Who's the bigot now?

[fuzzykitten99]

Not intending to start another gay marriage debate, but this is a great article, even for the Star Tribune, which is 99% liberal. I like the way the columnist puts it into perspective. What I wish she would have said is that there is no discrimination on gays to begin with. A gay person has every right to marry anyone they want, as long as that person is of the opposite sex. This is the same as hetero people. Straight people don't have any more rights to marry than gays do. We still have to marry someone of the opposite sex. To ask the majority to bend to the wants and whines of the minority is against what this country was founded on. Majority rules. Don't like it? tough shit. Life is unfair and tough-suck it up and leave the rest of us alone.

http://www.startribune.com/191/story/317243.html

Opinion polls in 2005 revealed that a majority of Minnesotans support the proposed marriage amendment to the state Constitution, which would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That's why a few Senate DFLers are working overtime to make sure that the full Senate -- and you, the voters -- don't get to vote on it.
Amendment supporters are ordinary Minnesotans: soccer moms, Twins fans, the folks next door. But some advocates of same-sex marriage apparently view them as a sinister and unsavory bunch, even comparing them to racial bigots.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, U.S. Sen. John Kerry likened the push for gay marriage to the civil rights movement. State Rep. Neva Walker agrees. "Discrimination isn't just about race anymore," she told Minnesota Public Radio. "I still am not sure that if I had to depend on this body [the Minnesota House] to have my civil rights, that I would have them." Walker claims that the proposed amendment would put discrimination in the Minnesota Constitution.

OutFront Minnesota, a gay-lesbian advocacy organization, says that "[p]ublic opinion cannot be allowed to permanently enshrine discrimination into the Constitution."

A recent Star Tribune editorial put it this way: "This question should not be one decided by popular vote. It's easy to whip up sentiment against an unpopular minority. Civil rights was not put to a referendum in the Deep South in the 1960s; neither should this question be put to voters in Minnesota in 2006."

What's the upshot of this view? That, as a group, Minnesotans who support the marriage amendment are foolish, motivated by an irrational animus against homosexuals. If you believe that children need a mother and a father, you are the equivalent of a Southern bigot who demands that blacks and whites use separate bathrooms.

In America today, it's a serious thing to be a bigot. You are shunned in polite company. You can lose your job if you display your bigotry in the workplace.

Supporters of same-sex marriage often insist that "extending marriage rights" to gay people is no big deal. It won't change life for the rest of us, they say. But if same-sex marriage becomes a civil right, the belief that one-man, one-woman marriage is best for kids becomes discriminatory, and those who hold it become bigots.

Last year, actress Jada Pinkett Smith, the wife of movie star Will Smith, got a taste of what this might mean. In a speech at Harvard University in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal, she told the audience, "Women, you can have it all -- a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career. ... You can do whatever it is you want."

Harvard's Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender and Supporters Alliance bristled. "Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable," a spokesman complained to the Harvard Crimson. The BGLTSA demanded, and got, an apology.

You better not speak up for traditional marriage in the Boston public schools. In May 2004 the district superintendent sent a memo to all staff members, stressing the "profound impact on our civic life and discourse" of the court decision that imposed same-sex marriage. He emphasized the district's "zero tolerance" for "discrimination" and "hateful speech" on issues of gay marriage and sexual orientation, and stated that students and staff members who breach the policy may be expelled or terminated.

All this suggests the shape of things to come, says Mary Ann Glendon, a professor at Harvard Law School. In the future, she writes, religious organizations that promote one-man, one-woman marriage may risk losing tax-exempt status or academic accreditation. As the law changes to allow same-sex marriages or their equivalent, religious institutions, including schools, charities and ministries, "may be forced to retreat from their practices, or else face enormous legal pressure to change their views."

In this brave new world, it's the "heteronormative" majority that's starting to feel uncomfortable.

 

[Avatar4321]

Supporters of same-sex marriage often insist that "extending marriage rights" to gay people is no big deal. It won't change life for the rest of us, they say. But if same-sex marriage becomes a civil right, the belief that one-man, one-woman marriage is best for kids becomes discriminatory, and those who hold it become bigots.

I think this is a major issue. If this becomes true you are going to see the left start attacking all religions who hold to the sacred view of the family. I am willing to bet I will see alot of persecution in my life time.

But I've also been thinking alittle bit about homosexuality. Alot of people see it as a problem, but I am thinking its more of a symptom of a bigger problem or several. but i think the main one is the lack of understanding of the Lord's plan of happiness.

I obviously havent thought all the details out in what I've been, but I do think this is just a symptom of a bigger problem.