|
-- tips@phblend.com
PHB Mobile
| Best of the Blend |
|
Blog Posts
Special Events and Interviews
| Blend-o-licious endorsements... |
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego)."Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"
|
Support the Blend
|
|
An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.
|
Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:00:00 AM EDT
|
Remember the bogus "compromise" on marriage equality recently proposed by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch in their NYT op-ed "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage">? You know the one that had equality supporters doing all the giving up to appease equality opponents by creating separate-and-unequal federal civil unions with additional faith-based protections for religious conservatives (as if their rights weren't already protected). It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill. That's a non-starter, as I blogged back in February, since the Religious Right has no interest in compromise.
I think a proposal floated by Steven Waldman, editor in chief of Beliefnet, holds much more promise if you want to talk about compromise. He suggests that gays and lesbians should propose tightening divorce laws, bundled with the call for marriage equality, specifically by supporting the idea of covenant marriage (something David Blankenhorn actually supports as well). It's a more intellectually feasible way of revealing those who profess their goal is to "protect" marriage versus the homophobes. So, my idea challenges gay activists: if it's true that you revere the institution of marriage, put your energy and clout toward helping to strengthen it in a variety of ways (more on the particulars below).
Then, it challenges anti-gay marriage forces: if you are truly concerned mostly about the future of marriage, here's a way you can insure that gay marriage will actually strengthen not harm that institution.
Of course what this potential offer would also do is smoke out those gay marriage opponents who have used the sanctity of marriage argument as an excuse for their real motivation, which is to deny gays equal status. And the fundies cannot object to the "particulars" of covenant marriage; they come from Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council, which you can read here. Some examples:
* Longer Waiting Periods: Lengthening the waiting period, which is the amount of time a couple must wait after filing for divorce or the time they must live separately before filing, is another way states have limited no-fault divorce. [NOTE: this is already the case for those of us who married in Canada; if you want a divorce, you have to live in the country for a year in order to file.]
* Premarital Education: Several states have passed premarital education laws in an effort to help couples prepare for marriage and avoid divorce...The premarital course may include topics such as communication skills and may be taught by licensed psychologists, social workers or therapists, as well as clergy. Again, nothing spectacularly overbearing about this concept either.
* Mediation: Some family courts in Michigan plan to have mediators trained in focused thinking mediation, a highly effective technique that teaches couples how to listen to each other and to resolve conflict, thereby reducing acrimony between spouses.
Waldman: I'm sure there are many other ideas worth considering. (How about making it illegal for 13 year olds to marry?) But the point is that gays who want to get married because they revere the institution of marriage should have no problem endorsing such efforts. And conservatives who really are tolerant but fear for the institution of marriage, should view this as an outstanding deal, recruiting passionate new advocates for key parts of the sanctity-of-marriage agenda. OK. So now we have some nice points to launch a discussion. What do you think of this proposal versus the Blankenhorn/Rauch compromise? |
| Pam Spaulding :: A diifferent 'compromise': backing covenant marriage |
|
|
|
