And I can comment on things I see other friends commenting on on their friends walls over here, to. Take Morgan for example. A friend of his posted this story:
Boehner launches effort to defend gay marriage ban House Speaker John Boehner says he's launching a legal defense of the federal law against gay marriage. The Ohio Republican announced Friday that he was convening a bipartisan legal advisory group to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.Mr. Freeberg pointed out that Boehner's argument: 'The constitutionality of this law should be determined by the courts -- not by the president unilaterally,' is pretty sound.
But the poster responded:
My point is why is this an issue? we have much bigger problems than if people want to get married or not. i HATE the christian RightWait, your point is a question? Oh, I see now. Your point is actually at the end of your response. Let people talk long enough and they will eventually make their point. And of course, that's what the Gay Marriagers want. They want you to hate, shame, and silence their opposition. And you want applause for helping out.
Another poster piped up:
How can you be bipartisan and object to everyone having equal rights. Kind of seems a little two-faced.Couple of points here first. One, Obama himself (a Democrat ... and lots of other Democrats say it too) said during his campaign that he thought marriage should be defined as one man, one woman. So I can't see where Republicans saying the same thing is somehow not "bi-partisan". The second point is -- most conservatives in office suck at framing arguments. Here's the right argument.
If this were really about "rights" this conversation would've been over years ago. It's not about rights. It's about the word. It's about culture. Most even on the Christian right would be ok with "Civil Union" and the "rights" battle would be over.
But as I've said many, many times... this is not about rights, no matter how many times they insist that it is. If they'd pushed for "civil union" laws, they'd have the rights they seek. The "Christian Right" would not be pushing legislation like this if it weren't for the gay activist left pushing for a legislated re-definition of the word "marriage" as it applies to human relationships.
One might argue, as many do, that the unions are the same thing -- just two consenting adults who love each other and want to be family, so why use different words? But they are not the same thing in much the same way that a raft is not considered a boat, but they are both watercraft. They have different designs and they function differently. They have some basic similarities, but they are not the same thing at all. And if you don't think the word is important, just ask the far left's own George Lakoff (and others in his field) why it is important. I'm sure he would be only too happy to explain.
And as I've said many times before, I do not care one whit what they want to call it. They can call it whatever they want to call it. But when they force it to be officially, legally referred to as "marriage", they are using government to force their language on a population that clearly doesn't want it as they've demonstrated time and time again at the polls. Even in flippin' California - where over half the voters in a very dark blue state (so a lot of them had to be Democrats) said "no"!
So if you want to talk about rights, let's talk about rights. If you want to talk about bipartisanship, by all means, write up a bill that people in both parties can agree on.