Fundies to bus into Raleigh in the name of 'protecting marriage'

Return America Attacks Religion

They want the state to interfere with the right of churches to marry (or decline to marry) anyone they wish to.  The state has no more right to do this than to veto a baptism, a confirmation, an ordination or a funeral.

Let's get the states out of the marriage business.

---

by: misterniceguy1960 @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 17:26:02 PM CST

#1 Fear Tactic: Gays Want your Kids!

Baity: "They say we have bad attitudes and are mean-spirited, and yet some of the most militant, ill-willed people in America belong to the homosexual movement...  Since they cannot produce, they recruit -- they go after my children and grandchildren, and your children and grandchildren."

Again we see the number one fear tactic used by anti-gay activists - Gays want your children to create more gays for new sex partners and to replace themselves because they all die young from disease. Statements like these set off a fire in my brain!

Let me be clear.  There is NO RECRUITING EFFORT to turn kids gay.  Since the majority of LGBT don't believe one can be "recruited" to a particular sexuality, why would we try and do it?  We would be contradicting one of the chief assertions of our movement: Sexual orientation is an intrinsic and fixed part of personhood.

The reason we support LGBT youth programs is simple:  We know it ain't easy growing up gay.  No one recruited us, but there we were, gay youth in a world that so often did not accept us.  We want to spare today's youth the pain that many of us experienced.  No sinister plan, just a desire to create a more tolerant and joyous world for all children to grow up in.

---

by: GayMormonBoy @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 17:55:55 PM CST

you don't understand

Oh, born gay? That's only propaganda. It's just like how they say they love gay people, nobody *really* believes it...

<3 Sam

---

by: Samie D @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 23:10:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gay Recruiting

This idea, that gays recruit children into "their movement," comes out of and reinforces the idea that all homosexuals are sexual deviants.  Not only do "they" have same-sex partners, but all of them are pedophiles, because the fundiegelicals believe that the way a person is "turned gay" is by being sexually abused by a member of the same sex.

Well, at least that's how it is for men. Women can get turned into lesbians by having an abusive/absent father, wearing pants, cutting their hair or playing on a softball team.

No, I'm not making any of this up.

---

by: Stephen @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 08:31:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Do I have to give back the toaster ovens?

---

by: Alan down in Florida @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 11:29:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

?

What is it with this toaster ovens thing? 

---

by: dan l @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 11:31:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's a joke from the Ellen coming out episode

when I believe it was kd lang says that we actually receive toaster ovens when we recruit new members.

---

by: Alan down in Florida @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 12:48:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

speaking of tactics

Wouldn't it be interesting to see how many out of state plates were on cars parked at the Capitol and then report this to our friends?

---

by: miss wild thing @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 18:15:21 PM CST

OT: Tim Hadaway: Deadbeat

TIM HARDAWAY IS A $760,000.00 DEADBEAT

http://ww.tmz.com/20...

Not only is Tim Hardaway the country's most hated gay-bashing bigot, but now TMZ has learned that he's being sued for more than $750,000 for skipping out on his mortgage, as well as rent payments on a car wash that used to bear his name.

In the first suit, Washington Mutual Bank is alleging that Hardaway hasn't paid his mortgage since last September -- with a balance of $715,000 -- and is trying to foreclose on his house in Miami-Dade County, FL. (Hardaway used to play for the Miami Heat.)

Meanwhile, Hardaway is also being sued for not paying more than $45,000 in back rent for his Miami-area car wash. The suit, filed in Circuit Court, charges that the business -- for which Hardaway is a guarantor on the lease -- hasn't paid rent in several months, dating back to last fall.

Curiously, the car wash's sign used to read, "Tim Hardaway Presents US 1 Finest Hand Car Wash." Following Hardaway's gay-hating radio tirade last week, the sign was changed to "Grand Luxe Auto Bathe."

None of the lawyers involved returned calls for comment.

---

by: Storm @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 20:35:28 PM CST

What gives?

I think it is great that this has been killed several times.  Anyone have insight into WHY it keeps dying?  I would think the legislators would be all over wanting to get this on the ballot.

---

by: tony @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 21:28:11 PM CST

Dems control lege

The Dems don't want this to come to a vote; they know that if it did it would pass, and would then go on the ballot, drawing out more Republicans to the polls. Another source of tension we are seeing is about the changing demo of the state. The academic, scientific, medical, corporate core that drives the economic engine of the state is progressive; the agricultural/textile part of the state is socially conservative wingnutteria, and is in decline. However, there are more than enough voters in the state to pass an amendment if it makes it to the ballot.  The public battle over an amendment would be very toxic for the state. Aside from the wingnuts who keep foisting the bill on the lege, most on both sides probably want it off the table.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 21:40:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting photo

I found the picture illustrating traditional marriage at Wikipedia to be rather interesting.  Apparently the traditional family is naked.
I don't know if any of you are fiddling with Conservapedia but I found this entry, which has been changed a bit since, to be rather amusing.  Maybe that line can be used in Raleigh since that bible quote probably will be used quite often.  BTW, check out the original entry.  Home schooling at its finest.

My America includes LGBT families.

---

by: Mena @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 23:32:08 PM CST

Mena, thats the Funniest!

The article in conservapedia you mentioned above is subtle but hilarious. Please everyone go read it while it is still there.  Now what is it about shrimp?

---

by: sleepyinsaudi @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 at 23:59:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I hope they track were hits come from.

Everyone give them a hit, just incase. 
It was awfully slow, so I only gave a few pages a look.

---

by: Charles @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 20:14:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

HAHAHAHAAAA

dirty!! 
could you imagine the outcry if that was two men and their child, sitting around half-naked in a photo?

The gays stole my lunch money

---

by: matt in mpls @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 13:09:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It was nice seeing you on the panel at HRC this week

Hi Pam,

I was in the crowd but unfortunately had to leave during the question and answer part.  It would have been nice to see you speak out more.  I know the guy next to you wanted to, to bad he had larengitis.  Anyways the reason I am responding to this post is because I started a website http://www.gayweddin... where I am trying to find people to write stories about their gay weddings and gay travel experiences in order to help push the beauty of the gay lifestyle and not just the stereotypes.  I would love to be able to quote some of your blog entries and link to them so I am asking for permission.  Even if the stories I can collect do not become big enough to show the beauty of gay marriage and fight aginst yutz's like Baity, the other goal of the site is to provide honest travel reviews good and bad about "gay friendly" establishments etc... and to provide ideas on safe gay travel spots.  I do want to hear the horror stories as well so I can post them and show a first hand experience of why you may not want to go there.  Please let me know if I can link to your blog and quote you.  I would also love to have you write a few reviews if you would ever want to.

Love the blog btw. =0)

---

by: kickball21 @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 08:21:44 AM CST

thanks

One of the shortcomings aside from time (and this is not surprising), is that a lot of the discussion revolved around the plans and actions of the advocacy organizations. I was the only one on the panel not representing an official organized "group" -- which of course is a plus and a minus. Our strength as a blogging community is the diversity of voices, locations and stories that we are able to share -- real world experience as LGBT folks out in the country. The flip side of that is we are not a recognized "constituency" within the community yet, and it's all just starting to shake out.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 08:42:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

you are very welcome

It was great that they included you not being on the panel for another reason as well.  Everyone on that panel just tried to sell their organization, you on the other hand did not try to sell anything.  It was great. 

They brought up blogging and then said how they are utilizing the internet to their advantage but none of them actually did anything or could elaborate.  No SEO tactics, no PPC campaigns for bad pr or good pr purposes, no affiliates programs for signatures etc... I was especially annoyed to see that guy who just kept on saying our get together in philly, he added nothing of value to any discussion, just promotions.  Another person that got under my skin there was the guy from the journalists group, I launched two major newspapers and was in the marketing departments in the newspaper industry for years and had to work very closely with journalists and media.  I know at least 40 gay journalists and not one of them knows about his group.  The funny thing is 30 of them are right here in DC.  Yet they do not go and recruit them or try to contact the papers.  The journalists I know always push the gay stories that come to them through first.  Hell one even works on one of the major papers on the hill.

The next thing which was bad was the fact that they all seemed to focus on congress, yet it isn't congress who is passing anti marriage legislation, it is the people.  Why did they not go after the people, in VA run ads on tv talking about the fact it is any couple not married that will be effected, in AZ a few ad campaigns of internet campaigns from the hefty HRC kickback I mean dues and donations funds could have helped.  Then they use the closeness of the VA election as a win for gays.  That was one of the reasons we left.  There are a lot of voters that would have voted for the bill which didn't because it included heterosexuals.  It it had been gay only the results would have been way different.  It was in no way or shape a win for anyone or even a progression.  But in VA's defense, at least they became the first state to pass legislation apologizing for slavery.  Now when will they apologize for the hate crimes and discrimination. 

Anyways it was nice to see someone on the panel (you) who actually reaches out to people instead of just bullshiting around.

---

by: kickball21 @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 06:35:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

We are opposed to the use of public funds

Forget public funds, why isn't the last remaining remnants of the gay press or the new gay blogosphere investigating the sources of this man's income (and that of similar bigots) and expose them as the money-grubbing hypocrites they truly are.

---

by: Alan down in Florida @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 11:36:22 AM CST

God had an urban renewal program for Sodom and Gomorrah

yeah, but they didn't have life-safety codes in place back then.  we've made quite a few strides in 4000 years of urban planning, baity would be pleased to know.  for starters we require licenses, and unless the White Baby Jesus has a registration somewhere that we don't know about, there should be no cause for alarm. 

The gays stole my lunch money

---

by: matt in mpls @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 13:16:32 PM CST

"Urban renewal program for Sodom and Gomorrah"

This is a straightforward call for the extermination of gay people, and should be called out as such.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 16:37:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Jesus Christ said marriage was between one man and one woman."

Dolt.

According to the gospels, Jesus told everyone to leave their wives, leave their families, and to follow him because the end of the world was allegedly at hand.

He certainly was not a big proponent of traditional marriage.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 16:35:40 PM CST

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License

http://www.mercyseat...

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License
by Pastor Matt Trewhella

Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, "everybody else gets one." This pamphlet attempts to answer the question - why should we not get one?

1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."  We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State's permission? More importantly, why should we need the State's permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State's permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

  2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family's privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State!  I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State's demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it's unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father's blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.

By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don't need your parents permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child's marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the State's permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State's point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."

See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse.  You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons - 1). in the case of divorce, and 2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.

In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor.  They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime.

History of Marriage Licenses in America

George Washington was married without a marriage license.  So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800's, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

What Should We Do?

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren't really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who's really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically.  (As for homosexuals marrying, outlaw sodomy as God's law demands, and there will be no threat of sodomites marrying.) (this is the one part of this that has no basis in reality.)

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What's recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.

(Pastor Trewhella has been marrying couples without marriage licenses for ten years. Many other pastors also refuse to marry couples with State marriage licenses.)

---

by: edav38 @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 00:58:19 AM CST