RECENT  POSTS:  » FRC prays for God's people to 'arise' against LGBT rights » Michael Brown will save his waning movement by grouping homosexuality with incest » GOP pollster Luntz to Heritage Foundation's Anderson: 'Gay marriage is harmless' » Read: Federal court judge rules against Colorado's discriminatory marriage ban » You guys, will you please pipe down so Sen. Rubio can dismantle your deserved freedoms? » 'Mask is coming off' LGBTs, says man who vowed to export and/or criminalize LGBTs » Exxon, infamous holdout on fair and decent employment protections, could be running out of options » Oregon baker who refused same-sex wedding cake bakes for 'ex-gay' org » PFOX rebrands; into group play, seemingly » Audio: Listen to this ADF spinmeister and his anti-gay spin  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

03/09/2010

Dear students of 2060: Not all heterosexuals acted so hurtfully and offensively

by Jeremy Hooper
"Indeed, legally creating a union does not enable two men or two women to become “one flesh,” nor does a legal ceremony give the union sanctity. Instead, the ceremony creates a sham that will devalue all marriages. The government establishes “standards” for measurement and value; to declare a sham union equal to marriage would devalue the “standard” and render all unions worthless and irrelevant. If the 6A00D8341C503453Ef01310F1D7204970C-1U.S. government establishes same-sex “marriages” under law, it will be redefining marriage — completely and irrevocably. Such a powerful statement will contradict the prevailing social science research: There is a big difference between 1) a family created and sanctioned by society when a man and a woman commit to each other and thus form a cohesive unit, and 2) a couple or group of people who live together to form a household in defiance of the prevailing moral codes to render meaningless an institution that has been the bulwark of the family and society throughout history." [Source]

-Concerned Women For America's Janice Shaw Crouse, who last month compared progressives' goals to those who created Hilter Youth

Totally reminds me: I need to get my society-destroying band of beastliness wedding ring buffed. Thanks, Jan!

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

The only person who can render your marriage meaningless is you. Perhaps I've been misinformed, but I think a marriage or any form of union is a statement that says, "I love this individual. I don't know what I would do without them. I want nothing more than to share my life with this person until I die"

Should I ever find that in my life I won't find that statement any less meaningful should they start letting a man, a moose and a clump of dryer lint engage in the same.

The fact that your marriages are less meaningful has nothing to do with gays and everything to do with you being an unlovable husk of a human being who your partner wants nothing to do with.

Posted by: JT | Mar 9, 2010 2:02:58 PM

Yeah, JT, I'll gladly stack my marriage up against any couple on this planet. In fact, I don't think I've ever been so confident about anything in my life as I am about the value of my union.

Though I don't know -- wedding-bound clumps of dryer lint might present a tough challenge ;-)

Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 9, 2010 2:12:55 PM

Janice has a shallow view of marriage. So do most people in her camp. I really don't know how else to explain how metrics like sanctity, value, worth and relevance all seem to boil down completely to the sex of the people involved, side-stepping everything I thought most people would agree are what really makes a marriage valuable: integrity, commitment, honesty, romance, etc.

The legal status of every sham marriage, every marriage entered in to out of greed for money or inheritance, every drunken Vegas drive-thru marriage, none of those legally recognized marriages seem to have rendered Janice's own union "worthless and irrelevant."

Apparently your marriage has, Jeremy. Way to go. Jerk.

Posted by: Christopher Eberz | Mar 9, 2010 2:28:34 PM

Ha @ CE!

Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 9, 2010 2:36:11 PM

@ JT & Christopher: I don't know how I can improve on your posts.

This said, I found myself thinking, "Maybe some of us don't *want* 'sanctity' or to be 'one flesh'. Maybe some of us believe that one and one make two. Maybe some of us are Pagan or atheist. And maybe some people who think like that are--*gasp*--straight!" I am thinking of my atheist brother and sister-in-law--their marriage is a loving one, but they'd be upset if the likes of Janice Shaw Crouse considered it "sanctified."

As an 80s New Wave song says, "Sanctify yourself!"

Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | Mar 9, 2010 2:48:58 PM

Interesting that, on both CWFA's site and on her own (very basic) web site, Dr. Crouse does not mention a husband or children. Is she hiding them, or have her marital prospects been ruined by the evil gays?

When equal marriage came to MA, my older sister, who still lives there, called me to celebrate. I asked her, then married 12 years, now 17, if she felt less married. She replied "oh yeah, the husband, the kids, the house, the mortgage, the cars - all meaningless." Then she went to start dinner.

Posted by: CPT_Doom | Mar 9, 2010 3:09:31 PM

Alright...I'm first in line to Pimp Slap* this bitch! Where does she get off? After all, not EVERYONE in this country is Christian, nor do they engage in Christian marriage ceremonies! Why, then, does she insist on writing as though Christianity has a monopoly on marriage covering all cultures and religions?! Also notice how she seem to desperately infer that even civil/ secular marriages are invalid! 'Course, I know that many Christiansd have always believed this, since I was told by an atheist who got married 8 years ago and his family's church picketed outside the Court House to prevent them from acquiring a marriage license, chanting, "Marriage is God's domain!" Where, may I ask, is CNN in our defense to let the public know that this is the REAL Christian-agenda?!

And, again, she is harping on about the supposed "re-definition of marriage"?! According to whose "definition", exactly? The definition of "Traditional Marriage" which was an arranged marriage and property exchange with one's in-laws where children were viewed as a labor force to be exploited? After all, she CANNOT logically claim that we are "re-defining marriage" when the HISTORICAL re4cord contains a WEALTH of evidence for two men getting legally married, as was common all throughout plebeian Rome and several of the Emperors famously married men to the adoration and cheers of the on-looking crowds! There were also Native American plains Indian and Chuckchi (Asiatic) shamans who got legal marriages! I, SERIOUSLY, WOULD LOVE TO SEE HER ATTEMPT TO REFUTE THIS EVIDENCE AND EXPLAIN HOW WE CAN POSSIBLY BE DE-DEFINING MARRIAGE? So, under whose terms, precisely, were we "re-defining" a damned thing?

* PIMP SLAP: Def. "For when a Bitch Slap simply isn't enough!"

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Mar 9, 2010 4:07:45 PM

This woman (and she is not unique among the anti-gays) strings together a meandering chord of gibberish, intertwined with a smattering of nonsensical phraseology, and heaped with a dose of lies, and then thinks that she's saying something profound. Reminds me of the old adage, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit. Do these guys actually believe that they get extra points for pseudo speech?

Posted by: Dick Mills | Mar 9, 2010 4:12:39 PM

BTW, Jeremy, I was wondering if you have ever found any news clippings from Christians back in the day when interracial marriage was the hot topic, and were claiming that it was a threat to "Traditional marriage", and that *they* were attempting to "re-define marriage"? ;o) Just thought I'd ask, seeing as how you have some kick-ass sources!

Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Mar 9, 2010 4:46:21 PM

So her argument boils down to:
Heterosexual couples are valuable, and gay couples are worthless.
Do these people EVER pick up on how hateful their rhetoric is?

Posted by: Bill S | Mar 9, 2010 5:29:54 PM

..."legally creating a union does not enable two men or two women to become “one flesh,”...

That is what the wedding night is for.

Posted by: Trasker | Mar 9, 2010 6:43:30 PM

Odd how others seem to think that they have the right to define my marriage. Fuck this bitch.

Posted by: Mykelb | Mar 9, 2010 7:15:59 PM

I just went to a stage play called "Haram Iran" it was based on the true story of Ayaz and Mahmoud, the two teenaged Iranian boys publicly executed by hanging for being homosexual.

I work as a crime scene photographer. And in my city of Los Angeles, gangs and domestic violence has been a terrible thing to fight.
Janice Crouse is just the person to stir up the pants wetting and making gay people and marriage equality sound like the worst thing that could happen to marriage or society at large.

She's a fool and everyone who thinks like her is too.
I work with gay cops, detectives and community activists, and there is nothing worse than seeing you, the law abiding and contributing citizen, talked about as if no better than the criminals you're keeping off the streets.

Gay CHILDREN aren't safe anywhere! From Sakia Gunn to Lawrence King, it didn't take state sponsored execution to kill them, but they are brutally dead just the same because people like Crouse go on and on about how worthless gay lives are or how threatening to everything else gay people are.

Their rhetoric is manifest in the classrooms, the streets, and at the ends of hangmen's ropes or auto rifle bullets as in the case of the gay youth center in Israel.

Ayaz and Mahmoud were two of thousands of gays and lesbians put do death since the mullahs took over.

Janice Crouse seems to forget she's a mere mortal. That she's free to about her life, and that no one gay is her business and never was.

I'm the sort of person that would love to get that woman in a room and not make so nice and polite because of kids like Lawrence King, and Carl Walker Hoover and Jaheem Herrera and their heart broken loved ones.

She and her ilk are no kinds of victims of 'homosexual activism' as if SHE wouldn't be sad, angered or more determined if say a HETERO kid had been bullied to death?
Or executed in HIS classroom by a gay kid taught that he was worthless?

What truly pisses me off is that CWA and all the other anti gay alphabet orgs think that gay folk's feelings are illegitimate and unnecessary.

People like her wouldn't want to be confronted with the crime scene photo from Scotty Joe Weaver's murder, but we shouldn't have to GO there, should we?
And SHE shouldn't resent it if that's what it has to take.

My friends have put their lives on the line in the uniform of the armed military, and do so also as peace officers in my city.
All so that she can have the freedom to vilify their service and intents and purpose here at home.

I know that those same soldiers would love to have bought the freedom of Ayaz and Mahmoud and those boys would have been grateful for it and their lives.

And they would have been worth it.
Why should Ms. Crouse think that SHE is?

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Mar 9, 2010 11:44:51 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails