Video of the Day: Your East Side Moment of Zen
BART Cop Murder Trial to Move to Downtown L.A., Lawyer Predicts More L.A. Riots
Sobriety Checkpoint in Sherman Oaks Tonight
Nearly $10 Million Owed to LAUSD by Teachers Who Were Mistakenly Overpaid
If You've Got the Time: Sunday Brunch @ Casa del Mar
The big news in the fight over Califiornia's gay marriage November ballot proposition is Newt Gingrich, who supports a "yes" vote, or the elimination of same-sex marriage. He wants you to vote yes on Prop 8 to "protect marriage," but like the San Francisco Bay Guardian said, he's a "three-times-divorced defender of family values." He has married and divorced three times over, twice dumping women after they were diagnosed with cancer or multiple sclerosis. Gingrich's YouTube ad can be seen here.
Newt Gingrich Joins Prop 8 Battle
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (14) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Feed the Homeless at the Echo in Echo Park on Thanksgiving Day
Gobble Gobble Give
[more]
Great! Gingrich now has a "contract on California." Awesome. >eyeroll goes here
Kiddies, that ad is what is called "preaching to the choir," yesiree, surely.
Oh my God,
Now according to this fruitcake, gay marriage is endangering civilization!
The four judges did not overturn this supposed demand of the majority. They upheld the constitutional right of equality and freedom. During slavery days, many Virginians saw no reason to do away with slavery. Were they right?
Upholding the constitution protects all of us from this type of prejudice.
D
The JOB of the courts is to defend the rights of the minority if the "will of the majority" is to discriminate against them. Democracy is not four wolves and a lamb "voting" on lunch... Some believe marriage to be a strictly religious coupling, but most view marriage as a social institution which defines the relationship between two committed people. That why we have interracial marriage and interfaith marriage and it's legal. Two atheists are also allowed to marry legally in this country.. so the religious argument means squat. Gay people are in fact being singled out as a "second class" status and it IS a civil rights issue. Furthermore "civil unions" do NOT afford all of the same rights and privileges of marriage... do some research. Gay marriage does not in any way shape or form "threaten" the validity of anyone else's marriage.
"Oh my God,Now according to this fruitcake, gay marriage is endangering civilization!"
Exactly!! What if'n Gawd goes ta smitn' Californy??!!"
Marriage is not just a way of publicly celebrating private love. Marriage is a universal human social institution based on the natural structure of human sexuality, which makes man and woman complementary partners. Throughout history, based on experience, tradition and legal precedent, marriage has been defined as the relationship by which a man and woman are joined together for the primary purpose of having children and providing for them. Marriages were formed before governments were instituted, in other words governments did not create marriage, but governments formalized marriages, because nations fail when the birthrate does not replenish the population or families renege on the raising, nurturing and education of future citizens.
No citizen has an unrestricted right to marry whomever they want. You cannot marry a child, a close blood relative, two or more spouses, the husband and wife of another person, of a non-human like your pet. If marriage is a civil right, then we need to eliminate all the codified exceptions or leave the current definition alone.
The reference to interracial or interfaith marriage is spurious. Interracial marriage and interfaith marriage do not change the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Laws against interracial or interfaith marriage add requirements that are not intrinsic to marriage.
Karenraf wrote :
"Marriage is a universal human social institution based on the natural structure of human sexuality"
So you're saying that homosexuality is inherently unnatural? Homosexuality exists in nature, therefor it is natural. One does not "choose" one's sexuality. Marriage isn't about making babies.In our culture marriage is the loving union of two people who want to commit their lives to each other for better or worse. "Interracial and interfaith" marriages are not "spurious"... it was intended to debunk the notion that marriage is strictly a religious union... If atheists can legally marry.. then there you go... it's NOT strictly religious then is it?... You're trying to argue that gay people are somehow inherently unnatural in the world and therefor should have no consideration... you're wrong. A gay persons sexuality is just as natural to them as a heterosexuals sexuality is to them. Using your ill logic, we should deny women or men who can't make babies the right to marry since they have some sort of unnatural deviation as well right?... God didn't make people to be infertile did he?... Or did he...
Gawd. I love posting this when some wing-nut claims that a particular institution is for one thing and one thing only. For whatever its worth Karenraf, posting longish paragraphs with all the trappings of logical argument does not make for a logical argument. But hey, maybe you just love to type...and are a wing-nut too.
In reality marriage rites were practiced long before Christianity or Judaism. But it was necessary for "The Church" to sanctify every aspect of life via religion...including marriage. Naturally, since The Church is homophobic, this excluded same sex marriage.
For whatever it's worth I have a deep and abiding respect for religion as long as religion does not dictate or define, by law, how I may live. Law that prohibits murder, theft, etc. insures democratic coexistence, not religious standards or values.
Trikja wrote: Homosexuality exists in nature, therefor it is natural.
Nature is a poor measure of the kinds of behavior that should be deemed acceptable. Black widow spiders bite and kill the male after they mate. Mother hamsters often kill and eat several of their babies. Mother lionesses abandon weak cubs. These are all very natural behaviors, but I don't think spousal or child murder and cannibalism or abandoning a disabled child would be behaviors that you would embrace even though they are natural.
I don't really understand your other points. I have not mentioned marriage as a religious rite but as a vital sociological institution.
> but I don't think spousal or child murder and cannibalism or abandoning a disabled child would be behaviors that you would embrace even though they are natural.
No one is suggesting any of the above. But leave it to a wing-nut to take thing there.
> I don't really understand your other points.
Shocking.
I'm for gay marriage, but I would HATE to see a court impose it on the people. As a free people, we need to VOTE this into law.
Judges don't make laws, we the people do. It's sort of an American thing.
Ah, tomato, to-mah-to: one says "impose", others say "interpret."
Judges interpret the laws. It's sort of an American thing too.
Gingrich is certainly a supporter of traditional marriage if one considers doing it multiple times being a traditonal supporter. I guess that he could, also, be considered a supporter of traditional divorce, as well.
If this is the type of person supporting Propostion 8, it's all the more reason to vote against it. That would be a true stand for morality and decency.
"I guess that he could, also, be considered a supporter of traditional divorce, as well."
Yea, I heard 'ol Newt was plying one wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital with cancer, so he could run off and marry one of his administrative assistants.
Family values!