Can We Keep the Tape There?

Rob and I have the misfortune of having Jim Moran as our Congressman.

Recently Moran participated in a photo campaign to oppose laws that prevent gays from marrying. The NOH8 Campaign is described as a “photographic silent protest” organized in response to the 2008 passage of Proposition 8, which invalidated the recognition of same-sex marriage in California.

Moran_NOH8_619x619

I’ve said before that I support marriage equality – I don’t believe the government should interfere in what is essentially a personal decision between two people who love one another to spend their lives together. It’s not up to any government to acknowledge or sanction this relationship.

So I don’t have a problem with his participation in the campaign.

I’m just wondering if we could keep the duct tape there permanently.

Pleez?

KTHXBAI.

43 responses

  1. Moran’s your Congresscritter? I pity you. Or, I would, if I didn’t live in the People’s Demokratik Republik of Kollyvornia. We have to deal with the likes of Feinswine and Boxer.

    Like

  2. I, too, “support marriage equality”…which we already have. Any adult man is free to marry any adult woman who’ll have him–and vice versa–(except for close relatives, of course) in this country. Where’s the “inequality” in that?

    Like

    1. SMH – come on! That’s a ridiculous statement, and you know it, and not what I meant at all. Marriage is a religious institution, and churches should be free to decide whether or not they want to marry gays. A personal relationship between two adults – be they male/male, male/female or female/female should not be the business of any state or federal government.

      Like

    2. Pappad, playing an ignorant dick does not suit you.

      Hell, it doesn’t suit anyone.

      Like

  3. I’m a little weird when it comes to the subject of gay marriage. It’s my belief that the federal government should have absolutely no involvement and that the issue should be up to the states. Then again, I believe most issues should be decided at the state level but the 10th amendment has been a dead letter for longer than any of us have been alive

    Like

    1. I absolutely agree the government should keep its nose out of it, but I believe that needs to happen on EVERY level – federal, state, and local. No politician at any level should be able to dictate with whom I choose to spend the rest of my life. Leave it to the churches, since “marriage” is traditionally a religious institution.

      Like

  4. I usually bitch about being stuck with Cantor, but I will say that Moran is a buttload worse. My sympathies for having an anti-Semitic piece of human debris for your Rep.

    Like

    1. Yeah, Cantor is like a deity compared to Moran! I will say, however, that pissing him off at townhalls is a lot of fun!🙂

      Arlington is a GREAT place to live, except for the politics. Terrific schools, parks, close to everything, lots to do… the politics make it unbearable, though!😦

      Like

  5. Except, Nicki, you and I BOTH know that churches are NOT “free” to marry whomever they choose. If you don’t believe it, make it KNOWN that your church refuses to perform or sanction same-sex “marriages,” then watch what happens to that church. For 10,000 years or so, a “marriage” was a union–both religious and legal–between one man and one woman. Even where plural marriage has been legal, each marriage is still between one man and one woman…period. All this drive to sanction gay “marriage” amounts to is just another assault on our culture by FORCING changes to the language. I have no problem whatsoever if two men or two women choose to form a legal union and live together AS “husband” and “wife.” It’s just not a “marriage.” Call it a flubbery if you like…just not a “marriage.”

    Like

    1. There are churches that are willing to perform said ceremony and call it a marriage. That is THEIR business not ours. I oppose efforts to FORCE churches to perform marriages if this goes against their beliefs, but I’m absolutely opposed to the state having a say in it!

      Like

    2. Factually inaccurate. over the last 10,000 years the most common form of marriage has been one man and several women. That a societal function agrees with your prejudices and asumptions does not make it natural law.

      Like

    3. Pappad, please tell us, exactly WHAT “happens to that church”? Does it get shut down by the government? Burned? Blown up? Move? Please, be specific.

      Like

    4. Do you not remember the “demonstrations” at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in NYC a few years ago where “gay activists” dressed up like nuns and walked in demanding mass be administered to them, disrupting the worship services? Do you not recall the VIOLENT demonstrations endured by the LDS folks for supporting Prop. 8?

      Like

      1. That does not equal government force. I think (I could be wrong) he’s asking where a church has been forced by law to perform gay marriages. There will always be uncouth, immature shitbags in the world. We can’t ban them.

        Like

        1. That’s not the way I read it…but nowhere have I implied that government would “force” any church to perform a gay “marriage.” I simply said that there were always “punishments” meted out when a church dares to do anything against the LGBT agendas.

          Like

        2. But that’s the only type of force that really matters. Assholes acting like assholes can be addressed (mostly with a baseball bat!)😉

          Like

        3. True (and the way I’D handle it) but no church will deal with it that way. They’ll just suffer through and hope it goes away. Knowing the LGBT bunch…it WON’T.

          Like

        4. That’s on them.

          Like

    5. Nicki translated correctly. (Thanks!) As for demonstrators, yes either throw them out (well within the rights of the proerty owners) or call the police and have them removed. It’s called ‘standing up for yourself’ and does not require claiming to be a victim. You can do better than this.

      Like

  6. A civil union was good enough for me and my wife of 14 years, so it should be good enough for any gay couples that want to “git hitched up.” We still had to pay for a license and so will gay couples. That takes care of inheritance, insurance and hospital visitation issues. And Churches won’t be forced to perform ceremonies against their beliefs. Everybody’s happy!😉

    Like

    1. Fine. I had my first wedding in a church and then re-married twice more on our 1st and 2nd anniversaries in civil ceremonies in two different States. We had originally decided to do it every year in a different State, but gave up that idea by the 3rd year because of the bother. Still, we’ve been married for 47 years, so I guess it “took.”

      Like

      1. That’s pretty cool. I’m not sure I’m that romantic, but it’s pretty neat.🙂

        Like

    2. Hey, I’m all for that, except some states don’t “recognize” said unions. Additionally, if a church is willing to perform the ceremony, what’s the harm? Or should they be prevented from doing that by state law?

      Like

      1. It’s a conundrum for sure. I’m against gay marriage. But I also realize that gays are going to keep fighting for some kind of equality of marriage. For me, civil unions are the best choice. For perspective, I have an adult gay daughter who wants to ‘marry’ her partner. She lives in VA and I believe it’s still against the law there?

        As far as churches who consent to marry gays, more power to them, but they will face God’s fury when the time comes…as will we all.

        Like

        1. I’m curious… and I’m not trying to be insulting at all. I’m just trying to understand. Why are you against gay marriage? If there’s a church and a minister/priest/pastor willing to marry two people of the same gender, what is the harm? As you said… it’s between them and God. So why are you against it?

          And yes, it’s illegal in Virginia.

          Like

    3. thatmrgguy, please cite to any church that has been forced to perform a gay marriage, or to anyone seriously pushing for such. I’m pretty sure I haven’t heard of any such incidents.

      Like

    4. Denmark? England? And they have Constitutions and legal precedent identical to the U.S.? Come on, pull the other one, it’s got bells on. By your line of “reasoning”, we should just give up all our guns right now, because it’s inevitable that we follow in Europe’s footsteps.

      Like

  7. Yes. You can keep the tape there. I have a stapler at work that can staple a quarter of a ream of paper with ease. I’ll ship it to you if you think you need it.

    Like

    1. Oooh! I likes. You need to come to VA and do the honors with me!

      Like

  8. About that tape, yep keep it there, but put some over the nose too.

    Like

  9. P.S. thatmrgguy, please explain to us how you know the will of God and why you presume to Speak for Her, and issue threats in her name. I urge you to reference Matthew 7 before answering.

    Like

    1. Number 1, who says God is a woman?. Number two, Demmark has already forced churches to marry gay couples. And the Church of England is worried that they will soon be forced to also.

      In New Jersey, a Methodist resort was ordered by a judge to perform a gay marriage. http://coffeeshopatheist.com/blog/2012/01/nj-judge-orders-methodist-resort-to-perform-same-sex-marriage/

      Like

      1. There are a couple of issues with the link.

        A. The union was a civil union. No one forced a church to perform the ceremony

        B. They only wanted to use the resort facility for the site. There is unfortunately legal precedent to charge the resort with discrimination.

        C. I’m also guessing this could successfully be challenged in court.

        Like

    2. The fact that a religious organization CAN be “legally” compelled to perform (or merely accommodate the performance of) a gay “marriage”–or any other activity for that matter–is surely a violation of that organization’s 1st Amendment rights…not that I’d trust THIS SCOTUS to rule thusly. I used to pooh-pooh those signs in some places that read, “We retain the right to refuse to serve anyone.” I don’t any longer.

      Like

      1. This I completely agree with. But this has nothing to do with marriage vice civil unions.

        Like

        1. I think I made myself clear earlier that I have no problem with “civil unions”…just calling such unions a “marriage” against some 6,000 years of human historical precedence.

          Like

        2. It is a free country, and calling a union in which two people choose to dedicate their lives to one another a marriage or anything else, for that matter, is a right. Many religious people won’t like it. Others don’t mind. To impose the opposing view on other by government force is immoral. No one is asking you to like it or recognize it. They are asking to be treated the same under the law. I see nothing wrong with this.

          As far as I’m concerned, anything that reduces the powers of the federal government is good.

          Like

        3. …except the REAL issue is that there has NEVER been any real “discrimination” in marriage in the US. Heteros and Homosexuals are subjected to PRECISELY the same laws and rules insofar as the institution of “marriage” is concerned and have been since 1776. Just as I, as a heterosexual, am not “free” to marry anyone I choose, so too are homosexuals prohibited from marrying anyone THEY choose. Just as I AM free to marry any adult woman who’ll have me, so do homosexual men enjoy that exact, same “freedom,” and vice versa for homosexual women. Just as I am PROHIBITED from “marrying” another male in order to scarf up the “benefits” of “marriage,” so are homosexual males so prohibited. This issue isn’t about “love,” or “spending one’s life with someone else” because NOTHING in the existing laws prohibit anyone from loving whomever one wishes NOR spending one’s life with someone one loves. If this were about “inheritances,” or taxation, the solution is MUCH simpler than changing the definition of “marriage.” Just change the inheritance or tax laws to be “sexual-preference neutral.” Bingo! Problem solved. This issue IS–and always HAS been–about the destruction of American (and Western) culture. The LGBT crowd has been systematically invading our schools and teaching our children that being gay is nothing more than an “alternate life-style” and some “sex-ed” classes have been teaching our children HOW to engage in homosex practices…and actually ENCOURAGING them to try them out. They’ve been, proselytizing, in other words. They’ve invaded the priesthood–especially in the U.S.–in order to have access to choirboys and altar boys. It’s true that most (in percentages) child molesters are heterosexual. That’s because there are 50 times as many heterosexuals as there are homosexuals. However, that 2% of the total population who describe themselves as homosexual, are responsible for ALMOST 50% of all reported incidents of child molestation and NAMBLA, maybe the vilest “club” in the country, is ALL gay–and there are tens of thousands of members. After the LGBT crowd started scoring “successes” in the gay “marriage” issue, NAMBLA almost immediately began a campaign to dramatically lower the “age of consent.” There are dozens of bills pending all across the country to do just that.

          I realize that this may all sound like a hate-filled rant. It’s really not. It’s a “rant” alright, because I think we all need to recall just what has been happening to our country and what we’re facing in the future. I’m 71 years old and have lived through some rather “wild” changes to America and American culture. I KNOW what gays have had to endure in the past. I had a gay friend in HS who was continually coming to school with a busted nose, cuts or black eyes because he would “cruise” parks and bus stations in town and would occasionally “hit on” some guy who’d beat the crap out of him instead of just politely saying “No thanks.” My favorite aunt–the one I considered my “Auntie Mame”–was a lesbian, but I loved her as dearly as my own parents. Her closest male friend was gay and hit on me at least three times while I was in HS. He died of the complications from AIDS at the age of 50. All of the prejudicial treatment of gays has been wrong…but addressed by the legislatures fairly adequately insofar as assaults, rents, public access and similar issues are concerned. That hasn’t been enough, though and the LBGT crowd seems to think that they can be deemed “normal” by being allowed to legally marry one another. There’s no “lifestyle” that’s more unhealthy for men…not even gross obesity. The average lifespan of gay men is almost 30 years lower than for hetero men, just as an example. They have a much higher incidence of STDs, cancers, meningitis, AIDS, and suicide than heterosexual men, given their percentage of the total population.

          I’m going to end this with the simple comment that gays are the ONLY group in the world that identifies themselves based solely on how (and with whom) they choose to have sex. If they’d just keep to themselves, I’d have no problem with that, but they insist on inserting their sexual preferences into every aspect of society. Just as an example, when was the last time you saw a sitcom or drama on TV that didn’t have at least ONE “gay” character? They are NOT that ubiquitous.

          Like

        4. I’m sorry, but I don’t even know where to start with this! It’s wrong on so many levels, I can’t even begin to address it!

          I cannot believe you’re willfully ignoring he fact that consenting heterosexual adults are free to marry and have their relationship sanctioned and recognized by the law while consenting homosexual adults are not! We’re talking CONSENTING ADULTS here, not NAMBLA assholes. And of COURSE they’re all homosexuals in that organization! It’s MAN-BOY! And it’s repugnant. But you’re forgetting that the majority of child abusers are, in fact, heterosexual, and this has NOTHING to do with what we’re discussing.

          FACT: a man is free to marry a woman (and vice versa) and get federal benefits, insurance, flag (if spouse dies in the service of his country) etc.

          FACT: a man is not free to marry a man (or a woman a woman) and receive the same benefits.

          These are consenting adults who are taxpayers and who have fucking EARNED to have the same rights. But they can’t, because morally corrupt politicians are licking the asses of those who somehow think that two guys spending their lives together threatens their own marriages!

          I’m sorry. You and I agree on many things, but you are DEAD WRONG here. Fact is it’s none of your business and it’s none of mine if two women dedicate their lives to one another legally. It does not infringe on your rights. It does not threaten you or yours in any way. You don’t like it. You’re entitled not to. But to support politicians imposing your likes and dislikes on others by force is repulsive!

          The rest of the “slippery slope” arguments are crap. Consenting adults spending their lives together should have the same rights as anyone else. As a veteran, I’m appalled at the thought that if a gay guy with whom I’m serving gets KIA, the love of his life can’t even get the flag off his casket!

          Gays serve. They work. They pay taxes. And no religious objections should prevent them from having the right to marry ONE ANOTHER. Period.

          Like

    3. pappad, there is a lot of history of marriage being other than one man/one woman over the last 6K years. Polygamy was quite common, as well as various other statuses such as multiple concubines…. Heck, it’s all right there in the Bible.

      Like

  10. No man “speaks for God.” All we can do is follow the dictates of our consciences and, at the risk of sounding like a liberal, how an issue “feels” deep down in our guts, compared with what we believe the Bible says about the issue. Von Zorch said I was wrong about marriage. I’m sorry, but HE’S wrong. It was fairly common in human history to have a man with several wives, but EACH union was between that man and ONE woman, though he might wind up with more than one “wife.” A “marriage” was between him and EACH of his wives. He didn’t marry them “collectively.”

    Like

    1. Wow, that’s some weasel-wording if I ever saw any. I’m pretty sure you’ve just made the classic error of “a distinction without a difference”.

      Like

      1. What the Hell are you talking about? There was no “distinction without a difference” in my post.

        Like

%d bloggers like this: