For The Love of Gay: Pt. 2 “Mawwiage”

Shannon Ivey
April 10, 2011 Posted by Shannon Ivey smjivey@gmail.com

Mawwiage. Mawwiage is what bwings us togethaw today. Mawwiage, that bwessed awwangement, that dweam wivin a dweam.” – The Princess Bride

I love being married!  Marriage is a challenging, fierce, comforting, annoying, crazy, sexy, frustrating, painfully ordinary, absolutely extraordinary, infuriating, touchingly beautiful roller coaster ride.  If it’s your cup of tea, I highly recommend it!

However. . .

We’ve all been duped; right, left, middle – every last one of us.  We’ve been brainwashed by the idea that governmental intrusion within the Sacrament of marriage is not only needed/justified, but somehow appropriate – and it’s absolutely not.

Why is gay marriage a ballot issue?

Every election our votes are steered by the notion that our government is capable of navigating by this fabricated moral compass and it’s not.  MONEY is Washington’s compass.  Realize that strategists are busy routing our vote, wrapped in the cloak of moral guilt, straight to the bank.

Our current obsession with the gay marriage debacle is clouding our vision, making us more susceptible to various levels of oppression.  We are so concerned with whom FREE people are choosing to mate that our attention is conveniently diverted from the really important issues – like the current administration waltzing us in to a $14 trillion dollar debt and yet another WAR.

We need to wake the hell up and get educated so we can move on and rebuild our nation.

A Brief History of Mawwiage

In every culture around the world there is evidence of matrimonial-like understandings whose histories and rituals differ wildly.  American roots can be traced to every square inch of our planet.  However, it must be stated that our modern understanding of marriage is based in European tradition and hardly represents how “marriage” has evolved throughout global human history.

To begin, marital partnerships have been around since before recorded history and most assuredly did not begin in the church.  Church hierarchy didn’t even begin until sometime during the 2nd century (depending on who you ask).

Yes, marriage pre-dates the church and the canonized Bible.

The early definition of marriage looked nothing like it does today; it was primitive and oppressive.  In short, women were possessions whose worth was measured by the function of her womb.  Women had no rights and were used crudely by men as vehicles by which to pass along his seed.  She was often paid for the service of her uterus and love was not necessarily part of the equation.  (Paid?!?  How did we lose that gig?)

Depending on your source, it was between the 12th & 13th centuries whereby marriages required a blessing from the family.  Familial consent led to practices such as arranged marriages, official dowries, the joining of surnames and so on.  It wasn’t until the 16th century that the state even got involved.  The formalization of marriage took a winding path from common law “Fleet Marriages”, to civil unions, to church sanctioned marriages, to the modern day legal contract.

All marriages aimed to achieve certain goals:  official validation of the matrimonial union, legitimacy of children/heirs and an official understanding of rights and inheritance.

The role of God within marriage varied and was wholly dependent on the social class and/or religious affiliation of those involved.

Mawwiage in the Bible

The Bible is often used as a source/weapon in the modern marriage debate.  Yet some of the matrimonial practices of our ancestors would result in funeral picketing.

The Bible indeed identifies marriage as a union between woman and man.  However, if we are going to cite the Bible as an indisputable source, we must consider ALL of its references.  For example: Abraham gave his wife away to King Abimelek; Jacob/Solomon/David & many others were polygamists; women were property; concubines and infidelity were common; female consent to marriage was not required; women had no rights and the list goes on.

As a Christian body we have deemed the above practices archaic and primitive.  We have allowed “marriage” to evolve and be redefined MANY times.

So why has the evolution stopped?

Modern Mawital Mess

The fact is marriage has always been pretty messy and less than ideal, but EVERYONE must take responsibility for our current chaos.  After all, it was a Republican Congress and Democratic President Bill Clinton that signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996:

Section 2. Powers Reserved to the States

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of Marriage (This section is currently in battle.)

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Let me get this straight:  We’ve allowed the rights of individual States to be superseded and the GOVERNMENT to define the “Sacrament” of marriage?

***A Sacrament is defined as a “rite where God is uniquely active.”***

Hmmm.  Curious.

When I was married – in a church, after pre-marital counseling, by a proper head-of-a-church minister – our ceremony would have been canceled had we not procured the proper paperwork as ordained by the government.  WHAT?!?  You mean God won’t bless our love, consider it a Sacrament and/or honor the commitment I’ve made to my mate unless I’ve paid my $40 bucks?

What about those who are not of the Christian tradition?

All over the United States our society has blessed Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, People into Ritualistic Body Piercings and so on to receive the “Sacrament” of marriage.

What a joke!

Today’s marriages have DEvolved into a governmentally bastardized contract that has nothing to do with God or observing even half of a Sacrament.  With 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges (not to mention the rights and obligations included by State), marriage has become a “legal civil union” whether we like it or not.  Marriage is a RIGHT as defined by our governmental institution and denying RIGHTS is unequivocally unconstitutional.  “Civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” do not include the 1,138 statutory provisions and therefore DENIES the rights of gay, tax-paying citizens.

Enough is enough.  This hypocrisy has got to stop.

My husband and I did not get married when I filled out paperwork at an office where “Marriage License” was listed on the same placard as “Beer License.”  No!  We were married in front of my family, friends and God in a small Southern Church on a muggy July evening.  Our Sacrament had nothing to do with America and was a PERSONAL promise that we made to one another and to God.

At the end of the day, that is exactly what a “modern marriage” means:  a personal promise of devotion, commitment and love made by you, your mate and for some, God.

Beyond that triad – it’s no one else’s damn business.

We need to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” and detach our misguided understanding of marriage from this cold government contract.  Like it or not, that’s what a civil marriage license is – a legal contract.  While the damage is done and the contract is unavoidable due to taxes, social security, medical benefits, child custody, spousal bereavement and so on; we need to recognize that this legal document is in NO WAY a Sacrament.  Furthermore, no one has the right to continue to deny this contract with 1,138 rights and obligations to anyone.

We need to get back on track, people, get over this issue and keep these jackass politicians within the parameters of their job descriptions.  The government is incapable of dictating a national moral compass because it doesn’t have one!!

We are 14 trillion dollars in debt – our children are going to be poverty stricken, War is killing our young men and women – we’ve got bigger fish to fry.

So, the next time you feel the need to quibble about denying 1,138 statutory provisions to any tax-paying citizen, think about the slippery slope on which you are embarking.

What’s next?  Alice’s Confirmation?  William’s Baptism?  Zac’s Graduation?  Jenny’s Birthday?  Papa’s Funeral?

LINK TO:  FOR THE LOVE OF GAY:  PART 1

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses to For The Love of Gay: Pt. 2 “Mawwiage”

  1. Noah on April 10, 2011 at 10:00 am

    “The government is incapable of dictating a national moral compass because it doesn’t have one!!”

    Soooooo true, Shannon.

  2. William on April 11, 2011 at 9:02 am

    At what point do we as American citizens wake up and stop allowing “others” i.e. the government, to legislate OUR morality in every walk of our life. Sure, there are instances where it is necessary for government to step in and make laws prohibiting certain acts; incest, murder, rape, robbery, peeing in public, etc. But, for the government to assume the role of “Grand Curator” for our every act is absurd.

    Our Founding Fathers didn’t think it necessary to put a clause or amendment in the Constitution as to the sanctity of marriage being between ONLY a man and a woman, and there were persons of the “alternate life style” around back then. Why is it necessary for government to now think it is their moral duty to shelter us from a dreaded evil?

    Marriage is a union of love and devotion between two people and GOD. What happened to the First Amendment of the US Constitution… separation of Church and State? Oh, that’s right… it’s all about the money generated from marriage licenses and divorce lawyers.

    As for Bill Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act… that alone should be highlighted to show the degenerate and immoral character that exists in Washington, DC.

    • Shannon Ivey on April 11, 2011 at 8:38 pm

      I know, when I read Bill Clinton and a Republican congress passed DOMA – I was just sick to my stomach. These guys change with the tide.

      • Lavon on January 15, 2012 at 5:58 am

        Great article but it didn’t have erveythnig-I didn’t find the kitchen sink!

  3. Mary on April 11, 2011 at 11:52 am

    Chaos, eh? I don’t see chaos, what I see is a tantrum, threats, and harassment lawsuits paid for by billionaire gay activists through their front, the Arcus Foundation, all in the name of hatred and intolerance by extremist gays who want to oppress and persecute Christianity the and Jewish faith. The US government has never controlled, or legislated marriage. Marriage is a religious sacrament. All the state has done, has required, starting in the 19th century (in the mid to late 1800s) century has required is the filing of a license, to protect the naturally occurring children born of a union between a man and a woman, to ensure their financial support and inheritance rights.

    In fact, state’s didn’t even begin to offer a civil alternative, by a justice of the peace ‘til the 20th century, and in fact it didn’t appropriate the term marriage for that, as it recognized marriage as a religious sacrament. Thus, churches didn’t have to recognize the civil conducted unions as marriages, as my late husband and I (we were married by a justice of the peace) and so many other couples over the decades have found. What the Arcus Foundation, and those on their payroll, want is to appropriate the term marriage to use as a weapon to persecute churches in the court system, as has been revealed in states that have forced same sex marriage laws on their states. Massachusetts gay marriage law was passed one day, and the next there were a plethora of lawsuits filed to attack Christian churches. The so called “marriages” that resulted, have virtually all been shown to have been shams, staged to make a point, virtually all are now divorced.

    Civil unions for homosexuals, aren’t being denied, or protested. They are equal to the civil unions heterosexuals have, the only difference being, that the federal government doesn’t recognize them… but the homosexual activists aren’t fighting, aren’t spending their millions to achieve federal recognition, though it would be very easy to do so and succeed, they are fighting to appropriate the religious term marriage, because their intent is to persecute the churches, nothing more.

    So Shannon, how much of the hundreds of millions put out by the Arcus Foundation (founded by gay billionaires like Tom Gill and Jon Stryker to infiltrate Christian organizations and churches in an attempt to force the submission of Christian churches to bend and conform to their extremist ideology, to influence elections and laws) have you taken to write this propaganda?

    In part one of this dance of yours, you presented yourself as unabashedly Christian, and in the second, you dismiss and slander the faith, the history/tradition of marriage in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and reveal that you aren’t at all familiar with the bible you claim to read. So, is this evidence of the script you’ve been paid to employ to make your facile arguments? When one tact doesn’t work, just cast the veil aside and try another?

    The facts are, Christianity has been 100% consistent with what is required to be a Christian, those who are false prophets, wolves in sheep’s clothing, are always inconsistent, because they seek to corrupt, you’re an example of that. If you don’t accept the tenets of Christianity, you aren’t sincerely Christian, you are in fact sinning. When you demand the church’s tenets be changed to embrace sin, you are seeking to corrupt the innocent, which is an even graver sin.

    I remember the Princess Bride, and Peter Cook’s clergyman, a representation of the corruption, in actuality, of what you advocate, exploiting religion as a Trojan horse. The priest pays no attention to what is going on before him, he merely is a facilitator for an abuse of power. He’s not a representation of what true clergy are called to do, which is to advocate and uphold Christ’s teachings. He’s an empty suit.. which is what your advocacy would reduce Christianity to.

    Marriage is a commitment, made between a man and a woman, to cleave to each other, fidelity, faithfulness are required. It is for the bearing of children. It’s hard work, it can’t be reduced to glib terms.

    Have to laugh at your scrambling to frame the discussion, by picking and choosing your defining terms to serve your ends. Marriage originated with God joining Adam and Eve, marriage, the roots of Christian marriage originated within the Jewish faith, and it required a rabbi to perform the ceremony. Again, other cultures and societies had their own ceremonies and contractual understandings, they were in no way the same as the Jewish-Christian traditions of the sacrament of marriage.

    And again, for all your claims of reading the bible, you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about when it comes to what you attempt to toss out there. There isn’t “lots” of polygamy in the bible, in fact the only examples of polygamy reveal the sin that comes about as a result. There are also examples of kings, a Philistine, and of course, Solomon, who was a Jew, the son of David. His polygamy came about when he took a second wife, as part of a political alliance, as requsted by an Egyptian king. It didn’t make it right. For example, Abraham “giving his wife” to King Abimelech, he didn’t. Abimelech was a Philistine, Abraham had moved his family to Gerar, which was ruled by the king. The Philistines were considered Godless, and in his fear that he would be killed, by someone who wanted his wife. Abraham lied, claiming Sarah, his wife, was in actuality his sister. The king, thinking Sarah was Abraham’s sister, claimed her for a wife, but didn’t lay with her. God spoke with Abimelech and he then confronted Abraham, and gave his wife back.

    Regarding Jacob, the biblical story isn’t an endorsement of polygamy, but cites the example of what harm comes about by the sins of jealousy and rivalry it lays out the wisdom of the divine appointment, which joins together one man and one woman only, for God hath called us to peace and purity.

    As to your attempt to blow smoke by claiming our “understanding” is based on “European” tradition, not gonna work, dear. As to the recording of marriage (European countries, at the time were monarchies, and church law was enforced by the state), and marriages and births were recorded with the church, even after those countries established the early forms of city governments. All marriages, births and even deaths were recorded with the church, not with the structures of city government.

    But getting back to my response to you, we aren’t talking about church hierarchy, but to the rabbis, and priests who lived among the people, long before the 2nd century. Nor were women reduced to mere chattel, and as to being paid, please cite your source (I do remember during part 1, you refused to cite a source, but then again, liars can’t cite sources that don’t exist, can they?)

    Perhaps you’re not aware that Jewish women had a lot of rights in biblical times, nor were they forced into marriages. They had the legal right to be free in their persons, from abuse and persecution. Their consent was required, they had equal inheritance rights, along with their brothers. They could own property, had a say in law and government. Their faith required them to, once they were married to view their husband as the head of the family, but that doesn’t make a woman a chattel, or property.

    Nor did the state get involved in the 16th century (in fact the period you reference wasn’t the 16th, but the 18th century), and again you assume no one will challenge you. You employ a term, “church sanctioned” to infer that church’s didn’t sanction marriage to separate marriage from it being a church sacrament. Not gonna work. Let’s lay out the historical facts behind your mish mash of misleading terms. Now, common law “marriages”, weren’t considered marriages. The term was implied to protect the children who naturally occurred from the man and woman who lived together outside the bonds of marriage. “Fleet” marriage, refers to the scams that were perpetuated by criminals in the Fleet prison in England, it was also applied to a Scottish “law” that was an invented claim by bandit lords on the border of Scotland and England, that was abused by those who sought to take advantage of another.. if a man in Scotland, claimed he was married to a girl or woman, and she didn’t deny it, they were considered as bound as in marriage. This originated during the period when the bandit lords who lived on the Scottish side of the border would kidnap the daughters of English nobility to hold them for ransom. It wasn’t a law that had been passed by any government, but a practice put in place by criminals, and not dealt with while Scotland and England were still hostile to each other, in fact, said “law” wasn’t enforceable against a Scottish woman, by a Scottish or any other man. The Marriage law, put in place in the mid 18th century, wasn’t a civil law defining marriage, but a law (again, from a period where church law governed the state) requiring marriage banns be posted in the church, a practice whereupon the intended couple let the priest know their marriage was planned, and for three weeks, said couple’s announcement would be announced in the church. This was intended to insure that all was on the up and up, to allow family members have time to find out, including any abandoned spouse, to be at the church at the time of the ceremony to speak out in case the planned marriage was invalid.

    There were no civil unions that pre-dated marriage or the canonized bible, again you can’t obfuscate by your framing. As an aside, isn’t if funny that you want to hold up civil unions, yet now claim they aren’t good enough, because homosexuals demand the term “marriage” be redefined, so they can sue Christian and Jewish churches into forcing them to recognize them as married, based on their hateful, intolerant desire to control and oppress the beliefs of Christians and Jews..

    You further lie, claiming that the role of God, was dependent on social class, etc.. in marriage, is also transparent and weak. From the poorest ,to the wealthiest, the sacrament of marriage, the ceremony, performed by a priest, or minister was the same. One couple might have been wearing finery, and the other, simple farmer’s clothing, but the ceremony the pledge, the commitment was the same, and all based on God’s requirement. Man oh man, you don’t think like a conservative, you think like a Marxist, and for the same reason.

    Now, I’ll ask you to cite exactly where in the constitution, the right to marriage is listed? Again, marriage is a religious sacrament. There is no marriage provided by the state, merely a civil union. The term “marriage license” is used, to require those seeking religious marriage, as well as the civil union, to license for the legal protection of children that result. The US government is denied the right to dictate to religion what their beliefs can and can not be, thus, the attempt to appropriate the term marriage, to allow the persecution of the religious, is unconstitutional. Nor can you use benefits and legal protections as an obligation to impose this nonsense. When someone adopts a child, there is a legal obligation through the legal process, one can set up a will, medical and financial power of attorney, which allows a same sex partner or anyone the individual chooses to visit, make decisions for them, to set inheritance rights. Companies recognize and provide benefits for same sex partners, and privately purchased insurance also provides options for same sex partners. Yet, not one penny by the activists is being spent to have the federal government provide federal recognition of same sex civil unions, and there’s majority support in congress for federal recognition of same sex civil unions.. But those “concerns” don’t seem to be sought by those expending hundreds of millions in pursuit of the the power they could exploit if they can seize power to define the religious sacrament, marriage.

    So, tell your leftist friends at the Arcus Foundation to keep spending their hundreds of millions, they won’t succeed. In fact, I hope they spend themselves broke. It also helps to identify frauds like you, who aren’t conservative, but only seeking to line their pockets as paid for mercenaries. Christians have been persecuted by villains in the past, and because we love the Lord, our God, and it offends us to do anything that offends him, we will never bow to your demands.

    • David on April 18, 2011 at 9:37 am

      Heh, Mary – try fact-checking what you copy blindly off of other sites. It’s not “Tom Gill”, it’s Tim Gill – he’s the founder of Quark, Inc.. The only reference to “Tom Gill” and Arcus can be found in a LifeSiteNews.com article talking about another article published by the National Organization for Marriage – clearly where you’re getting your information from. NOM is not a reliable source of information, on the gay community or anything else. You are doing little more than retransmitting propaganda.

  4. Mary on April 11, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Here’s a simple request for you and your Arcus Foundation paymasters, ask them why they are silent, and refuse to spend a penny fighting the real persecution and hate crimes against gays?? Here’s a video that the Arcus Foundation has seen, and refused to decry the actions shown, (it’s very graphic, I wouldn’t watch it unless you have a strong stomach) http://zandiq.com/video/0000000047.shtml 3 gay men in Iraq, sentenced to death. You see them bound, they are doused in an accelerant, lighter fluid or gas, and set on fire. Just ask the Arcus Foundation about their silence in the face of this. Also, ask them why, when they knew that the two students who harassed and persecuted Tyler Clementi, were leftist, Obama supporters, one was an atheist the other a Hindu, the Arcus Foundation blamed Christianity, they paid vast sums to create commercials blaming Christians for the acts of an atheist and a Hindu, in making Clementi’s life in the dorm intolerable. They didn’t do it because he was gay, but because they didn’t like him for some reason.

    If they are truly interested in preventing the persecution of gays and lesbians, why are they silent in the face of true hatred, and persecution? Why are they solely focused on persecuting Christians? Christians do not advocate for the persecution or harming of homosexuals, they only believe that homosexual activity, like heterosexual adultery is a sin. You aren’t forced to embrace Christianity, not forced to believe it, or follow it’s tenets. Yet, Islam, which demands all who do not conform, be slaughtered, especially homosexuals, yet not one word of condemnation of the imams and terrorists who promote this. In fact, the Arcus Foundation has sent large sums of money to promote Islamist front groups in the US.

  5. Shannon Ivey on April 11, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    Mary- wow. You seriously need to find some joy in your life. This paranoid pursuit for perfection must be exhausting. I’m so sorry that this hateful version of God is who you’ve created as Savior. He’s love, my friend – not hate. My sources are the books you see on the amazon widget below my article.

    • Mary on April 11, 2011 at 10:15 pm

      Shannon, so you essentially assembled excuses to hide behind, from sources that would back up your shoddy attempt at a rationale.. I laughed when I noticed the first selection, EJ Graff.. I remember her from when I used to read and comment at tpmcafe, when she was exposed and later censured by the Columbia Journalism Review for fraudulent research on a piece she’d written on childcare. She faked statistics. Over the years she’s been criticized for inventing findings, to prop up a conclusion she determined before conducting any of her so called research. She’s a member of the petulant, intolerant left, who want to crack the whip, rather than actually engage in honest debate… but then again, so do you.

      It’s not me who has invented a hateful God, in fact, as I responded to one of your fellow faux Christians in part 1, one loves God, not fear him. If you love God, you don’t lie, and seek to misrepresent his law. Your problem is you’ve gotten used to lying, and not being challenged, one who twists what Christ taught, and demands that those teachings be altered to suit their sin, doesn’t love God, they are merely seeking to exploit the concept of religion.

      I notice you didn’t respond to any of my questions, or debate on the facts at hand. Nor did you respond to my query on the hypocrisy and fraud of your pals at the Arcus Foundation. Just last month they paid out to types like you, to push their demand that their activists infiltrate and demand Christian churches and Christians conform, and right on schedule, your propaganda appears.

      It’s not paranoia, to state a fact. It is paranoia and cowardice on your part, and hatefulness, your response is full to the brim of that. You can make all the inferences you care to, they mean nothing to a Christian, who knows the truth, and rejects your lies.

      • Shannon Ivey on April 12, 2011 at 4:45 am

        Mary – You’re incredibly insulting and not worth the time away from my family to pick apart. If you were genuinely interested in debating this issue, I would be happy at the chance for a dialogue. You’re not. You’re interested in petty name calling and a chance to tower over someone with your incredibly narrow viewpoint of God, Christianity and the Bible. I’m sure He’s so proud at how well you’ve treated others and respected His Golden Rule. So, please, use all the space you want in the comments section for your paranoid, fear based ideas. I believe in free-speech – so g’ahead, but I’m sorry, until you stop with your hateful name-calling, I’m not going to engage.

  6. Noah on April 11, 2011 at 5:59 pm

    WOW. This thing is hard core! I’m spent! However….

    Mary, I certainty respect your point of view. But I think Shannon is not so much a “mercenary”, but more a writer who happens to have a different viewpoint than you.

    As for me, I have no idea if homosexuality is wrong (I’ve got a hot wife so I really don’t have to worry too much about it). I’m not going to claim to know what God wants or advocates. I’m just going to keep learning and try to keep my judgements of others’ to a minimum… so that when I fall off this big ol’ blue/green ball, I’ll be met with a smile.

  7. Jennifer on April 13, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    Mary:

    See the ironic thing is, you’re the only person on this site and in these articles who is coming across as a hateful, bigoted, mean-spirited, damning, stubborn, holier-than-thou, judgmental, absolutely conflicted, and self-righteous person. I don’t care if you’re a Christian, an Atheist, a lesbian, a Jew, a straight widow, or a fly on the wall – what I do know is by your actions you have demonstrated not even NEAR to what Christ taught. You have buried yourself in believed statistics, fabricated concepts, and personal experiences that have formed your opinions and oppressive rants.

    Try loving. It’s so much less exhausting.

  8. Janelle on April 15, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    After reading this incredibly thought-provoking article, I want to comment on how much I appreciate that Shannon is SHARING her internal struggle with this issue and that she has THOUGHT THROUGH both sides and came to her own personal conclusions via her private relationship with her G-d.

    Then I read some of the most hateful and narrow-minded retorts (from Mary) that I’ve ever heard on this issue (and I’ve had more discussions than I care to share). I found it exhausting and just plain sad that a person would say and write such things in the name of their G-d (from whom she apparently is the ONLY person in the world He has deemed capable of speaking on his behalf). Apparently all the other STRAIGHT religious leaders who have come out in favor of full equality are misinformed. (google “Religious leaders supporting marriage equality” if you’re interested in seeing all the people that disagree with you, Mary)

    I want to say THANK YOU again to Shannon for dissecting, thinking, considering, and voicing this internal dialogue she’s had. Her class, dedication to research, and open and considerate care to both sides of the issue makes me want to pay attention.

    Mary’s desperation is evident- I think she knows that her argument is not winning any battles. The tides are changing and it is because more and more people are THINKING and LISTENING…

    You’re a brave woman, Shannon. I’m impressed.

  9. Missy on April 16, 2011 at 10:25 am

    Soooo many opinions, and no one here is communicating effectively or respectfully. It comes as no surprise that such issues are divisive, what is surprising is how we all play into it. Peace.

  10. [...] For the Love of Gay: Part 3 April 17, 2011 Posted by Guest Writer gostwriter@hollywoodrepublican.net Please suffer another point of view. “For the Love of Gay: Part 3” Please read first the excellent essays, the comments are essential, proffered by Part 1 and 2. [...]

  11. [...] into two parts that will cover more territory in the hope of uncovering common ground.  You may click here to read PART [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feature

Will Obama Leave the Democratic Party Better Than He Found It?

Has President Obama served or hurt the Democratic Party in his six years in office. Any basic review of the facts gives a...

Bill Maher, Ben Affleck and Islam

On Last Week's Bill Maher show, an interesting this happened. Liberal Maher took on Ben Affleck and his liberal views on Islam. ...