Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
AKA Smith
Published Letters: 6540 Editor's Choice: 93
If he wants to win the hearts of right-wing Christian fanantics, he will have to give up nuanced responses.
The answer to your last question is because people who get married in a church, synagogue, temple then legalize their union at a courthouse. Because marriage has been traditionally codified in U.S. law, marriage gives the married couple certain rights that are then recognized by insurers, hospitals, educational institutions and employers.
If marriage, as a religious rite, was entirely separate from civil unions as a legal right, then your point would be well-taken.
For years, many Unitarian-Universalist Churches/Fellowships have performed commitment ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples (who could not formalize their unions in law) and also for heterosexual couples (who did not wish to formalize their unions in law). The church/fellowship members then treat the couple as if they were married (ideally, there are always a few jerks).
Joining those who would defend the word Christian against the predations of writers who would like to lump all Christians together, I would plead on behalf of my Christian friends who accept gays and lesbians and their choices that Salon learn to use the words Christian religious right or fundamentalist Christians to distinguish the bigots from others.
Prevention First: What a no brainer.
Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America is worried young women may have sex without consequences. Apparently her idea of God and hell is most inadequate. If she doesn't trust her religion to punish people, she no doubt hopes that unintended pregnancy will.
I once served on a school committee the purpose of which was to decide what sort of sex education should be available in the school district where I lived. This committee, which was made up of volunteers, was completely disrupted by a woman volunteer who did not want any sex education at all. Everytime we would try to discuss a realistic approach, this woman would become hysterical and say that we were trying to override her right not to have her child involved. When we were finally reaching a rather moderate consensus that would allow parents to opt out their children, she began screaming that some other boy had shown her son a condom in the hallway of his school and that having sex education for other children would influence her child.
Nothing can disguise the fact that these nutcases want to impose their will upon the children of others. They want to tear down the wall of separation and have a right-wing Christian theocracy and the right impose realtime authoritarian hell upon everyone else.
In justice, that is exactly what I believe ought to happen. The whole idea of the government blessing and encoding what is actually a very private sphere, marries church and state in a way that is repugnant to those of us who think church and state should be entirely separate.
Civil unions recognized by the state should grant all consenting adults the right to live together and form sexual and financial bonds. This would simplify matters such as insurance coverage, hospital visitation, child custody, and the rights of heirs. Let me put it this way: What government joins together, only divorce court should separate.
This would also make it easier to combat employment discrimination directed towards GLBTs. Although, in truth, the SCOTUS has recently made it quite difficult for all employees to sue for discrimination.
Call me really radical, but I believe plural marriage should be legal as well. So did Mitt's great grandparents. Perhaps that explains some of his discomfort with the whole "what makes a family" question.
It does not annoy me when people focus upon Senator Clinton's voting record or her performance in debate, but I get so sick of people yammering on and on about how she can't win.
What a lot of naysayers! Let us hope that whoever the Dems nominate can win, but let us not try to turn the notion that Hillary cannot win into the sort of spiteful fortunetelling that will prevent her from having a chance if she is nominated. Of those doing well -- Obama, Edwards, and Clinton -- she is the one who has been most steady. She has the name recognition, the experience, the intellect, and the determination to be elected president, and she (and the others) is/are facing a Republican field that somehow grows more and more comedic every day.
What an opportunity!
I believe, quite frankly, that sexism is at the heart of many of these attacks. Sadly, there are women who cannot bear the accomplishments of other women. I like to believe that most of us are not like that.
I have another another uneasy thought. Her male opponents cannot actively and openly attack her femaleness without seeming sexist, yet their supporters (minions?) sure can. One would surely like to think that none of them would want to do so. One would also hope that pandering to the sexism of voters would be as unacceptable as pandering to the racism of voters. However, we know that sexism is allowed greater free reign than racism even here at Salon. I do not naively believe that everyone who adopts the label liberal or Democrat wants to see a woman as President of the United States.
I intend to start calling people on what I think are sexist characterizations of Clinton. For instance, in another thread about Senator Clinton, a poster used the word shrill to describe her. (I have rarely heard the word shrill applied to a man.) Senator is anything but shrill. She is cautious, measured, and her voice is quite well-modulated.
I am as yet undecided, but the Hillary bashing that is going on in the letters is beginning to really piss me off. Every stale attack is moving me closer to voting for her.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
