Where do these people come from?

[giza]

An actual piece of campaign literature that arrived in someone's mail:



This Cheyrl Guthrie person makes me want to projectile vomit.

Comments

[unclekage.livejournal.com]

The real horror is that she is likely to win.

[shenryyr.livejournal.com]

It's Alabama. Can't be that surprising or horrifying. I'm sure they're getting all riled up since California recently overturned a court's ruling that same-sex marriage wasn't legal.

[edhyena.livejournal.com]

Well, getting all riled up about something that happened thousands of miles away and has no effect on them is a very strong Christian value. :/

I'll start buying all this when someone points to the part where Jesus said, "Remember to keep people who are different down!"

[zealianbadass.livejournal.com]

It's bloodlines like those that almost make me want to procreate, even against all inclination. So that there will be someone to fight these people in the next generation.

[giza.livejournal.com]

I'm tempted to start donating to sperm banks, I really am!

[jbadger.livejournal.com]

Scary thing.... I did that.

[mapdark.livejournal.com]

OMG I am so going to do this! XD

[aureth.livejournal.com]

These people come from Alabama.

The Bible belt still is the Bible belt. Probably will be for a while, yet. Although there is a generational gap...check out this recent poll from California.

This next ten years is probably the social conservative movement's last gasp. The younger generations are just more accepting of things like gay marriage.

[fordarkness.livejournal.com]

generally i don't follow what politicians do but man, reading that makes me want to vomit too. :( i'd punch that judgemental bitch in the face if i ran into her. *ugh*

[jbadger.livejournal.com]

even sicker..

[samurai-bastard.livejournal.com]

"Lets shake things up together." Yeah by maintaining the status quo and promoting hatred of things we don't agree with.

[smack-jackal.livejournal.com]

In terms of horror, a friend frowarded this one to me. A Ford dealer in California has been running radio ads stating that anybody who isn't a christian should sitdown, shut up and deal with being an oppressed minority. Awesomely horrific stuff.

http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/davesalyers/27327

[thraxarious.livejournal.com]

And a person renting an apartment out saying "It would be great for a family" gets fined for discrimination....

[rigelkitty.livejournal.com]

There's an interesting follow-up to that story...

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/28/sitdownandshutup-chr.html

[smack-jackal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and following through to the guy's blog is a post in which he definds his actions with a duplicitous arguement that is as dispicable as the ad.

[rassah.livejournal.com]

On a similar topic, I'm looking for a free copy (dowload?) of this:
https://store.afa.net/pc-10000122-5-theyre-coming-to-your-town-dvd.aspx
I'm sure it will be positively hilarious, but I don't want to give that group any money.

[eddiddiums.livejournal.com]

Damn it! I can't find a torrent either. I would almost consider buying a copy, but I don't like the idea of where the proceeds would go.

[talvinm.livejournal.com]

But don't you know that Gays are a threat to marriage?

(voice dripping with sarcasm, here)

Why, yes: Gays are such a threat to my marriage. Notwithstanding the fact that a Bi man (a furry at that) presided over our wedding, and our current minister is Gay. I don't know HOW we will survive it, truly I don't.

[rexxwolfe.livejournal.com]

Its sad the co called leader in the world is behind on the times.. I I honestly think that the sun doesn't rise and set out of the USA's ass anymore the rest of the worlds just growing very very tired of it. This election for example is just ridiculous our elations are lucky to last a few months usually the heavy duty touring and crap is the last few weeks before an election.

Its at the point i don't care who wins the presidency anymore ive heard and seen enough crap out of the candidates mouths that I don't think a huge improvemnt will be made in four short years Bush and his cronies have left you Americans with years of mess to clean up.

[bikerwalla.livejournal.com]

It's not like they have to win elections or turn back the clock or anything... they just have to be seen as fighting for the flag and the cross. And they dishonor those symbols thereby... but the people who labor under these yokes have to vote for them, because they've waived their right to a secret ballot in the GOP!

[samurai-bastard.livejournal.com]

People like that truly scare me, they are the kind of people that follow in the footsteps of fascist leaders like Augusto Pinochet, Benito Mussolini, and Pol Pot. They are the kind of people twist and use religion and patriotism to gain power and money.

When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.
Sinclair Lewis

Also her outfit looks like she mugged a 1950's stereotypical housewife and ran off with her hair and clothes.

[mapdark.livejournal.com]

And while I'm not American I'm pretty sure that some treaty signed by your founding fathers said that the United States were in no way founded on the Christian religion.

lemme check..


Ah! there we go !

Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."


Guess Cheryl should study some more before saying the country is founded on christian beliefs..

[sagejackal.livejournal.com]

Is it wrong that I disagree with both sides?
What is any level of government doing marrying people? I'm looking at a lot of these comments and seeing "This country wasn't founded as a Christian nation! Separation of Church and State!" and so on and so forth. Well, why do you want a religious ceremony bestowed upon you, let alone from a government entity? That sounds kinda backwards to me.
And this touches upon the real issue, why is government issuing marriage licenses? Why do you need to get their permission to be married? Oh wait, that's right, it was started by the Reconstruction Era South to regulate interracial marriage. Only let "the good ones" marry huh'white folk. Same thing with gun permits. Don't want the ones you don't like having arms. Eventually this poisonous thought pattern spread its way to eventually include all marriages and eventually all States.
In any case, leave marriage up to the spiritual leadership, since that's what marriage is, something religious.
Now, if you want some form of recognition for legal and tax purposes, that's different. You can have the State and Federal governments issue something, but don't call it marriage.

[rassah.livejournal.com]

Why not call it marriage, if civil marriage, which does not look at what religion (or lack of) you are married under, and includes all the combination of laws that couples and families require, already exist? Why make another separate package of laws to do the exact same thing?

[sagejackal.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I didn't explain my view point thoroughly enough. I'm not for the status quo relabeled. In numerous instances, you can have joint ownership of something without being married to someone (House, Car, other property). The two things I see as being issues are health care and taxes. We can do one of two things. We can still have civil unions for those, or we can try something else.
Do we even need a "union" for those? In a lot of instances, especially when applying or determining eligibility for something(government programs, credit cards, etc) they almost always ask for household income or household something. I figure, if they pool you in with whoever you're living with in those regards, is it that foreign an idea to allow said people to have the option to file taxes together, or share health care? This is regardless of if you are "with" a person or not.

As an aside, I'm not big on progressive income taxes. Pennsylvania has already gone the flat tax route, which negates any benefit in joint filing at the state level. I suppose all we need is the Fair Tax to get through and there'd be no benefit to joint file at the federal level either.
As for health care, that's really a private contract sorta thing. There's nothing keeping insurance companies from covering other people as part of a plan. Not that they would, it would almost certainly have to involve some huge effort to push for it.

[rassah.livejournal.com]

What about power of attorney, inheritance, medical and funeral decisions, legal issues such as not being forced to testify against your partner, child ownership and decision rights, immigration rights for partners from other countries, etc? Some of those cost up to $3,000 per legal contract to set up separately, and many others are not available at all. Marriage contract, which I don't believe is a religion-owned word/status, costs about $25 to sign, confers all of these at once.
Here's a more exhaustive list of things besides just "health care and taxes"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

[sagejackal.livejournal.com]

I think we're of two different mind sets.
I'm of the belief that as a person, I have an unlimited ability to contract. And as such, I can setup all those things legally without being married to anyone. I know because I already have a Health Care Power of Attorney, not to mention a will, and joint ownership of some things. A lot of this can be done at notaries, banks, and the like.
Costs. Again, that's entirely up to who you get it done with.
As for a lot of those other situations, I say change the laws that created those debacles. A child has two biological parents. Unless they are mistreating the child, or they've been adopted, then we kinda already know who "owns" and is responsible for them. And as for adoption, why can't a child have two guardians that aren't related?
The biggest reason I don't like marriage is that it is a union of three people, not two. You, your spouse, and the state. From that point forward your business, your property, your concerns, even your children, are now shared with the state. I really don't care for that kind of problem in my life.

On a side note, I have friends who have significant others. They share houses, cars, even have children, but they aren't married. And these are heterosexual couples.
So it's more than possible.

I will say this, you got me on the immigration one. See, everything up to now involves two people that are already citizens contracting with one another, so to speak. Dealing with someone who you technically can't deal with on a legal level leaves a gray area.

[rassah.livejournal.com]

Heterosexual unmarried couples living together and sharing their lives are just as much at risk as same-sex couples. They're just either as ignorant of the benefits, or believe the risks of marriage and headaches involved with it outweigh the benefits (or both). As I mentioned, there are many things you can get with marriage that you simply can not get as a contract by itself, besides the immigration one. Sure, we can add those 1000+ contracts to our legal system, but why bother if we already have them within marriage?
Regarding costs, the biggest one is information - more specifically lawyers - and that's why it would cost so much to set up all these contracts individually.
As for the state, technically, isn't *every* contract you get with someone else a contract between the two of you and the state's legal system, and thus a contract between 3 people? Expanding even more on this, isn't getting a similar contract from a private entity, such as a corporation, basically putting your contract and trust into a group governed by and voted on by the people (shareholders)? How would that be different from putting trust into the group governed by and voted on by the people we call "government?"

[sagejackal.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about the contract being privy to the jurisdiction of the state, I'm talking about the state actually being a party in the contract(marriage license).
It's not too dissimilar to car "ownership", where the belief is that if you have a title you own the car. This is a fallacy. The holder of the MSO(Manufacturer's Statement of Origin) is the owner. Who has that? The state. They then in turn issue you a title to their car, in which you have to register it with them and pay rent(fees/tax).
This gets down to the bigger issue. Rights, both personal and property. As soon as you need someone to issue a permit, certificate, title, or whatever to do something, it becomes a privilege and you loose that right. I shouldn't have to ask "Mother may I?" to do these things.

Tell you what, bring back common law marriage, make it non-gender specific, and I'll be all over that. I want to declare my marriage, not ask for it.

[rassah.livejournal.com]

We have common law marriage here in Maryland. It does give a lot of the same rights as full marriage, but still not close to everything. And it still can not be used by same-sex couples :6 Plus I can declare my relationship to be a marriage, and have a wedding as well. Problem is that in the legal system we will be treated as strangers. Are you proposing being able to declare how you think certain parts of the law should apply to you in certain cases at specific times? (As in, yeah, "I may have been considered a witness to a crime last week, but this week I am declaring myself immune to questioning and prosecutions, and thus declare I can ignore that law")
But, valid points all. I guess we, as a people, have decided that there should be a reason for some of these permits, titles, certificates, or whatever, and now we are all dealing with our own consequences.

[sagejackal.livejournal.com]

I suppose I got a little soap boxy back there. :p
Though, I'm not contesting being subpoenaed to testify before a court.
I mean that common law marriage should have the same standing as state certified marriage. As long as both spouses are consenting, who gives a shit?

[rassah.livejournal.com]

The third party that either enforces, or challenges contracts is the party that "gives a shit." Both common law and state certified marriages give rights that are only valid during times of outside influence, be it a challenge on inheritance by a wayward family member, or a challenge on a request for benefits by the government or an insurance agency. That's where a third party, be it a private entity or the government, comes in to enforce or better define the contract. So, if you and your partner are consenting, and have a contract between the two of you, that contract will only go as far as keeping the two of you in agreement over the terms. If one of you dies or becomes incapacitated, you are still strangers and have no contract in the eyes of the people and groups that actually matter :/ I think the only question remains is who do you want to entrust and enforce that contract through: government or a private entity.
P.S. not trying to be soapboxy, either. You have points and facts I had not considered and was not aware of, am glad to learn these from you, and appreciate being able to bounce my ideas off of your brain as it were.

[rassah.livejournal.com]

Ok, that was kinda long on my part, and reading again, I think I may have missed your point. I'm assuming you meant "outside parties should not give a shit as to who enters into a contract, regardless of who those outside parties are." In that case, I agree with you %100 (with extent that the outside parties are absolutely sure that the people entering into the contract are doing it willingly and consentiously, of course :)

[rassah.livejournal.com]

I guess my point is that a marriage contract is no longer so simple and basic that it can be disposed of or replaced with anything other than something else that's just as complex and full of little laws and contracts.

[sagejackal.livejournal.com]

I guess my counter point is, it shouldn't have gotten that complex to begin with.

[sashatigress.livejournal.com]

Your tag - 100% asshole ... says it all!

[toumal.livejournal.com]

Is it okay for me to be against abortion, but not against gay marriage? I'm looking for a party to vote for here! :P

[silent-o.livejournal.com]

To the ash heap of history with them, and the sooner the better!

In regards to political parties, I find both of them corrupt. The individual members may or may not be, but the organizations as a whole are nothing but self serving tools of greed. They lie and manipulate the people to serve their own purposes. What would the founding fathers think of this mess?

How can gay marriage erode the sanctity of heterosexual marriage? It can't, and even if it did, it couldn't do any more damage than 55 hour celebrity marriages.

[wildw0lf.livejournal.com]

Yes, she's a bit too much.