Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

When you say 'Gay marriage is inevitable,' do you mean rich people want it?

Posted by   + Show Post

You have no doubt heard the news that gay marriage is inevitable. The New York state legislature redefined marriage in 2011. Rhode Island redefined marriage earlier this week. Delaware just removed the gender requirement from marriage. Minnesota is poised to vote on the issue this week. This steady drumbeat of state legislatures changing the definition of marriage as it has been known for millennia surely must show that so-called gay marriage is inevitable.

But have you ever stopped to ask yourself what exactly people mean when they say this? Here is what I think:

"Gay marriage is inevitable" means that the rich people of both parties have decided that we are going to have genderless marriage.

Back in 2008, during the Prop 8 campaign, the two sides spent roughly equal amounts: about $40 million on each side. The Yes on 8 campaign had 100,000 volunteers, people of modest means from both parties. The opponents of Prop 8 simply couldn't match the volunteer effort. In that roughly fair fight, the people won.

The Gay Lobby immediately brought suit, paid for by Hollywood elitist "Meathead" Rob Reiner. Reiner generally finances Leftwing causes, so no real surprise there.

But as races developed in state legislatures, the Gay Lobby got reinforcements from not just Hollywood millionaires, but Republican billionaires. In New York State, Republican hedge-fund manager Paul E. Singer pumped money into the campaign coffers of pro-gay marriage Republicans. In the words of the Washington Post, "He coaxed Republican state senators in New York to back a same-sex marriage law in 2011, offering financial cover against backlash stemming from their votes, helping raise six figures for each of them." You would think they would show some shame over such blatant quid pro quo corruption. But hey, he's rich. He supports Republican candidates and Democratic causes, so who is going to confront him?

Just last week, Rhode Island voted to dismantle the only social institution we have that connects children with their parents. I saw another version of the same story, when I testified there in January. (I gave them a piece of my mind, too, as you can see here.)

When I arrived at the state house in Providence, I was stunned by the size of the crowds. The place was packed with African-American and Hispanic Evangelicals who opposed the marriage redefinition bill. I took some (very amateur) photos and videos. I had a feeling no one in the Mainstream Media would show those images. But about one thousand people supported natural marriage.

There were so few people advocating gay marriage that the media literally could barely find anyone to interview. (Full disclosure: this little story, published by the Ruth Institute, was written by a student of mine who showed up for the hearings.)

How did the marriage redefinition bill pass, given the opposition from traditionally Democratic constituents? Look at the professional side of the equation. One can track the number of lobbyists registered for each side of each bill on this page, from the Rhode Island Secretary of State. The House version of the marriage redefinition bill, H5015A has one lobbyist opposed: my buddy Chris Plante of NOM Rhode Island. The other side has 12 registered lobbyists. On the Senate side, the proponents of the marriage redefinition bill, S0038, have 18 lobbyists. Opposed? You guessed it. Chris Plante, all by his lonesome.

On one side, one thousand people of modest means and one registered lobbyist. One the other side, a comparative handful of people and 18 professional lobbyists.

Somebody must really hate the idea of gender, that they are paying that kind of money to remove all traces of gender from the law in a little state like Rhode Island.

Same story in Minnesota, where a vote on the marriage bill is expected this week. Minnesota for Marriage has one registered lobbyist. According to John Helmberger, Chairman of the Minnesota for Marriage, the other side has 12 lobbyists. Paul Singer's organization pumped a quarter million dollars to lobby Republicans to redefine marriage in Minnesota.

In Illinois, home of Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel, the sledding has been surprisingly tough for the Kids Don't Really Need a Mom and a Dad Crowd. The reason? The African-American pastorate, traditionally loyal Democrats, are not buying what the rich folk are selling. Check out this video of a press conference, where the pastors of many denominations express their opposition to redefining marriage. Beginning around seven minutes, Bishop Lance Davis of the New Zion Christian Fellowship decries the large amounts of money being thrown around to "undo the Bible and shove it down our throats."

The March for Marriage in Washington DC provided another setting where the economic contrast between the two sides jumped out at any honest observer. We came to rally for natural marriage on the day that the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Prop 8 case. There were 10,000 people on the side of natural marriage: busloads of Hispanic Pentecostals from the Bronx, Catholics from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, a Catholic boys school with a band and banners, Chinese Evangelicals bused in from Delaware. And the Coalition of African American pastors sent pastors and people from all over the place. For some of these people, the bus fare was a financial hardship.

On the other side, a few hundred white people. These oh-so-politically correct folk were quite shocked to see the real Rainbow Coalition, our majority minority crowd, as we rounded the corner to march past the Supreme Court.

So when the Gay Lobby says "gay marriage is inevitable," what they really mean to say is this:

We have the money and the power to get what we want.

The ordinary people of both parties are resisting. We plan not to go along quietly, with the "inevitable" march of history.



source

by on May. 9, 2013 at 7:50 PM
Replies (31-40):
autodidact
by Platinum Member on May. 10, 2013 at 12:17 AM
1 mom liked this


you as a parent have a right to deny him what you see fit, short of basic sustenance. 

if you run a store and sell those items to women and refuse to do so for men, that would constitute discrimination. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 No.  It is discrimination to deny a job, or an iPad, or an apartment to someone because of gender.  Marriage can only happen between a man and a woman.  Anything else is not "marriage"; it is another kind of relationship.

Your argument is akin to saying that I'm "discriminating" against my son because I won't be buying him a prom dress or tampons. 

 

Quoting autodidact:


your may be, mine is not. 

I didn't say that is the ONLY thing it is, but that is one of the things it is. what else it is varies from partnership to partnership, with religion and tradition and philosophy. 

but it IS discrimination to deny that civil right based on gender. 

marriage is most certainly NOT immutible, it has changed over time and will continue to do so, as it changes from one couple to the next. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 

"Two consenting adults establishing a civil contract" is a business relationship. 

Marriage is a mystical and physical union between a man and a woman under God (whether or not they recognize Him)  and the basis of the potential for children.

That's always been the issue to me.  I don't care what kinds of contractual relationships people enter.  My little girl (when she was little) had heard me say to do X or Y, because I was not your personal servant.  One day, when she was she made an earnest request to obtain one of these personal servants because she thought it would be useful.  You go, girl...if you can hire one.

Marriage is an immutable construct.  Other relationships are other relationships. 


when you are preventing two consenting adults from establishing a civil contract based on gender, that's inequality. 

I've been in this camp since long before it became popular. I'm on the side of religious and personal freedom. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 It's inevitable because the gay lobby changed the rhetoric, diverting from deviant sexual practices to "safety" and "equality". 

He who wins the rhetoric wins the war.  There are only a few thousand or million thinking people.  Everyone else just follows along with popular rhetoric.  No one wants to be on the "losing" side, right or wrong, most of the time. 



 



 



Autodidact, Unrepentant Heathen

bi-polarmommy
by on May. 10, 2013 at 12:23 AM

 the tampons are something he has no physical use for - but if your son wanted to wear a prom DRESS instead of a tux and you refuse - yes you are discriminating against him, and pressuring him into socially accepted norms, instead of what he feels comfortable with - same if your daughter wanted a TUX instead of a dress

Quoting TranquilMind:

 No.  It is discrimination to deny a job, or an iPad, or an apartment to someone because of gender.  Marriage can only happen between a man and a woman.  Anything else is not "marriage"; it is another kind of relationship.

Your argument is akin to saying that I'm "discriminating" against my son because I won't be buying him a prom dress or tampons. 

 

Quoting autodidact:

 

your may be, mine is not. 

I didn't say that is the ONLY thing it is, but that is one of the things it is. what else it is varies from partnership to partnership, with religion and tradition and philosophy. 

but it IS discrimination to deny that civil right based on gender. 

marriage is most certainly NOT immutible, it has changed over time and will continue to do so, as it changes from one couple to the next. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 

"Two consenting adults establishing a civil contract" is a business relationship. 

Marriage is a mystical and physical union between a man and a woman under God (whether or not they recognize Him)  and the basis of the potential for children.

That's always been the issue to me.  I don't care what kinds of contractual relationships people enter.  My little girl (when she was little) had heard me say to do X or Y, because I was not your personal servant.  One day, when she was she made an earnest request to obtain one of these personal servants because she thought it would be useful.  You go, girl...if you can hire one.

Marriage is an immutable construct.  Other relationships are other relationships. 

 

when you are preventing two consenting adults from establishing a civil contract based on gender, that's inequality. 

I've been in this camp since long before it became popular. I'm on the side of religious and personal freedom. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 It's inevitable because the gay lobby changed the rhetoric, diverting from deviant sexual practices to "safety" and "equality". 

He who wins the rhetoric wins the war.  There are only a few thousand or million thinking people.  Everyone else just follows along with popular rhetoric.  No one wants to be on the "losing" side, right or wrong, most of the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Come join me at Multi-Generational Special Needs Households, a place for moms dealing with 2 or more generations of special needs under one roof


http://www.cafemom.com/group/118250/

TranquilMind
by Platinum Member on May. 10, 2013 at 12:25 AM
1 mom liked this

 That's different.  A business entity selling products cannot discriminate against customers by gender, which is why I mentioned the iPad.  It violates the UCC, as well as discrimination laws.

Refusing to recognize that marriage, and motherhood, and fatherhood, and grandfatherhood, and sisterhood and LaLeche groups are gender-based relationships is simply irrational.  And America is in the midst of that irrationality,but it does not change the truth.   

 

Quoting autodidact:

 

you as a parent have a right to deny him what you see fit, short of basic sustenance. 

if you run a store and sell those items to women and refuse to do so for men, that would constitute discrimination. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 No.  It is discrimination to deny a job, or an iPad, or an apartment to someone because of gender.  Marriage can only happen between a man and a woman.  Anything else is not "marriage"; it is another kind of relationship.

Your argument is akin to saying that I'm "discriminating" against my son because I won't be buying him a prom dress or tampons. 

 

Quoting autodidact:

 

your may be, mine is not. 

I didn't say that is the ONLY thing it is, but that is one of the things it is. what else it is varies from partnership to partnership, with religion and tradition and philosophy. 

but it IS discrimination to deny that civil right based on gender. 

marriage is most certainly NOT immutible, it has changed over time and will continue to do so, as it changes from one couple to the next. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 

"Two consenting adults establishing a civil contract" is a business relationship. 

Marriage is a mystical and physical union between a man and a woman under God (whether or not they recognize Him)  and the basis of the potential for children.

That's always been the issue to me.  I don't care what kinds of contractual relationships people enter.  My little girl (when she was little) had heard me say to do X or Y, because I was not your personal servant.  One day, when she was she made an earnest request to obtain one of these personal servants because she thought it would be useful.  You go, girl...if you can hire one.

Marriage is an immutable construct.  Other relationships are other relationships. 

 

when you are preventing two consenting adults from establishing a civil contract based on gender, that's inequality. 

I've been in this camp since long before it became popular. I'm on the side of religious and personal freedom. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 It's inevitable because the gay lobby changed the rhetoric, diverting from deviant sexual practices to "safety" and "equality". 

He who wins the rhetoric wins the war.  There are only a few thousand or million thinking people.  Everyone else just follows along with popular rhetoric.  No one wants to be on the "losing" side, right or wrong, most of the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TranquilMind
by Platinum Member on May. 10, 2013 at 12:26 AM

 Yeah, ok....Hockey players don't have a lot of use for prom dresses.  Lol. 

I don't have to "refuse", thank God.  He understands how the world works and his role in it.

Quoting bi-polarmommy:

 the tampons are something he has no physical use for - but if your son wanted to wear a prom DRESS instead of a tux and you refuse - yes you are discriminating against him, and pressuring him into socially accepted norms, instead of what he feels comfortable with - same if your daughter wanted a TUX instead of a dress

Quoting TranquilMind:

 No.  It is discrimination to deny a job, or an iPad, or an apartment to someone because of gender.  Marriage can only happen between a man and a woman.  Anything else is not "marriage"; it is another kind of relationship.

Your argument is akin to saying that I'm "discriminating" against my son because I won't be buying him a prom dress or tampons. 

 

Quoting autodidact:

 

your may be, mine is not. 

I didn't say that is the ONLY thing it is, but that is one of the things it is. what else it is varies from partnership to partnership, with religion and tradition and philosophy. 

but it IS discrimination to deny that civil right based on gender. 

marriage is most certainly NOT immutible, it has changed over time and will continue to do so, as it changes from one couple to the next. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 

"Two consenting adults establishing a civil contract" is a business relationship. 

Marriage is a mystical and physical union between a man and a woman under God (whether or not they recognize Him)  and the basis of the potential for children.

That's always been the issue to me.  I don't care what kinds of contractual relationships people enter.  My little girl (when she was little) had heard me say to do X or Y, because I was not your personal servant.  One day, when she was she made an earnest request to obtain one of these personal servants because she thought it would be useful.  You go, girl...if you can hire one.

Marriage is an immutable construct.  Other relationships are other relationships. 

 

when you are preventing two consenting adults from establishing a civil contract based on gender, that's inequality. 

I've been in this camp since long before it became popular. I'm on the side of religious and personal freedom. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 It's inevitable because the gay lobby changed the rhetoric, diverting from deviant sexual practices to "safety" and "equality". 

He who wins the rhetoric wins the war.  There are only a few thousand or million thinking people.  Everyone else just follows along with popular rhetoric.  No one wants to be on the "losing" side, right or wrong, most of the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

autodidact
by Platinum Member on May. 10, 2013 at 12:49 AM


his role, according to whom? 


Quoting TranquilMind:

 Yeah, ok....Hockey players don't have a lot of use for prom dresses.  Lol. 

I don't have to "refuse", thank God.  He understands how the world works and his role in it.

Quoting bi-polarmommy:

 the tampons are something he has no physical use for - but if your son wanted to wear a prom DRESS instead of a tux and you refuse - yes you are discriminating against him, and pressuring him into socially accepted norms, instead of what he feels comfortable with - same if your daughter wanted a TUX instead of a dress

Quoting TranquilMind:

 No.  It is discrimination to deny a job, or an iPad, or an apartment to someone because of gender.  Marriage can only happen between a man and a woman.  Anything else is not "marriage"; it is another kind of relationship.

Your argument is akin to saying that I'm "discriminating" against my son because I won't be buying him a prom dress or tampons. 

 

Quoting autodidact:


your may be, mine is not. 

I didn't say that is the ONLY thing it is, but that is one of the things it is. what else it is varies from partnership to partnership, with religion and tradition and philosophy. 

but it IS discrimination to deny that civil right based on gender. 

marriage is most certainly NOT immutible, it has changed over time and will continue to do so, as it changes from one couple to the next. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 

"Two consenting adults establishing a civil contract" is a business relationship. 

Marriage is a mystical and physical union between a man and a woman under God (whether or not they recognize Him)  and the basis of the potential for children.

That's always been the issue to me.  I don't care what kinds of contractual relationships people enter.  My little girl (when she was little) had heard me say to do X or Y, because I was not your personal servant.  One day, when she was she made an earnest request to obtain one of these personal servants because she thought it would be useful.  You go, girl...if you can hire one.

Marriage is an immutable construct.  Other relationships are other relationships. 


when you are preventing two consenting adults from establishing a civil contract based on gender, that's inequality. 

I've been in this camp since long before it became popular. I'm on the side of religious and personal freedom. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 It's inevitable because the gay lobby changed the rhetoric, diverting from deviant sexual practices to "safety" and "equality". 

He who wins the rhetoric wins the war.  There are only a few thousand or million thinking people.  Everyone else just follows along with popular rhetoric.  No one wants to be on the "losing" side, right or wrong, most of the time. 



 



 

 

 



Autodidact, Unrepentant Heathen

autodidact
by Platinum Member on May. 10, 2013 at 12:58 AM

so are you and your husband going to both wear pants or both wear dresses in your government mandated "genderless marriage". 

TranquilMind
by Platinum Member on May. 10, 2013 at 2:03 AM
2 moms liked this

 Himself, mostly.  No confusion with the blowing winds with this one.  He knows he is created to be a man, a husband, and a father, and will be a really great one, just like his dad. 

Quoting autodidact:

 

his role, according to whom? 

 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 Yeah, ok....Hockey players don't have a lot of use for prom dresses.  Lol. 

I don't have to "refuse", thank God.  He understands how the world works and his role in it.

Quoting bi-polarmommy:

 the tampons are something he has no physical use for - but if your son wanted to wear a prom DRESS instead of a tux and you refuse - yes you are discriminating against him, and pressuring him into socially accepted norms, instead of what he feels comfortable with - same if your daughter wanted a TUX instead of a dress

Quoting TranquilMind:

 No.  It is discrimination to deny a job, or an iPad, or an apartment to someone because of gender.  Marriage can only happen between a man and a woman.  Anything else is not "marriage"; it is another kind of relationship.

Your argument is akin to saying that I'm "discriminating" against my son because I won't be buying him a prom dress or tampons. 

 

Quoting autodidact:

 

your may be, mine is not. 

I didn't say that is the ONLY thing it is, but that is one of the things it is. what else it is varies from partnership to partnership, with religion and tradition and philosophy. 

but it IS discrimination to deny that civil right based on gender. 

marriage is most certainly NOT immutible, it has changed over time and will continue to do so, as it changes from one couple to the next. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 

"Two consenting adults establishing a civil contract" is a business relationship. 

Marriage is a mystical and physical union between a man and a woman under God (whether or not they recognize Him)  and the basis of the potential for children.

That's always been the issue to me.  I don't care what kinds of contractual relationships people enter.  My little girl (when she was little) had heard me say to do X or Y, because I was not your personal servant.  One day, when she was she made an earnest request to obtain one of these personal servants because she thought it would be useful.  You go, girl...if you can hire one.

Marriage is an immutable construct.  Other relationships are other relationships. 

 

when you are preventing two consenting adults from establishing a civil contract based on gender, that's inequality. 

I've been in this camp since long before it became popular. I'm on the side of religious and personal freedom. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 It's inevitable because the gay lobby changed the rhetoric, diverting from deviant sexual practices to "safety" and "equality". 

He who wins the rhetoric wins the war.  There are only a few thousand or million thinking people.  Everyone else just follows along with popular rhetoric.  No one wants to be on the "losing" side, right or wrong, most of the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

illogicalkat
by Bronze Member on May. 10, 2013 at 4:02 AM

Fifty years ago, people used a similar argument to deny interracial marriages.

Do you think the argument was valid then, too?


Quoting TranquilMind:

 No.  It is discrimination to deny a job, or an iPad, or an apartment to someone because of gender.  Marriage can only happen between a man and a woman.  Anything else is not "marriage"; it is another kind of relationship.

Your argument is akin to saying that I'm "discriminating" against my son because I won't be buying him a prom dress or tampons. 

 

Quoting autodidact:


your may be, mine is not. 

I didn't say that is the ONLY thing it is, but that is one of the things it is. what else it is varies from partnership to partnership, with religion and tradition and philosophy. 

but it IS discrimination to deny that civil right based on gender. 

marriage is most certainly NOT immutible, it has changed over time and will continue to do so, as it changes from one couple to the next. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 

"Two consenting adults establishing a civil contract" is a business relationship. 

Marriage is a mystical and physical union between a man and a woman under God (whether or not they recognize Him)  and the basis of the potential for children.

That's always been the issue to me.  I don't care what kinds of contractual relationships people enter.  My little girl (when she was little) had heard me say to do X or Y, because I was not your personal servant.  One day, when she was she made an earnest request to obtain one of these personal servants because she thought it would be useful.  You go, girl...if you can hire one.

Marriage is an immutable construct.  Other relationships are other relationships. 


when you are preventing two consenting adults from establishing a civil contract based on gender, that's inequality. 

I've been in this camp since long before it became popular. I'm on the side of religious and personal freedom. 

Quoting TranquilMind:

 It's inevitable because the gay lobby changed the rhetoric, diverting from deviant sexual practices to "safety" and "equality". 

He who wins the rhetoric wins the war.  There are only a few thousand or million thinking people.  Everyone else just follows along with popular rhetoric.  No one wants to be on the "losing" side, right or wrong, most of the time. 



 



 



lga1965
by on May. 10, 2013 at 7:00 AM
1 mom liked this

 Oh yeah? You do know that heterosexual couples participate in the same types of "deviant" sexual "practices" ,right? I wouldn't, but millions of couples do.And why is it that gays and lesbians are damned for their "sexual practices" and not recognized for the fact that their relationships consist of much more than just "how they have sex" ? It is ridiculous .There are gays and lesbians who have more committed and deeply devoted loving relationships than straights in many cases.

It is a very unfair prejudice . Same sex marriage will NOT have an effect on straight marriage at all. This is the illogical attempt to control others and make them bow down to the fundamentalists' feeling that they are the only true religion and that they know the "right" to live, based on a book of fiction.

Quoting TranquilMind:

 It's inevitable because the gay lobby changed the rhetoric, diverting from deviant sexual practices to "safety" and "equality". 

He who wins the rhetoric wins the war.  There are only a few thousand or million thinking people.  Everyone else just follows along with popular rhetoric.  No one wants to be on the "losing" side, right or wrong, most of the time. 

 

momtoscott
by Platinum Member on May. 10, 2013 at 7:04 AM
1 mom liked this

Gay marriage is inevitable because ethical people want it. 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN