Nope, Gay Marriage Won’t Affect Us at All
- Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 6:29
- Battleground Iowa
- 1,515 views
- 50 comments
By Emily Geiger
I keep hearing from gay rights advocates that the Iowa marriage decision won’t have any impact on the rest of us.
We point to the ministers sitting in jail in other countries, and they say that won’t happen here because we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
They tell us we’ll never know the difference, and we can go on with our merry heterosexual lives.
Well, they’re lying to us.
The Washington Post recently printed an article citing several examples in the United States of just how gay marriage and gay rights in general are stepping on the rights of Christians all across the country.
– A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
– Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
– A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.
Oh, and don’t forget the Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp in New Jersey, who lost their tax exempt status after they denied a gay couple permission to have a commitment ceremony on their property.
And then there was E-Harmony, who got bullied into giving into creating a gay couple matching website, despite the fact that the dating website’s founder is an evangelical Christian who is morally opposed to homosexuality.
So, no, gay marriage and gay rights will have no impact on you at all unless you are a doctor, other medical professional, a service provider of any kind, or you care about freedom of religion.
Other than those little things, we’re totally in the clear.
About the Author
Battleground Iowa has written 222 stories on this site.
Emily Geiger writes from a conservative perspective on everything from politics to religion to pop culture. Like the original Emily of Revolutionary War era, this Emily is delivering important messages crucial to winning the raging war of the time, but today, this is a culture war rather than a traditional one. And, like the original Emily, sometimes it takes a woman to do (or say) that which lesser men lack the courage and tenacity to do.
50 Comments on “Nope, Gay Marriage Won’t Affect Us at All”
Trackbacks
- Twenty Items of Interest (v.54) | Caffeinated Thoughts
- Marriage is Only the First Battle « BoldColorConservative
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
>The Washington Post recently printed an article citing several examples in the United States of just how gay marriage and gay rights in general are stepping on the rights of Christians all across the country.
There are many Gay Christians. You say “Christians” as if there are no gay members of the faith.
> So, no, gay marriage and gay rights will have no impact on you at all unless you [..] care about freedom of religion.
I do care about religious freedom. I also care about freedom to marry the person of my choice. Luckily my rights are protected because I’m straight. I’m a male republican married to a female republican.
We Republicans were justly up in arms when the state began telling us where we could and could not smoke. But we are angry when the state refuses to tell us who we we can marry?
Either you want freedom or you don’t. Take a side. You want government to make your decisions on marriage, I don’t. It really is that simple.
Regards
Did you even read what she wrote? You’re not even addressing her concerns or her comments. Read what she said, then lecture her, if you still feel so inclined.
Her main point was that gay marriage DOES affect straights, contrary to what the gays claim. Just because the wool is being pulled over your eyes, that doesn’t make what she says any less true.
“The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation.” — the second paragraph of the Post’s article
You mean in our nation with an extensive group of checks and balances in government it is possible for a minority to rule a majority?
Which is probably why she stated this was about “gay marriage AND gay rights in general.” BTW, Iowa has similar “civil rights” laws, and with lots more gay people soon to be getting married in this state, these issues (i.e. photographer, fertility clinic, religiously owned wedding location) will fall on our laps as well.
This doesn’t have anything to do with gay marriage. There’s no gay marriage in Georgia. There’s no gay marriage in New Mexico. The two incidents in California are not about marriage. The people in these anecdotes that you and every other wingnut blogger trots out were forced to provide a commercial service to anyone who wants it. The businesses in these cases are akin to the lunch counters that refused to seat blacks before the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
You jihadists keeps seeing ghosts where there are none…
“Gay Christian” is an oxymoron. If you are openly gay and un-repentant, I’m afraid you are in for a nasty surprise one day.(For those of you wanting to be self-righteous, this is no different than any other un-repentant sin. Pick one, they are all the same to God.)
All you supposedly straight people who back this need to consider the possibility that you are more than likely bi-sexual. A straight person is, by definition, physically repulsed by the thought of homosexuality.
how does a conservative demo feel about the government using tax dollars to subsidize the muslim religious camp in Iowa. doesn’t that affect your separation of church and state (incorrect interpretation) ideology? We subsidize and promote the Muslim religious camp, but the Boy Scouts can’t have a camp. Is it just Chritians and Jews that Demos have a problem with? Where will the demos stand when the Muslims, like AKo Abdul Samaad, want to allow sharia law to be recognized like the libs did in Canada? Where will you stand on separation of church and state at that point?
Only one of these examples (the photographer) has any connection to same-sex marriage. Otherwise, these generally address the tension between Christian beliefs and homosexuality and are no more relevant in Iowa now than they were on April 2. That doesn’t make for a very persuasive argument.
> A straight person is, by definition, physically repulsed by the thought of homosexuality.
You are silly. The definition (at least in our English language) is in direct opposition with your silliness. I can’t link directly to the site (because the commenting system here won’t allow it), but you can search for the following phrase at dictionary (dot) com and find the same definition.
Here’s the definition:
“heterosexual person” – noun
a heterosexual person; someone having a sexual orientation to persons of the opposite sex
> All you supposedly straight people who back this need to consider the possibility that you are more than likely bi-sexual.
Excellent point. Truly, well thought out. This is like a 4th grade school-yard line of thinking.
“What?!? You like gay people!?! Then YOU must be gay too!!”
I also love to eat Pizza. Does that mean I want to marry it? Yes, of course it does
You are all correct though, I did not take time to dispute the facts of the post. However, “Iowa Cynic” has posted a good response.
would a conservative demo agree that it’s reasonable for people during time of war to be able to be conscientous objectors, and thus not required to serve in the military? Do all demos agree, that for war – it’s a freedom thing to be a conscientous objector? Would you then agree, that it’s reasonable to be a conscientous objector when it comes to the war on marriage and war on the civil rights of the unborn? Can a dr refuse to do an abortion if they are a conscientous objector? Can a minister refuse to perform the sacrament of marriage to homosexuals because they are a conscientous objector? Somehow, I bet demos do not allow conscientous objector status for any issues but their own partisan ones.
A Methodist (read: religious) group lost its tax exempt status because it would not allow a gay ceremony on its property, and that is to be considered a “commercial” issue? It doesn’t involve gay marriage?
Iowa Cynic and Liberty Dan can really stretch to avoid the truth.
This is exactly why we need a constitutional amendment. Destroying the traditional civic institution of marriage won’t be enough. With that wall breached, the war on religion begins.
Just as Obama held the money sword over GM’s head to force Wagoner to resign, what happened in New Jersey is exactly how these liberal advocacy groups will have their political leaders act toward the church.
I’ll take these one at a time.
1. The photographer. Her JOB is to photograph commitment ceremonies. If someone comes up to the alter 6 months pregnant (premarital sex) she has to photograph that. If two athiests get married, she has to photograph that. There are plenty of people that get married outside of the Christian norms. If this person does not want to photograph them they should start their own business catering only to Christian weddings. This is after-all America.
2. A psychologist is a doctor. They have to treat people gay or straight. I’m sure she has helped with relationships where one partner is cheating on his or her spouse or any array of sins much more grevious than that. If she doesn’t want to help these people she needs to find a boss that doesn’t mind. Bosses can fire people when they don’t do THEIR JOB. Which in the psychologists case was to treat patients regardless of whether their morals lined up.
3. This one doesn’t add up to me. I’d need more info. But its worth noting that gay marriage is not legal in L.A. so marriage really had nothing to do with this.
4. This seems to be a religious freedom issue gay or straight as the group wasn’t accepting straight students who have sex either (These guys at least get points for consistency unlike the rest of you)
5. Freedom of religion does not = The right to have tax exempt status. Sorry. If your faith has beliefs that disqualify it for tax exempt status that is just the cross you will have to bear i guess. Sorry.
Don’t forget Catholic Charities getting out of the adoption business in Massachusetts because the state told them they had to adopt to gay couples!
amory:
1. Straw man. She does NOT have to photograph anybody she does not choose to. As a business owner she has the right to choose which jobs she schedules. She is not HIRING her clients (EOE), they are attempting to hire her.
5. The government shall respect no national religion, means all religions are given equal footing. If the government cannot allow the ten commandments in the courthouse because it would be a violation of this statement, then it also cannot grant tax exempt status to one church while not granting to another. Hence, yes, if government is granting tax exempt status to churches, it is in fact a right.
Amory, the first one is a bogus argument. Have you ever seen a sign in a business stating “We have the right to refuse service to anyone”? It should apply here, too. As far as the Christian group, what makes them any different than, say the NAACP? If for example Klan members wanted to join and disrupt them, do they have to allow them to join? Correct me if I’m wrong(although I’m not) but what about this: AMENDMENT 1 “Congress shall make no law respecting religion,OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press,OR THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(United States Constitution). Void where prohibited!
The agenda of the homosexual movement in particular and the Left in general is to pervert or destroy Christianlity, pervert or destroy the traditional family, and usher in a general tyranny to enforce their own perverted policies.
Thanks for replying to me IowaSF and timmyyy (funny
)
1. To IowaSF. I misunderstood the New Mexico case. Just read up on it a little bit. Based on what I’ve read I’ll agree with you to the extent that as a business owner if she chooses not to photograph that wedding that is her choice. (Though its pretty similar to a “white only” restaurant but I’m not going to die on this hill..)
But gay marriage has nothing to do with it. Your complaint here is more with a legal system that allows all kinds of protected classes for lawsuits. On this, we agree. But don’t take your frustrations with a broken legal system out on my right to have a civil ceremony where my commitment is accepted by the government.
5. This youtube explains the New Jersey case. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dKMhYSX20&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Freader%2Fview%2F&feature=player_embedded. When you get a tax exempt status on a pavilion (that the taxpayers PAID FOR. Even the gay and lesbian ones!) on the premise that everyone can use your pavilion then you can’t discriminate against people for using it. Sorry. And secondly I think it is kind of petty to distill your argument about something like love and marriage into the tax exempt status of a pavilion in New Jersey.
Timmy- Rejecting someone for service based on the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their sex, their religion is not a 1st Amendment issue. You need to read the rest of the constitution.
cynic and jeff well said.
Silence
good points Amory. the point with impregnating people, doctors under their code of ethics have to treat people in a similar manner, they don’t have to do a procedure like abortion if it is against their religion, obviously here, they are not against the procedure, but are against giving to certain people, ie discriminating on who they provide the treatment too, and that would be an ethical violation. Any other points the “young and very attractive” emily would like to bring up to claim the sky is falling??? Seriously, does anyone else get why this person insists on pointing out that she is “young and attractive?”
Silence
I think she is just being cute, I wouldn’t try to read too much into it. Emily Geiger is portrayed as young and attractive in some historical accounts. I think the point she really is trying to make is that she is a Patriot, and a female.
I’m still waiting for proof that gay marriage will harm us. All I read were individual displays of government overreaching to force others to participate in something they preferred not to. Remove marriage from government, stop with forcing others to do things and there is no problem. Why can’t two people decide to commit to each other and enter into a social contract? The fear of what other people might do with their private lives is astounding. Separate marriage and government.
“Why can’t two people decide to commit to each other and enter into a social contract? The fear of what other people might do with their private lives is astounding.”
Jay, the ignorance contained within your statement is astounding.
Social contracts have been a legal option for homosexual couples and what they do in their “private lives” is exactly that: private. Until, of course, one goes to the Supreme Court of Iowa to get one’s deviant private behaviors blessed and legalized.
I’m astounded you missed the entire point. I’ll try again.
Using the court to force the government and other people to do things or participate in things they don’t care for is wrong. Remove marriage from government and let religions handle it. Some will marry gay couples, some won’t. No one should be forced to do anything, yet instead of acknowledging that and campaigning on it, republicans want to use government to force one set of views and democrats another.
Rather than waste time worrying about gay couples, how are taxes treating you? Are republicans going to continue to support ethanol even though it’s a proven failure? What are republicans going to do to shrink the size and expense of government? Which specific parts of state and federal government will republicans eliminate if voters decide to give them power again?
Here’s a revealing quote from gay activist, Michelangelo Signorile, which shows that redefining marriage is only a means to an end for the militant gay lobby:
“A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake – and one that would perhaps benefit all of society – is to transform the notion of family entirely…It’s the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools, and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Peggy,
So?
love,
Steve
Good for the gay activists.
However I have a few issues.
1) Remove marriage from government and do not allow force to make one person do something for another. That means if no one in a particular state will “marry” a couple, so be it. It’s the choice of those that perform the ceremony.
2) Benefits – Other than being allowed to sit with a loved at their death bed, or just visit them in the hospital (I still think that should up to the individual hospital), there should be no benefit to getting married. It’s a religious ceremony and should be removed from the realm of politics.
3) Public schools – Simple. Abolish them. Just as marriage and government should be separate, so should education and government. Government eduction has been done the same way for about 100 years, it’s obviously time to do things differently. That will never happen if education stays in the realm of politics.
But, Jay, the institution of traditional marriage benefits society greatly, particularly when children are involved. It behooves society to promote heterosexual marriage.
Steve, if that’s all you’ve got, please take a breather.
When you provide an ounce of credible evidence (the kind that isn’t misinterpreted right wing blather) I’ll take you seriously. Otherwise you’re just a conspiracy theory lovin, gay bashin’ right winger that represents the very worst of our society.
Peggy,
Are we a collective “society” or a collection of individuals? I thought only democrats believed in herding people into a group or groups.
Seriously, I have never seen any benefit to society from marriage at all. In fact, don’t 50% of all marriages end in divorce? How is that a benefit, especially for the children involved? Does it matter to society one way or the other if two people get married or don’t? I’m sorry but that’s a rather weak argument, especially with the “it’s for the children” claim being thrown in.
Society can promote whatever it wants, it should not use the force of government to force individuals to do whatever others think they should do.
Jay, Marriages that end in divorce aren’t marriages now, are they?
Steve, how exactly does providing a direct quote of someone else’s translate into “misinterpreted right wing blather?”
Peggy,
“Jay, Marriages that end in divorce aren’t marriages now, are they?”
What? Of course they were. Two people, a man and a woman, went to a church, invited lots of friends and family, had the ceremony and reception. Some time went by, something didn’t work out, they got divorced.
Sounds like a marriage that went bad to me. In order to “protect” marriage there should be no divorce apparently, but that’s allowed and no harm comes to society. Perhaps the people directly involved but hey that’s the chance you take when getting married.
Because the people who wrote that study plainly state that your interpretation is wrong. THEY said it was misinterpreted by the right wing hate machine, not ME.
But sadly, I know it really doesn’t matter to you when you’re proven wrong. You just put your blinders back on and keep on truckin’. Which is why arguing with a right winger is so frustrating — they have no evidence and they refuse to look at evidence.
So will I again have to wait another week for you to track down a study that you don’t understand?
Steve,
I assume your a liberal or progressive?
Yes, Jay….we don’t hold up the failures as proof that the institution of marriage doesn’t work. It’s like saying ships are worthless because the Titanic went down.
When it’s done properly, marriage is a beautiful thing.
Steve, speaking of proof, where’s yours? You could at least cite an article or something!
Peggy,
Yes it is, I’m married, I love my wife.
However, whether or not I got married, whether or not someone else gets married, makes no difference to me or any other individual. It’s not a benefit nor does it make things “better”.
Like I said, I’m waiting for proof to back up the claim the gay marriage in and of itself will harm me as an individual.
Steve, don’t kid yourself.
Arguing with me is frustrating because you always lose.
Whatever you say Peggy.
Still waiting for you to provide any evidence of anything you’ve ever said. (but I’m not optimistic)
Do you have any children, Jay?
Peggy,
No I don’t. My wife is about 11 years older than me so our window to have kids was very short. I think we’ve already passed it.
No article or citations for me, Steve?
Only a devout, militant homosexual – or a non-thinking radical – would continually deny the proof that’s been graciously offered him.
Gotta’ run, boys. Later…
Take care Peggy. Hopefully we’ll chat later tonight!
Still waiting, Peggy. Just one, that’s all you need to provide… one piece of evidence, one study, one non-religious based argument.
Whenever you’re ready.
“Oh, and don’t forget the Methodist group, the Ocean Grove Camp in New Jersey, who lost their tax exempt status after they denied a gay couple permission to have a commitment ceremony on their property.”
Well, of course they did. It was a case of taking public money for private uses. That group broke the commitment to the NJ Green Acres program that they had made in order to qualify for tax exemptions. When the group registered, they had to state that the exempted locations were open to all. By denying access to a civil union ceremony the group made it clear that they could not abide by their earlier commitment. Consequently, they lost property tax exemptions for that section of the property. Now that they have no further commitments for open access, they are free to discriminate in any way they choose.
Case solved.