I wrote this hours ago, and I’ve debated whether or not I should post it. This is an incredibly divisive issue, and I’m sure that I will end up on more of those stupid boycott lists because of this, and that’s probably not the smartest business move, considering that I have a book coming out in less than two weeks . . . but I have to stand up for my beliefs, so here it is:
When I heard that George W. Bush had called for an amendment to the Constitution that would effectively codify homosexuals as second-class citizens, I recalled something Howard Dean said recently:
In 1968, Richard Nixon won the White House. He did it in a shameful way–by dividing Americans against one another, stirring up racial prejudices, and bringing out the worst in people.
They called it the “Southern Strategy,” and the Republicans have been using it ever since. Nixon pioneered it, and Ronald Reagan perfected it, using phrases like “racial quotas” and “welfare queens” to convince white Americans that minorities were to blame for all of America’s problems.
The Republican Party would never win elections if they came out and said their core agenda was about selling America piece by piece to their campaign contributors and making sure that wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a few. To distract people from their real agenda, they run elections based on race, dividing us, instead of uniting us . . .
Dean was right. Just read that again, and replace “racial prejudices” with “sexual prejudices.”
I hate it when I agree with politicians, but John Kerry said what I thought as soon as I heard the news:
“This president can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care. He can’t talk about a foreign policy which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people.”
Personally, I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage in any way. I believe that marriage is between two people who love each other, who wish to make a commitment to stay together through good times and bad. I suppose that it can also be between those people and whatever god they choose to worship, but even then . . . wouldn’t it be stupid for the government to tell couples which god can bless their marriage? And who cares what sex they are?
An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!
That’s right. Even though there are thousands of gay and lesbian couples affirming their love for and commitment to each other, my marriage — my affirmation of love and commitment to Anne — isn’t threatened at all. As a matter of fact, the only people who can really “threaten” my marriage are . . . well . . . the two of us.
And this brings me to the first thing that’s so profoundly upsetting about this entire issue: it’s not about marriage, it’s not about love, it’s not about family, it’s not about commitment. It’s about hating homosexuals. It’s about treating homosexuals as if they are second-class citizens. It’s about dividing this country into those who support discrimination, and those who don’t. It’s about Karl Rove updating The Southern Strategy.
It comes as no surprise to me that, as part of that strategy, George W. Bush wants to take the Constitution, a document that is supposed to limit government and guarantee freedoms to all Americans, away from millions of our fellow citizens who are homosexual. I didn’t buy the “I’m a uniter, not a divider, compassionate conservative” bullshit during the 2000 campaign, and this is just another example of Mr. Bush revealing his true colors. And this argument that it’s a response to “activist judges?” That’s a huge load of crap too. Mr. Bush has a lot of nerve talking about “activist judges,” considering that he owes his presidency to five of them.
Ultra-Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan said it best, I think:
The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens – and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.
Yes, I am shocked that I agree with Andrew Sullivan about anything, but that just illustrates how insane this idea is, and how it transcends political ideology.
Now, I have no doubt that this effort will fail. I believe that it will ultimately backfire on the Bush Administration, and contribute to his defeat in November. The United States just isn’t the Theocracy that Mr. Bush wants to create.
There is a wonderful opportunity here, though, that I haven’t heard anyone talk about, yet: we are now forced, as a nation, to acknowledge and confront the widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians, and I believe that Americans will unite against segregation now, just as we did during the Civil Rights movement.
I believe in America. I believe in the Bill of Rights, and the founding principals of this nation. I believe that goodness, compassion, and tolerance will triumph over hatred, bigotry, and ignorance.
And I am proud to stand up for these beliefs, whatever the consequences.
So, Will, when are you going to enter politics? (If I were a Californian, I’d vote for you!)
I believe the founding fathers did not foresee these types of situations when they drafted and signed that great document that outlines the rules of our country. But, then again, they knew time would change this country and that’s why there is the provision for adding amendments.
All this societal rhetoric and bickering over sexual situations is ridiculous. How you choose to live your life behind closed doors, and who you choose to spend that time with is your own business. A boob accidentally gets displayed during a contest where the main activity is guys knocking the crap out of each other repeatedly, and it’s STILL news! How many more people are aware of the Super Bowl half-time oops than are aware of the actual game, its participants and/or final score?
BTW, what’s really the difference between a marriage and a civil union in the eyes of a state that is to be a separate entity from any church?
12 reasons not to accept gay marriage: gatorgsa.org/gaymarriage.html
Understand how you feel, Will, but I think you’re blaming the wrong side.
John McIntyre of REAL CLEAR POLITICS has the conservative POV on Gay Marriage and shows who is, and who ISN’T being divisive:
GAY MARRIAGE: The issue of gay marriage boils down to the question of whether homosexuality should be on an equal moral and legal footing with heterosexuality. The core of the gay rights agenda is to enshrine in law, as sanctioned by the state, the full and total equality of homosexuality in comparison to heterosexuality. Gay and lesbian activists want government policy from nursery schools to nursing homes to force homosexuality to be treated as totally equal to heterosexuality in everything.
The problem with this is the vast majority of Americans don’t see homosexuality on par with heterosexuality. And guess what? That doesn’t make them bigots or homophobes.
The truth is that even though most Americans are perfectly tolerant of gays and lesbians, that doesn’t mean they want their third or fourth graders being taught that there is absolutely no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. It’s not surprising that many people are uncomfortable at seeing homosexuality actively promoted in schools, glorified by the media, and now sanctioned by the state.
In fact, most Americans want the government out of the business of casting moral judgments and would be fine with the government remaining agnostic on the issue of homosexuality. That means the state should not punish or discriminate against gays and lesbians, nor should the government cede special rights to them.
Like most Americans, most gays and lesbians are good and decent people. They are entitled to enjoy all the rights, freedoms and privileges granted to every individual in this county. But they aren’t entitled to have the government proactively endorse their lifestyle as on an equal footing with heterosexuality – unless a majority of the public’s elected representatives in Congress decide it’s the correct thing to do. And that’s the rub.
The truly intolerant in this debate are not the mean and evil “religious right,” but rather the activist left that demands the rest of the country accept their view. Contrary to what some may say, the President didn’t seek this out as an issue, activists judges in Massachusetts and leftist politicians in San Francisco thrust their minority views in the country’s face.
Personally I’m conflicted about altering the Constitution and I wonder whether there are less draconian ways to maintain the sanctity of marriage. However, the activist courts and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, maybe the FMA is the only way that will effectively work.
My gut tells me that the majority of Americans would like to see marriage remain between a man and a woman, but are open to having the states deal with the issue of civil unions on a state by state basis. This seems to me to be an amiable compromise that protects the ancient tradition of marriage while also allowing individual states to pass civil union laws that provide legal equality to homosexual couples.
In many ways this is exactly what President Bush has done by calling for a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.
America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.
Contrast this with the reaction by Andrew Sullivan, a leading proponent for gay marriage:
The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land….
This president wants our families denied civil protection and civil acknowledgment. He wants us stigmatized not just by a law, not just by his inability even to call us by name, not by his minions on the religious right. He wants us stigmatized in the very founding document of America. There can be no more profound attack on a minority in the United States – or on the promise of freedom that America represents….
This president has now made the Republican party an emblem of exclusion and division and intolerance…This struggle is hard but it is also easy. The president has made it easy. He’s a simple man and he divides the world into friends and foes. He has now made a whole group of Americans – and their families and their friends – his enemy. We have no alternative but to defend ourselves and our families from this attack. And we will.
If you read the the President’s statement and then spend a few minutes reading Andrew Sullivan’s blog it becomes rather clear which side is the intolerant one. – J. McIntyre 6:41am
Bravo, Wil. Thank you for speaking out. In some parts of Canada, gay marriage is now legal, but there is some serious opposition brewing. I only hope that unprejudiced heads will prevail. The late (prime minister) Pierre Trudeau commented that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation (or words to that effect)and I hope that will remain the case.
Thank you for this entry. You expressed very eloquently what I was thinking and feeling. You give me hope that what I hear in the media is wrong, and that Bush does not speak for the people, and that I am not hated by the majority because I am gay.
You are not hated because you are gay. At least, not to the majority of Americans who are against Gay Marriage. In fact, most back civil unions.
And I think John McIntyre says this quite clearly.
What Sullivan spews is so far outside of the mainstream, and so far outside of the President’s motives that it’s clear that Sullivan, and those seeking to violate the rule of law, are making it the divisive issue.
Are there those filled with hate for gays? Sure. And that’s a terrible reality. But the rest of us really don’t care what you do in your bedroom and with who.
Well done Will,
I live in the great frozen liberal land of Canada, but I have been a passionate anti-Bush individual since before he was not elected. This latest propsal is just ridiculous and I’m happy to see you taking a stand on this issue. More attention must be paid to the crippling joy-ride that that meglomaniacal nut job Bush has been taking your country and the whole world on. Kudos on the post and let us hope that the answer to Mr. Bush’s campaign is a resounding no.
P.S. Check out this site, its pretty interesting.
http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com
I was in a LiveJournal debate with the votebush2004 community, and I was wondering if you would mind if I cited or quoted your artice, with due credit of course.
Thank you for your time, I understand that you have many comments to read, so perhaps you will not even get this, I just foudn this page from google, and I find your stories incredibly interesting and well written.
Take care, be well and remain safe and comfortable.
A-fucking-men. (A-freaking-men just isn’t strong enough.)
I agree with Kerry on this one. The Bush administration is grasping at straws. They’re afraid, as well they should be.
I didn’t normally read your blog – I usually don’t read the blogs of people I don’t actually know – but this is the second post you’ve written this week that I’ve linked to from my personal LiveJournal. I’ve been very impressed with what you’ve written, both about politics and your personal life. Oh, yeah, and I’ll be reading regularly now. What you have written here is especially inspiring.
I saw this somewhere and thought it was relevant to spread around… very amusing if you ask me. I mean, all we ask is a little consistency, right? 🙂
—
The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: “Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God’s Word and His standards will be honored by our government.”
Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team’s admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on Biblical principles:
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
B. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
D. Marriage between a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut25:5-10)
Why don’t we just pull a “King Henry VIII” and create a church that does whatever the hell it wants? Reigning power doesn’t want to let you get married? (and in Henry’s case, divorced) Make a church that’s all for it! Then, let that become your sheild and have bush take it on. Lets see how well he does once he starts attacking religion, and shows what a hypocrite he is. I’m sure if it said somewhere in the bible that being gay was ok he’s have sunk his piggy teeth into that too.
Thank you, Wil. You always say what I want to say a million times better than I ever could.
the president’s latest diversion is the real reason our father’s insisted on the seperation of church and state…the important issue is not religious icons on display on government property…but it is the real meat and potatoes of our society…the freedom from having the church dictate the law to the government…the more the zealots try to exclude those different from them from the equality of law in our government…the more the complaints will arise about christmas trees on the courthouse lawn…those who say they they want to bring religeon into the world are instead taking it away…JERRY FALWELL and his ilk have caused much pain and suffering in the world…and it is a shame…they have decieved those who have really believed…and set them on a course of hate and bigotry…look up PHARASEES in the new testament and you will see many similarities to the modern day televangelist.
I was raised in a fundamental religious family. I was taught homosexuality is a sin. I never knew any gays growing up. So my question is, how did I become gay? It is NOT a choice. Life in this homophobic country sucks for gays. Why would I choose that? Gay people did not influence my sexuality. Bigots who DID try to influence my sexuality made my life hell. Given all this, why should I be denied equal rights, pursuit of happiness, and all the other AMERICAN ideals?
You had nothing to gain personally by sharing your views. I can only assume that you are a good person, Wil. Thanks for speaking up.
I’ve noticed that this board seems to be largely populated by people with a live and let live philosophy. As long as your not Christian. As long as your not a Bush supporter. As long as you stay trendy. I just want to remind ya’ll that a good many folks have principles that they feel are absolute and as it happens our current President reprensents us as such. Just as I try to see your viewpoint on the issues, I just wish that everyone would extend that same courtesy to others.
P.S. Bush won. Get over it. I felt the same way that you folks did when Clinton won. Now I self-rightously feel vindicated after his C- legacy, for having wept for a week after his election.
You’re my personal hero, Wil. Even if I don’t agree with what you say (And I do in this case, seeing as I’m part of the target group), I admire you because you have the BALLS to say it, and stand up for what you think is right. You use your brain.
*applauds*
GEORGE BUSH does represent many who’s principles and views are absolute with no room for compromise…a president who panders to such a group is why separation of church and state is such an essential part of our constitution…the TALABAN have already proven this point for us in AFGHANISTAN.
Too bad Bush wasn’t elected Mr. Sack, he lost by half a million votes remember.
Amen. I am so pleased to find someone express the same opinion I have on this issue so eloquently. Thank you!
Erin
This issue is aobut a lot of things.
It is about discrimination, equality, religion, politics, re-election, scare tactics, stupidity, prejudice, and most of all separation of church and state. I can’t say anything new – I think it’s all been said, but I can try and condense all the above information. I think I have succeeded. The only way to combat all these multiple forces is quite simple: one must recognize his place in society as a citizen, and use the power given to him to control and or change his government. That said, do your citizen duty. You didn’t earn it, because you deserve it. It is inalienable – go vote this thing down.
The confusion between legal contracts and religous sanctification just boggles my mind. Fine, don’t let Gay people get married, but let them have the same LEGAL rights enjoyed by a heterosexual married couple. That’s the sticking point and everything else is smoke and mirrors.
We need only change the legal definition. Marriage=Done by a church, Civil Union = Done by the governemnt. All “Marriage” licenses will now be Civil Union Contracts that confer identical rights as “Marriage Licenses” used to. All Married couples enter into a government dictated Civil Union but they may or may not enter into a Religiously defined Marriage. The end.
“Ultra-Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan” ?? Well, I guess one could expect such a ridiculous observation from a Hollywood leftist whose political meter is so skewed, his idea of centrism is Michael Moore.
I really think Bush is going to have a hard time with this one. The main reason is he’ll have to say. Gay marriage is bad, but gay people have all the same rights as us. Such a quandry, it will be a culture war he loses.
I believe I am being discriminated against since I have a want for 3 wifes to call my own. Damn the goverment telling me I can’t! The nerve!
I’m so impressed that someone who can support his position is speaking up on this issue! My “partner” (read that: not-yet-legally-regognized wife) and I have been together for three years, and being granted the rights of married couples is incredibly important to us. It is NOT just a formality. For example, I moved away from home to go to college and require a lot of financial aid to pay for it. If I had married a man, financial need would be determined our combined income. But, since I’s just a domestic partner, financial need is determined by my parent’s income; the parents who haven’t supported me since I was 18, but earn enough money to make me inelligible for aid. And that’s just the start. Even if domestic partnership granted the same rights as marriage, it would always be stigmatized. Seperate is still inherently unequal. I don’t want a “life-partner,” and I’m sick of coming up with euphemisms for my relationship with my wife. Thank you, Wil, for taking a stand. Your support brought tears to my eyes and made me respect you even more.
Way to go Wil! Only thinking of number one and perpetuating the downward spiral. It’s pretty evident from Wil’s comments and all of you who so blindly agree, that you all see so short-sided. You blast Bush for supporting a concept that’s been around forever. Marriage means a union between a man and a women. Go figure, we’ve had it all wrong since the beginning. Hey, it doesn’t affect me now, so what’s the harm? My marriage isn’t affected, who cares what it may do to my future grandchildren. Keep it up and maybe, just maybe, your 9 year old great great grandson will someday have the right to marry and be a$$raped by some NAMBLA member. Everyone should be equal, right? You take the “great sacred document” written by some slaveowners talking about every (white) man being created equal and try to say that they intended that gays should be allowed to marry? Seperation of Church and State right? We should let the churchs burn before state funded fire depts put them out? Our economy sucks and it’s all Bush’s fault. Screw the 2 terms of Clinton that led us to it. It’s possible that Bush may have stole the election, but man am I grateful it was him there after 9/11. Los Angeles and 2 other major cities would have burned to the ground before Gore would have done anything. WMD’s? Good lord, the freakin UN gave Saddam 8 YEARS to move/hide/sell them off. Maybe we should have waited until AFTER he struck to do something about it. It would have cost us maybe only one more 9/11-like event, but hey!, it would have saved us a couple hundred soldiers. I mean, Saddam was only threatening us with WMD’s. He didn’t really mean it. Just like Osama, right? We’re losing our allies? When did France ever like us? Oh yah, when they’re getting their asses kicked. I guess it’s been awhile. They didn’t want to support the war on Iraq, but I don’t see them refusing to profit from it. Hypocrites.
Great post…
I am a libertarian who will vote Democrat for the first time in my 20 year voting history. I will do whatever it takes to get this madman out of office.
I just wanted to say thank you to Wil Wheaton for standing up for his own convictions in a time when people are judged for doing so. Anyone who keeps such an open mind, and isn’t afraid to speak it is tops in my book. My boyfriend and I both wish that there were more people in the world of such good standing as Wil and his family. Here is a link to our Bio and to an essay he wrote which mentions Wil’s views on the subject. Thanks again Wil, You ROCK!
http://students.uta.edu/JX/jxy6740/bio.htm
http://students.uta.edu/JX/jxy6740/Bio_files/The%20Changing%20Definition%20of%20Marriage.htm
My Bad, I forgot to mention that the essay mentioned above has some really interesting points on the history of marriage and its changing meaning through history.
P.S.-Sorry for the double post.
Thanks…Tim
Thank you for articulating the views with which I agree on this subject. I recently had a discussion with my typically far left wing father on this very topic, and he suprised me by telling me he didn’t see what the trouble was with the “separate but equal” concept of “civil unions” that has been proposed in what I believe to be an ultimately futile attempt to appease both sides. I intend to share your words with him in an effort to express to him my own views on the matter. At the least, it should spark some interesting discussion on the topic.
Thanks so much for speaking out. And especially for locating some of a supporter from “the other side” (I nearly said the dark side, but I didn’t want to insult Darth Vader) 🙂
This is my first visit here, but certainly won’t be my last (this link was posted on the “No George W Bush” tribe board at tribe.net (url posted above).
Quite a few people I know believe that there is a strong silent majority not speaking out on this issue and others where “lil’ shrub” has put his bible-belt agendas. We won’t even go into his other flaws… 🙂
I agree with at least one other commenter here in that whatever the opposite of boycott…I’m there for ya’. That any kind of McCarthyish blacklisting crap still exists just proves how draconian our current admistration is.
Best of luck with the new book and everything else!
Wil, I agree with much of what you said. I think the issue here is government control, not same-sex marriages. I am a Christian and do not think homosexuality is right; that’s just my opinion. Yet, it is everyone’s right to speak their mind. So, as far as gay marriages are concerned, I really don’t care. I especially wouldn’t like the government to tell that I couldn’t marry my girlfriend, so I understand both sides. I think the real problem is that the government just has too much control. Back in the day, Govt. regulated like 10 things. Marriage, school, pre-welfare, whatever; it was left up to the church or organizations. So, why the heck do they have so much control now and over seemily everything. It really donesn’t make much sense.
Way down the list, but just for the record, good call. Well written. Thanks for this post!
marriage a divisive issue
…
shouldn’t that read:
divorce a divisive issue
marriage a ______ issue
options for filling blank:
commitment?
uniting?
loving?
How refreshing! I had no idea that you were so fabulous…
I stumbled upon this via the godhatesshrimp people, and now I feel that I am not alone in my long, dark struggle against the bigoted-sh*tpig-malcontents who hold the power.
Wheeeee!
Mark Morford had this link in his column today. Very funny site. (sorry, if someone already linked to it)
Alright, I’m an idiot, I forgot to include the link. http://godhatesshrimp.com/
A lot of people here act as if Bush will actually get this done. There is NO WAY this amendment will pass. NO….WAY. I know it, he knows it, now you know it. He’s just using it as a distraction to all the people that he screwed over that supported him before. A lot of the people who originally voted for him are mad that he screwed up their economy and sent their sons/daughters to their deaths just so that they could have oil to heat their homes that now have no people in them. And so he’s just using the old “pinch manuver”. If something is bothering you, give yourself a big pinch on the arm and you’ll forget all about it. And by the way, to all those out there that support Bush and this amendment, and seem to think that all us liberals are gonna show up at your house with a baseball bat, your beliefs are not the problem. If you feel homosexuality is wrong, then…well, congrats. You now have an opinion. But the best thing my mother ever taught me was that no one has the right to hurt you, no matter what. This amendment, even the idea of it, is hurting people. Can any of you imagine what it would be like if your lover of 20 years was dying in the hospital, but you never got to see them one last time because you’re not officially related and their parents never wanted to acknowlegde you? What would that be like? And what will you do if your future son/daughter is gay? Think about it. You can not prevent it.
P.S. To all the people who support bush but don’t support this amendment, I admire you. We may not agree on everything, but you have the balls to stand up for everything you believe in, even if it might be a little hard.
Wasn’t it Descartes that said” I may not agree with what you have to say, But I will defend with my life your right to say it..”
This is why I love ya, Uncle Willie! What you’ve written here is spot on.
In a speech given over 35 years ago, a Canadian politician said “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. This message was taken to heart by many of the current political leaders of Canada, despite their personal views. It is unfortunate that the current American leadership does not share this same wisdome.
I am not even sure how I ended up on this site, but I am glad I did.
If indeed America is divided into “church” and “state” by law, why is all this even an issue? I don’t think Dubya or any government should be involved in this matter.
Get a license, get married by someone who has the qualifications to do so, file it, and move on with life. If gay people can raise kids and have a family, I think they should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else to be nagged to take out trash, feed the baby, put gas in the car, pay the visa bill, and find the energy for sex after 8 hours at work. 🙂
Marriage by “Christian” standards is between a man and a woman. But who is Dubya or anyone else to push their beliefs on an entire nation of people? I am a Christian, but I believe that everyone is responsible for their own choices. “All have sinned and fallen short the glory of God”. That includes liars, cheaters, killers, and people who send young men and women to die for their own personal agendas.
I personally don’t think God intended homosexuality and I don’t think He likes it very much. HOWEVER, man has free will and what he does with it is his business.
MARRY WHO YOU LOVE. IT CAN’T MAKE THE WORLD ANY WORSE.
I can’t understand a law against love when there is so much hatred overtaking the world. I love everyone regardless of what they do or who they do it with. Because that is what the foundation of Christianity is supposed to be about. But maybe Dubya missed that chapter.
This is typical of this administration. We can’t find the guy who spearheaded 9-11, but we can spend millions to convict Martha Stewart. We can’t do something to prevent all the jobs from floating away, but we can ban gay people from getting married. We can’t end occupation in Iraq, but we can fret about athletes taking steroids.
Glad to know the man with his finger on the button has so much spare time on his hands to worry about your sex life. Its such a comforting thought. Maybe if O-bin-L was gay, the witch-hunters would have located him already?
What if in 50 years a gay man is president and wants to take away hetero’s right to marry. How would you feel then GW?
*Oh and I am offended by the Civil Rights comparisions because I can still get pulled over in my car because of my color. Gay is something personal that you can expose when and where you wish. And your ancestors were not beaten and hung for it. I sympathize with the Brandon Teenas and Matthew Shepards of the world, but it is not right to compare a few decades of violence to 500 years of black oppression where MILLIONS of men, women AND children died.
Its a uphill battle, but it uniquely your own as it encompasses all races, religions, economic standings, etc.
And its a slap to my ancestors. Marriage would have been nice for them… but they were busy fighting just to LIVE.*
That’s my 2 cents.
Wil, I respect your opinions and admire your cajones to say exactly what you feel. As well as the other posters.
Blessings to all of you and I hope that this issue comes to a quick resolution.
Wil,
Thank you! Thank you so much for your support of our relationships. I have been with my partner Kent for 28 years. Our families have both disowned us and over the years, we had to make our own families of friends. We are not complaining, but wish that life could have been easier for us.
A few years ago, Kent was hospitalized for an illness. The hardest part of all of this was that I was not allowed to go in to see him. You see, I’m a “legal stranger” to him in the legal system. I had papers that we had drawn up, but the hospital did not honor those papers. Yet, they did allow his cousin to go in to visit him, because he happened to have the same name as Kent. It was then that I realized what our relationship was in the eyes of our government – nothing.
It’s been tough, because we don’t know what the future holds for us. Today, it’s snowing outside. Kent left for work 20 minutes ago. What will happen if he’s in a car accident? What will happen to our home if I should die suddenly? My family would come in and take half of what we have spent building up over the last 28 years. The point is, I shouldn’t have to worry about all of this. All of these things are protected legally with civil marriage.
It was nice that you came out in favor of gay marriage. I visit your site from time to time, and I was always hoping that you believed in what was right.
Bill
The United States need more voices like yours. I hope that more American’s will see what a tyrant Bush is and realize that his aspirations at controlling the world aren’t restricted to the middle east. Stop him before he takes away all of the freedoms you have fought so hard for.
A Northern Neighbour
Thanks so much Wil for standing up for what is right and speaking your mind. So many people, especially of celebrity status, are afraid to state what they truly feel. I have read what you have said and also what Bette Midler wrote and was humbled by your support and willingness to speak up.
Maybe with a united voice we can make a difference and help keep such discrimination from occuring.
I will also try and be more supportive of your work since you have spoken out loud for me and the countless others like me.
Thank you.
For reference, I am secular democrat in ideology, although, I’m moderate on many issues. I disagree with Republicans on many issues. But, that is their right as Americans to have their own ideas, their own views. If I remember correct, wasn’t that one to the core priniciples that our founding fathers were after?
What I’m about to say may have been said before as I haven’t read through all of the numerous posts before mine. This issue, I believe, is an issue because marriage is a unity that has one foot in religion and one foot in government. Many people (christians, catholics, etc) say that marriage is a holy union that should only be between a man and a woman. As far as the religious unity, that is fully their right to assert. The problem though, is that the government then proceeds to allow benefits and rights based on that religious ceremony. That is what I have a problem with. Essentially, the government is giving preferential treatment to groups based on social acceptance of their religios ceremony.
The compromise will be in the government recognizing “civil unions” regardless of the religious side of it. It won’t happen today and not tomorrow. But, in time with the growth of our nation, it will happen.
I have many issues with Bush, but this is one that will definitely not help him get re-elected.
Well to be truthful i think Will is making the point that most people see in this,even though i am only a 13-year-old and i still have a very strong beleif that we should have gay marriages. And for all those people that are against why? Why do you care about what sex a female or male loves or is intrested in? If you see a gay couple holding hands look the other way b/c right now the bigger deal you make it the bigger deal it will seem. Also just like Will said if two people love eachother and if two people want to be known or offically married why not. If two poeple love eachother for the way they make themselves feel then why do you care. The goverment’s only role in there marriage should be they liscense not the couple. And i was totally for Bush until now he has no right once so ever to bring descrimination to millions and millions of people to make his campain “more known” or “popular”. And its very sad to see what our world is coming to for the fact of that we are trying to change what is history, with the Civil Rights, no one in the right mind should change that our fore fathers Carefully thought over and protected it so that America is known to create freedom and to create hope for a new and better land and unite a country full of fair and equalness. And i will fight against Bush. even though i may be young i will spread my beleifs and share what i have to think b/c i don’t want our world commming to hate, pain, discrimination, and hurt but i want this country to have what it and our fore fathers promised us, Freedom, and if that wasn’t what they said then why am i even in this land of the free and home of the brave Sincerely April B Illinois
escorts
gohit.net