marriage as the word is tradictionally defined. At its root, a hetero-couple and a homosexual couple are still fundamentally different in their make-ups and deserve to be defined by different terms.
And Rush has essentially the same opinion as Obama and Hillary.
You know… people expect to shame others into compliance with the accepted views, and obviously that's what attacking Elton John is all about. But that only works so far. At some point all of ones most probable allies get fed up with it and refuse to be shamed.
It's amusing to me that so many websites, bloggers and columnists are completely beside themselves that Sir Elton would perform for *gasp* Rush Limbaugh!
Get over yourselves folks. Rush is not the devil.
This is one of the many recent indicators that the left is unravelling.
it is a simple matter, really…
The confluence of opinions across the board here agree- civil unions pass the test. This takes the moral issue out, and gives committed gays the same legal benefits that heterosexual couples receive. This seems fair, and we, too are in agreement.
It also keeps certain forces- committed to the destruction of the nuclear family- from re-defining the millenia old construct of marriage. The DOMA- or definition of marriage act- is a smart piece of legislation that even liberal lawmakers have embraced. This, too strikes us as a fair acquittal.
So it isn't really all that strange that bright fellows such as Mr Limbaugh and Mr (Reggie Dwight?) John should agree on this after all…
I strongly support traditional marriage……….and love Elton as a performer. The MSM needs to get over themselves. I think Rush and Elton's similar view on this item is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the entertainment industry. The lefties in the media better get use to it, I think there will be more of these "out of the closet" agreements as other big names like Elton take a stand.
[...] here to read the rest: MEMO TO MSM: Rush & Elton John Agree on Same-Sex Marriage This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Apart from that, wouldn’t you rather perform at Sean Penn’s wedding? I hear he’s got a few left in him.
Sean Penn has a few gay little song-monkeys left in him? That explains a lot of things, actually.
Thumbs up to Elton for doing his own thinking instead of letting the left's agenda run him. The pressure from his peers in the entertainment field and the gay community has got to be intense.
Look at Penn Jillette. LIsten to what he says here. http://www.breitbart.tv/penn-jillette-gets-grief-...
It's so much the same. How dare someone lend legitimacy to an opponent by speaking to them? And isn't a performance the same thing as an endorsement?
Of course it's not.
No one should suppose that Elton John and Rush Limbaugh have some sort of agreement of opinions and no one should assume that they *ought* to have agreement or common cause. It's stupid.
It's just as stupid as supposing that authors and movie makers should find a way to keep the wrong sort of people from reading their books or watching their movies. So Sir Elton's agent gives him a ring and says, Hey, got a taker for a private gig… Rush Limbaugh is getting married. And Elton goes "Cool beans, ought to be fun," and since Rush wanted him he knows there is no hostility *that* direction, right? And he's a professional, a performer.
And now people are trying to shame him and force him to conform to what they think is seemly.
Sometimes people fold. Sometimes the mob forces an apology on threat of expulsion from the group.
But sometimes it backfires and it doesn't take much, it really doesn't, before there is push back, before more and more people say, you know, I don't *need* your approval, think what you like.
Calling it marriage is what puts everybody off. They should make up their own word for it- Gayraige? If you want to be legally responsible for someone and look out for their best interests there should be some legal contract they can enter to accommodate them.
See now… Rush knows Elton is gay, certainly knows very well that he's in a public domestic relationship, and Rush doesn't hate him. Rush isn't afraid of gay cooties.
Does anyone think that Rush would have had Babs sing at his wedding?
.
Huh. Marriage is a sacrament instituted by religious institutions. It's a wonder so many secular folks– regardless of sexual orientation– wish to have the State sanction a religious ceremony.
Mexicans figured it out long ago, they having a pretty good case for separation of church and state. A civil union is the only State-recognized contract. A marriage is optional and performed in one's chosen church.
It's as senseless as if the gays were wanting the State to recognize a baptism or a bar mitzvah.
We need a completely different tack in order to counter the victim-mongering of political power brokers.
How dare you attempt to bring facts into a perfectly good rant
LA LA LA LA LA
I can't hear you!
LA LA LALALALALALA
I goes against the narative and i refuse to believe it!
LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA
Sting performs for the daughter of the Dictator oops, sorry – President of Uzbekistan, nobody cares.
Beyonce performs for Muatsim-Billah Gaddafi, a rich guy whose family supports terrorists, no biggie.
Elton performs for Rush Limbaugh – Shame on you Elton! Rush is the devil! He kills gay people for sport!
; )
To be fair, Beyonce got ripped for that. I remember saying that I thought she shouldn't have.
Joan, that is exactly right. It's the simplest way to end the constant bickering. It takes care of all concerns all around and more specifically it is the most Constitutional way to deal with the issue – the Federal gov't has no business in marriage. And why should the State be involved in a religious institution. Everyone can get a "civil union" but then you can get "married" in a church of your choice. It protects churches and equality.
I'm sorry, Steven, but I just can't get past the unintentional hilarity of you writing 'gulp Elton John'. Yes, I'm 7 years old.
Great points!
They're so invested in their hatred of people who think differently than they do that rationality never enters into the equation. It's us against them and the fact that Rush's position is no different than Elton's or Obama's or Clinton's doesn't matter because they hate us and they're trying to keep their team together. Gays are their pets. So are minorities. So anything that appears to bridge the divide between us and their pets triggers an immediate wave of hostility. They only see people as groups not individuals, so the idea that Elton John has a right to his own thoughts, conscience and choices is something beyond their ability to grasp.
I have so much more respect for Elton John for just doing what he wants and not being a slave to the Leftie meme. It shows he has brains and brains are few and far between on the Left.
And I remember that he had that view of gay marriage and I did not know that was Rush's view as well.
It seems to be the view of most Americans and so we "most Americans" should stand up and make that proposa and end this stupid bickering. I really don't want to be having this debate for another 20 years. We have more important things to worry about like our economy and our national security.
People have recognized non-religious marriages as marriages for years. I don't see the harm in allowing same-sex couples to enjoy the same — unless they want to force churches to marry them. Under those circumstances, all bets would be off.
Well said. The leftists SAY they want peace and love and respect for all and Kumbaya-goodness between folks of different ideologies or races or sexual orientation… until it actually happens. Then they wildly freak out.
Hey Steve – good article. Interesting. Most of us have liked some of Elton's music at some time in our lives.
I wonder what Geddy Lee think about same-sex marriage?
In order to destroy marriage they must have their deplorable acts associated with the word. They will not accept another name for it.
There can be no accord with these people under any pretext.
The very make up of society depends upon keeping these evil people at bay.
Once again, gay marriage is nothing but a red herring.
"Traditional" marriage as it is practiced now, or "Marriage 2.0" (look it up) is an easy way for a man to lose everything he owns to a woman who simply grows bored with him. And when he loses his job, he goes to jail because the alimony and so-called "child support" (really "wife support") stops coming. Modern marriage in a nutshell: paying for the privilege of being rejected and never seeing your kids again. It's not no-fault I have a problem with; it's the unfair treatment of good men.
For the record, I've never been married. All of you need to stop this unrealistic view of the institution; the politicians can't reform it to be fairer to men because they'll lose the female vote.
I have no respect for Elton John since he dresses male strippers in Cub Scout uniforms in his act and he has said Christ was a homosexual. However, if Rush wants to pay the little wanker to perform at his wedding, it's his money and his business.
Civil partnerships…Sir Elton? In Connecticut, where we have marriage equality, I officiate as a justice of the peace at (civil) marriages for both same-sex and opposite couples.
Onward to equality and fairness,
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, Connecticut, USA
Kudos to CT and most of New England, and many EU countries for supporting marriage equality,
I think some with the gay militant agenda want to co-opt the word "marriage," like they did the word "gay."
there's more to it than that…
The Progressive movement is moribund as long as you have an armed, educated property owning middle class. So, amongst the attacks on this institution is destroying 'marriage' as a societal construct, and replacing it with 'families'. Gay marriage- and adoption- are lynchpins of this movement…
All I will say here about gay marriage is this: I believe in traditional marriage. I also believe that gay people should have the same civil rights as straight people. When someone convinces me that getting married is a civil right, then I will support gay marriage. The End.
and did the people in your state vote this in, or was this imposed by executive fiat in the dead of night?
'Marriage equality' is an absolutely meaningless phrase and is emblematic of what is wrong with the judiciary.
It is the people who make the laws, not unelected bureaucrats and judicial activists such as yourself.
Onward to freeing the US citizenry from onerous, pompous asses such as yourself…
"And Rush has essentially the same opinion as Obama and Hillary."
I wonder what the left's response would be (especially re Obama) if Rush was willing to make that defense.
I just hope our grandchildren don't hang their heads in shame when they look back on Sean Penn.
it is not, nor shall it ever be a 'civil right'. It is a privilege granted by the state to committed heterosexual couples. And so it should be…
I've always favored civil unions for gays as it grants the rights for unity without complications over the definition and morality of traditional marriage itself.
Sir Elton always made his position clear that he wasn't for marriage but for civil union, but it never made huge press. But since lefties make it more and more clear that they don't actually watch or listen to the people they hate so much, they just assumed right off the bat that Rush was a homophobic-fundie-Nazi-bigot…or something. And Elton always said he could break down barriers and build bridges if he found at leasat one thing in common.
All boils down to this: 'The View' hags are below swine. Celeb gossip bloggers need a life. Elton and Rush are epic. Elton refused to toe their line and threw them off completely.
Sure enough dcase! The Progressives have a very radical, dangerous, & an anti-American family unit agenda. Words have meanings, and are used by these progressives/statists in a very effective manner. They've been getting away with it far too long, but we're on to them, I think….I hope!!
That's what I don't get about this whole discussion. Forget about whether you consider homosexuality an equally acceptable behavior to heterosexuality (I personally don't), but since when was not being able to marry someone of your own sex a violation of your civil rights? What do these people think a right is, anyway? Confusing.
Okay, I realize this post just invalidated my "The End" comment above, but whatever.
Blech! This idiotic idea of civil "marriage" is complete crap.
And Crowder is an f'ing chowder head. Hey chowder-head crowder, why is Detroit in the current state it is in? Hey I know, why not make a stupid video and blame everything but the blacks.
Crap you people are brain dead. gay marriage indeed.
Indeed, I can't figure out what irritates me more about that comment of his, the "same-sex and opposite couples" phrase, which seems to me to be a slight to straight people; his asinine closing and signature; or the fact that he made that the middle rather than the end of his comment, following it up with a smug shout-out to Europe and the Europe-lite Northeast. Apparently the Honorable Justice Mustich has his head shoved so far up his hindquarters he forgot the proper structure of a communication.
oh, no need to hope- we are most assuredly 'on to them'…
And they KNOW it. That's why the panic to ram through whatever nonsense they can. And the social issues are equally important to them. It's a zero sum affair, and the clock is ticking. Possession of this particular football may change drastically.
For them…
Any chance it was publicity and the $1M?
This whole left-right meme kills me. Hey guess what? There is no left right there is simply the masters and the subjects….you are a subject….everything else is a diversion…
HAHAHAHA!
Drink your kool-aide, get your flu shot, die.
Ya, like a firehose at a bonfire – huh? DAMN FACTS!
If I were rich, having a party and could hire Rush (the band) to perform – I wouldn't care.
for Mohamed's sake's
Like with the cigar…sometimes a singer is just a singer.
and yes…the hags in 'The View" all suffer bad breath…
I see the Hitler Youth meeting let out early today……………….Take it somewhere else boy!
Why is it so astounding that a prominent conservative would have a friend who does not agree with him on all issues?
The bigger story here is not that Rush and Elton John agree with each other regarding gay marriage. The underlying issue is that the so-called "open and tolerant" left cannot fathom having friends with differing worldviews.
I am glad that Elton John played at Rush's wedding and I am glad that they are friends. Politics should not be put ahead of friendship.
Well, youre not so bad… unfortunately this is a red herring. If Anti Gay Marriage folks were so pro-civil union, why is it that the same groups (focus on the family, catholic church, right wing republicans, mormon church) were against Everything But Marriage in Seattle?
The truth is, only a few anti-gay marriage proponents would even give equal rights to gay couples, even if it is under a different name.
Straight couples have marriage and civil unions. If gays can have marriage and civil unions too, then that would make Elton happy since all he wants is civil unions. Oh wait, the civil union in Britain IS marriage in all but name (legally). If Elton knew that some civil unions here dont even give visitation rights (unlike his civil union) he might change his mind.
As long as religious institutions are not forced to perform marriage ceremonies if they feel gay marriage goes against their faith then I don't care.
However people have said that allowing gay marriage would set the legal president open for things like polygamy to be legalized. I don't know how that would happen I'm not a lawyer but people I know say thats the reason their against it.
I know it would make my mom happy if could marry me off (hint hint).
My own stance on this is that I want a few basic things. The tax breaks, the ability to create join bank accounts, take each others names, share insurance plans and be able to visit each other in the hospital.
Don't know why thats a big deal but again I'm not a lawyer so I know nothing about legal precedent.
Well, I asked him once, but Peart went into a drum solo and by the time he finished, Lee had already gone to the next place on the tour.
How about the SUPREME COURT? Would you believe it?
It is nearly a century after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868… the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.' In 1967 the case, Loving v. Virginia, ended bans on interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had such laws because of it.
You're welcome. Now you are enlightened!
I hope that you follow your word and now be a Gay Marriage proponent?
Hey as long as civil unions are "everything but marriage", I agree. The problem is when civil unions are nothing but a piece of paper that wont even grant hospital visitation rights. Now, we are more humane than that!
Please take my meaning very clearly, I am speaking in Right Wing code…..
AARDVARK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What no decoder ring…..
I thought you Trolls did not need one, you could divine the coded answer by looking at people….
Again I said
AARBVARK………………………….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Crowder! Where you been, man?
Yes because a child has no right to know who their real Mommy and Daddy are……….
Wait?
My hetero brother-in-law got a civil union in a court of law officiated by a judge and he had no problem visiting his spouse or getting shared custody of his children when he got a divorce.
Newflash: heteros get civil unions as well.
A Marriage is a sacrament performed inside a church or by a religious representative.
Why would I believe anything the Warren Court says? Show me where in the Constitution it says marriage is a civil right, then we'll talk; but I refuse to accept an argument based on the authority of the most activist court of the 20th century.
So in your equal marrainge if one of the married men get a woman pregant. What rights do each of the parties involved have.
If one member of a lesbian couple get's pregant does the biological father have more or less rights. What rights do the other partner in the relationship have…. What if there is a divorce then what rights…..
The fact of the matter is there is no such thing as a "Gay Marraige". Marraige predates even religion, hell it predates the spoken language. Marraige is all about ensuring that every child knows their biological parents, their siblings (great for stopping unkowing incest) and are raised by these individuals because sharing that child's DNA and having lived though the strengths and weaknesses provided by that DNA are the best individuals to do so.
Anything esle is not a marraige and not good for the propigation of the species despite what flawed law was written in New England. Do you beleive in legislation to stop the ban on perpetual motion machines as well. That could end the energy crisis.
Yeah the 'opposite couples' bit stood out to me. He could have said 'hetro couple', 'the couple that can actually produce offsping', 'traditional couple', 'male/female couple' or even the 'normal couple'. But he choose (or the legislation choose) 'opposite couple' which gives you the idea that as it is opposite, it is not normal. What he is trying to say?
As dcase said, let the people vote on it.
When arguing with people who are pro gay marriage and who complain that they have less rights then straight people, I love to inform them that a gay man can marry any women that will have him. And on the other hand I cannot marry another man, then I tell them that it proves that we all have the same 'rights'!
They then get annoyed at me and tell me that they don't want to marry a women and I don't want to marry a man. So I then inform them that we still have the same 'rights', but we just have different 'wants'.
What in the tarnation are you blabbing about? How about actually stating why you think the idea of civil marriage is, and I quote, "crap". And what does Detroit have to do with the article? Absolutely nothing, that's what.
And oh, joy, I've been notified he wants to "follow" me!
Uugh.
I have a lot of respect for Elton John, not only for performing at Rush's wedding but for taking the same standpoint that many heterosexuals have. We don't HATE gay people. We just prefer that marriage be between a man and a woman. Clearly not all homosexuals are leftist extremists. This doesn't earn Elton much love in the extreme left faction of the gay community, but it sure lets us know that being gay doesn't mean being an ideologue. And by performing at Rush's wedding, Elton has done more for the positive image of homosexuals than Rosie ever could.
Marriage is a wholly man-made institution, primarily invented for social stability and later made "sacred" as an inter-familial business transaction. It has no basis in our natural instincts, and in fact seems to run counter to them overall. Like all such man-made institutions, it's definition can (and should) be changed and expanded whenever it needs to be. All social order is, after all, an elaborate game of make-believe – the greatest freedom of a free society like America is the freedom to choose our own illusions.
What's kind of the great irony is that the general worth of "traditional" lifelong marriage is deteriorating all on it's own without much "help" at all from the supposedly toxic influence of letting gays join the party; a not-entirely unexpected course for an upwardly-evolving culture. when – and it IS when, not "if," the only question is how many generations it will have taken for the natural evolution of the culture to errode the last meaningless superstition against such things – gay marriage is a casual reality in all of the West… gays will probably be the last ones still interested in the pagentry of it.
So you're the only idiot who's following me. Why?
A gay/lesbian person /= a straight person, different needs and desire, some might say biologically too. However, all people should, or must, have the same rights. Thus gays/lesbians can have something similar to marriage; or if you like, straights can have something similar to civil union.
Not hard to understand, is it?
Steven: Miss your videos on PJTV. Any chance that you'll do more?
if you and the other person believe in the Bible you'll have a better chance, if you don't, then you're right… its all up for grabs.
Good, I'm glad someone else picked up on that. For a while I was worried I was nitpicking, but it did seem as though he was implying that it was heterosexuals who were somehow off. Only in New England (and a few other places) can one find such brilliance.
Very clever, Scott. I'll have to keep that one in mind. Ah, our current generation: always confusing desire with necessity.
If only, Ladies I know you know the truth here. The left will never give up any wedge they feel they can force between groups. It doesn't matter if its "race", gender, or sexual orientation. Marriage is indeed rooted in faith, contracts are rooted in law. The two should be treated separately. The old saw goes separate but equal is always separate but never equal does not apply here. We need to treat all couples as (limit 2 humans) contractual entities, all current domestic partnerships are,(try to end one without going to court). . Traditional marriage belongs to the traditional church. New churches will form and churches will adjust doctrine and there will be gay churches. As a social conservative will I worry about the break down of social fabric? Perhaps BUT I would tend to believe that the institution would help stabilize relationships during health and financial setbacks. That said ,I would remind you of what one of America's early feminists Mae West once said. “ Marriage is a great institution, but I'm not ready for an institution yet.”
Kinda seems like the name "Sir Elton" is wrong. Maybe it should be "Ms Elton". I like music but I do not like the perversion that HE represents and is trying to push as OK. He ( and all the other perverts like him) should be ashamed.
The difference lies in how we define the relationships. I can put a saddle and a bridle on a cow and ride it like a horse or use it to pull wagons like a horse, but that won't make the cow itself a horse.
But if you rode a cow as if it were a horse, would your name be Mongo?
[...] by Jehuda in Uncategorized. Tags: Entertainment, Law, News, Politics trackback BigHollywood: Memo to MSM: Limbaugh and Elton John Agree on Same Sex Marriage. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)World Turned Upside DownRemember Neda!World [...]
Don't forget the Ultimate Code Words:
Wankel Rotary Engine.
If special laws are passed for homosexuals, then why not pass similar special laws for incestual marriage, polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and every other type of unnatural, deviant act that can be thought up?
What about "equal rights?" Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as every one else. Marriage laws apply to all of us equally, homosexuals have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex just as all Americans do.
What about "homosexuals are born that way?" Really? How did that genetic trait get passed on from generation to generation? We are born men and women, homosexuality is not genetic, it is a desire. Should we act on every desire we have? If we are born with the desire to gay-bash, should we act on that?
Are You in Doubt About the Issue of Gay Marriage? http://usataxpayer.org/?0068297850
Congress Bill HR4530: Plans for School Children… http://usataxpayer.org/?0092081630
Well, New England and other places that won't let the people decide.
Yeah it stood out, just another way the left tries to use language to change the way people think.
Thanks T_Ray! I ran into that argument while discussing Prop 8 at work and I couldn't fault the logic in it so I kept it in the arsenal. I was just sick of the lies, people saying that they have less ‘rights’, when in fact they actually want extra ‘rights’ than given to the average citizen.
When people start talking about feelings and what is right, they tend to forget about or ignore the facts.
this is all just semantic game-playing. a religious ceremony is not required by law. marriage licenses are dispensed by the state, not the vatican. every married couple has a 'civil partnership' in the eyes of the law and that's where equality must lie. straight or gay, any other ceremonies are up to the couple and whatever organizations, religious or otherwise, who want to solemnize and/or celebrate the union.
the supreme court has already established the ability to marry the person of one's choice as "the most basic of human rights".
I myself have no issue with Gay Marraige (yes, Marraige), but only if the church itself VOLUNTARILY allows Homosexuals to marry. As in "no government strongarming." Yes, it's controversial and this gets into the issue of the validity of marraiges issued by said church, but my personal opinion is that since we have a separation of church and state that was slightly altered in this area due to legal issues, we should allow churches to decide for themselves whether or not to wed Homosexuals. And we should form a new, more muscular "partnership" or whatever they call these things to grant the legal rights of marraige for those together but not married to smooth over the current legal inconsistencies.
Yes, it is flawed, but vastly less so than any other proposal I've heard, and regardless of the wisdom of doing so, this is the US: can we not allow religious insitutions to decide who they wed?
"fundamentally different" ?? i say that a rose is a rose is rose. humans couple-up and that's good for society. sexuality is the least part of it… and nobody else's business.
[...] Memo To Liberal Media: Rush & Elton John Agree On Same-Sex Marriage [...]
Yes, go against the will of the people. You libs seem to think that you no what is best for us "common folk" Wait until November, you'll be in for quite a surprise.
Don't worry, Lambchop follows everyone. He probable thinks it's intimidating. Like an inflated blowfish. I think he's a sheep pretending to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Spoken like the sheep you are. Sorry Lambchop, I think I'll pass on your oversimplified view of the world. I've got my very own niche, thank you very much. Now why don't you waddle back to your shepherd, bend over, and baaaaaaaaaaah.
True story, Geddy's name is actually 'Gary' but his very 'English' mother pronounces it 'Geddy'.
Excellent!
Your intellectual weight class is showing MrLamb and we aren't impressed. Not only did you not present a form point or even argument with your comment, but you spewed insults and vile at those around you. How does your comment further the discussion or even give your opinion except to show that your vocabulary and sentence structure of a four grader (sorry to the fourth graders out there). There is a poignant point is all the ditribe you cast into the digital abyss. My three year old has used more logic and thought than you have, and I suspect she has more of both than you ever had.
well, arrogant and self serving comes immediately to mind. Progressives are proud of their apostasy; they have a 'superiority' complex. We, the great unwashed, are not worthy of questioning their judgement. THAT is what this so-called magistrate is all about. His- their- view of the world.
The American people be damned…
Kids, pay attention here: this is what happens when someone bases an entire argument on a false premise. It starts off bad and wanders off into the wilderness of the uninformed with no help for rescue. Marriage is absolutely NOT a man-made institution, it is a religious commitment first ordained by God in Genesis 2:24 – 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.' (Gen 2.24)
civil unions must have the full force of law…
It is the only just defense of marriage. Allowing committed gay couples to share assets, hospital visitations, and inherit estates is the only fair and equitable solution to this. But society should not call it 'marriage' without the consent of the citizenry via ballot box. And it does fail everywhere it has been tried. That is because once it is given the imprimatur of approval by the government it becomes not only acceptable- but a desirable outcome. THAT is the hidden agenda- homosexualitybeing advocated as a preferred lifestyle…
Marry who you want and hook-up with whoever you like, but leave the language alone.
Like I said, MovieBob, the whole gay marriage issue is a red herring. Marriage is broken as it is, and some kind of reform is necessary.
Unfortunately, the necessary changes (abolishing alimony, mandatory prenups, etc. to name but a few) would be political suicide for any senator or representative pigheaded enough to do it — even in ultraconservative districts and states. I know you consider marriage "obsolete," but those are my thoughts on the matter.
And I suspect you would further with – To hell with the law and the will of the people! Yes, just continue to legislate from your position. Sounds like a plan, to stand before your state and plea for forgivness. Omit the word sex from opposite couples did you? Interesting choice there, justice.
The best quote I have ever heard on gay marraige is from Law & Order. "I have no problem with gay marraige, why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?" — Jack McCoy
I think that if I had had a "civil partnership" instead of a marraige I may not be divorced now
Hey, hey, hey!!! I am a native (but recovering) New Englander and I'm not a pompous ass. Conneticut is almost New York anyway.
And kudos to Portugal, Iowa and DC for supporting marriage equality for same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
Onward, Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,
Washington, CT USA
You must be logged in to post a comment.