Corey Noles, staff writer for The Daily Statesman and Editor of The North Stoddard Countian, is the author of a regular baseball/St. Louis Cardinals column and also uses his blog to sound off on various happenings in sports. He also operates a weekly baseball mailbag column.

How will gay marriage in California affect you?

Posted Tuesday, May 27, 2008, at 1:50 PM

I want to start this blog out by giving credit where it's due. This all stems from a post by I. B. Le Truth that posed an interesting question I haven't seen addressed in regards to the California Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage.

While it may seem that gay marriage in California might not affect Missouri, that may not be the case.

My first question has to do with how currently, this is not recognized by the federal government, even though it is considered to be a state issue. Will the state of California decision mean that these 'legally' married people will not even be able to file their taxes together? Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, it seems silly to refer to it as marriage and then not afford them the same rights as a 'normal' married couple.

Next comes the question of how something will be recognized in one state and not another. As posed by Truth, will a person legally married to another person of the same sex in California be able to come to Missouri and legally marry someone of the opposite sex?

Another question is will people who follow California law and become legally married be able to draw a deceased loved ones Social Security death benefits?

One last question as food for thought is 'what about people who get married right now under current law?' If the state were to impose a constitutional ban, would they just become unmarried or would those people be 'grand-fathered' in.

I haven't heard whether there is talk of a constitutional ban, but that is one of the options before those in opposition.

There are soooo many interesting questions that surround this that I don't even know where to start. Again, I'd like to say that I am not supporting a side of the issue, but I do feel like it will push the boundaries of our Constitution to frontiers not yet seen.

I know this is a touchy issue a lot of you won't want to even comment on, but go for it anyways. That's what this blog is for.

Comments

View 81 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on dexterstatesman.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

If the court decision stands, it likely will have a snow ball effect which very well could overturn the will of the people here in Missouri. It seems that our judicial system has taken away the voice of the people so that we are now a nation of, by, and for lawers and judges.

The points you raise in this article are important. What exactly is this court decision going to mean? I am going to take a side which most everyone knows anyway. I'm against same-sex marriage which most Missourians have banned. As far as that's concerned, homosexuality is wrong anyway regardless what courts or people may say. I don't believe there is anything in the Constitution that gives homosexuals the same kinds of rights that are based on conditions of birth.

-- Posted by swift on Tue, May 27, 2008, at 3:46 PM

Corey Noles' response:
I think your snowball scenario is quite likely in the long run. What makes it interesting to me is that in California, where this started it isn't going against the people, at least not publicly. California's law was a legislative law not voted on by the people. Missouri's DID go to a vote. So, this could, as is often the case, mean that not infringing on some people means doing so to others.
At the same time, the action of gay marriage in California doesn't infringe upon our rights. Not even if it happens here. It might change the way we look at marriage as an institution, but it will not take our rights away.
Another interesting point, is that the party most against gay marriage is also the party against big government. I love seeing that kind of irony in both parties. It's that whole 'I don't want this unless it benefits me' thing.
Swift, you and I do not agree. I believe that, in the small picture, you can't help who (not what...completely different, and quite disturbing topic) you love, and you should be able to profess it to the world as people of the opposite sex, and people of opposite races. I don't want to get on the issue in a biblical sense, because I've already heard both arguements from that angle.

I know, as an American citizen, if I were to love a woman instead of a man, I would want the same rights people who love the opposite sex have. That's not too much to ask for. It's really not. It's like us telling a woman of Mexican descent that she couldn't marry a man of African descent. They are opposites, as couples usually are in many ways, and they deserve to commit to one another before God just as two people of the same sex. Who are we, the ones who fight for justice in all rights, to tell them they can't???

It's a judgement that shouldn't be allowed to be passed on others by us. I don't believe it will take any of my, or anyone elses, rights away.

As far as how it's recognized, that is looking like something the courts and Congress should be looking into real soon, doesn't it?

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Tue, May 27, 2008, at 4:29 PM
Swift, you say, "As far as that's concerned, homosexuality is wrong anyway regardless what courts or people may say." This position is a familiar one and assumes that homosexuality is something a person chooses and which he/she could change if he/she would just exert a little self-control...right?

This position does not appear to be supported by scientific/social research and case histories. It would appear that many, many gay individuals try very, very hard to lead a straight life - but it just isn't in them.

-- Posted by goat lady on Tue, May 27, 2008, at 7:07 PM
Nice to see the media corrupting so many minds. So let me get this straight (no pun intended)...we don't like California earthquakes, but we like California standards, morals, and general way of thinking? Marriage is for a man and woman. IF two men and two women choose to, let them call it something else. Tired of all this liberal crap that will soon infiltrate our schools in order to teach everyone to not judge and to love everyone. PUKE.

-- Posted by shannonhoon on Wed, May 28, 2008, at 9:41 AM
shannonhoon, I don't love everyone. In fact, I dislike many. I just don't judge people for making decisions that they can't help. Why call it something else??? It's not like most MEN AND WOMEN that marry today even consider marriage to be a committment, or something sacred. So what are you ACTUALLY doing to marriage by extending your beliefs for gays/lesbians??? Have you ever taken the time to get to know or see a same-sex couple in a relationship???

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Wed, May 28, 2008, at 9:46 AM
I've always figured that a person's sexual preference was only relevant if you wanted to have sex with them. If you don't, then it's not relevant. Since I don't want to have sex with anyone, it's not relevant to me. I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. I also don't care if the survivor of a marriage - regardless of the genders involved - draws SS survivor benefits.

I also don't care what you call the union between two people. I don't care if you call it "George." Personally, I don't think the federal (or state) government should be involved in what is essentially a religious issue. The ceremony itself, or the act of getting married, doesn't amount to a hill of beans (as proven by the divorce rates in the US). What matters is the life-long committment between two people.

In many countries the government isn't involved in marriages at all. That doesn't mean that the two people are any less married in the eyes of God.

-- Posted by Ducky on Wed, May 28, 2008, at 1:25 PM
If homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, then God is an evil person because He condemns the practice as being abominable in the Old Testament and a sign of apostacy in the Epistle to the Romans.

Corey raises some good points in his response which shows a bit of Libertarianism. I'm not a supporter of either of the two major parties. I'm a a supporter of the Prohibition Party. http://www.prohibitionists.org

The Constitution Party is opposed to same sex marriage and special rights of homosexuals (which are reservd for conditions of genetic predispoition) and other unnatural behaviors.

This does not give any person or persons the right to engage in hateful actions against homosexuals. With God's help through the power of Jesus, homosexuals can change.

-- Posted by swift on Wed, May 28, 2008, at 2:57 PM
It seems that that the majority opinion so far in the comments is Libertarian. In other words, it is not the place of government to regulate moral behavior. I understand that point of view but I don't think it's practical.

I have worked at places where there have beeen lesbians. I have kept a Christian attitude and actually have had a good work friendship with them. Did I like what they were doing? No, but I'm not going to be hateful and rude. I pray for them as I do for everybody.

-- Posted by swift on Wed, May 28, 2008, at 3:11 PM
It is apropos to this blog topic that yesterday (Tuesday) a memorial to the homosexuals persecuted by the Nazis was unveiled in Berlin. Homosexuality was a crime in Germany and more than 50,000 were convicted, with more than 10,000 sent to a death camp. That is one way for opponents of homosexuality to deal with the "gay" problem -- put them in prison and kill em!

The 14th Amendment is a real problem for advocates of a State's Rights in this country, because until it was ratified in 1868 each state was autonomous in how it handled matters such as laws singling out a particular group for special treatment. So if you are really serious about wanting to prevent homosexuals from marrying (or even holding hands or kissing in public) -- then get on the bandwagon and support repealing the 14th Amendment.

-- Posted by FJGuy on Wed, May 28, 2008, at 6:33 PM
I'm sorry, folks...this is a touchy subject with me. All men are created equal...even if they love another man. Have you ever been around a child before they grew into a homosexual person? From adolesence to adulthood, you can just tell. There are still SO many people out there that put up fronts to hide their sexual preference, because of people who look down upon them and their beliefs. That's truly sad when we act in a way that makes them want to hide their true self. Could you imagine how you would feel if you had to hide your christianity? Or maybe even having to hide the fact that you like having dogs for pets? Sound far fetched? Think about it.

As far as all this...we'll get past it. The jews, blacks, and women were finally accepted after a fight. The homosexuals, and even the asexuals will soon be accepted to. What happened in California is just a step towards this. Hopefully, one day, people will accept it as they've come to accept gas prices. No matter what you do, it will not go away.

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Wed, May 28, 2008, at 8:22 PM
Shannonhoon, the schools don't teach homosexuality that I know of. At least they weren't doing it four years ago when I retired...

Swift, you have a relatively balanced, Christian attitude toward the subject. Nice to see someone on the Right who doesn't want to crucify gays...

As for them "changing," I tend to agree with mrsdolphin. I believe they are born with that sexual preferance, and they can't change, sad to say. As for what the Bible says, I can't answer that.

It makes me very sad.

-- Posted by goat lady on Wed, May 28, 2008, at 8:58 PM
We are actually discussing a legal matter here, not really a moral question as I see it.

My personal preference would cause me to react with disgust at the thought of sex with a person of the same sex, but you have to understand that homosexuals have the same reaction to sex with a person of the opposite sex. Some people are bi-sexual and thats a different story. Lucky devils.

Since we are talking about a legal matter we are discussing a State sanctioned marriage, not a marriage performed by a minister or sanctioned by God. Everyone does realize that marriage is a legal matter and you do get the license from the State and not the church. I doubt that a marriage performed by a minister is legal without a license issued by the State.

There is a case precedence here for non-recognition. Some States recognize Common Law Marriage, but in my experience with these situations the State of Missouri does not have to provide benefits to a Common Law Married couple from another State as the State of Missouri does not recognize Common Law Marriage. Therefore I doubt the State of Missouri will have to recognize same sex marriage and will not.

As for the morality of what two consenting adults of the same sex do to each others body in privacy I will leave that to God. Of course an unmarried couple of the opposite sex can legally do these things in privacy and I will leave that question of morality to God too. I have heard that some married couples never do anything to each others body in priivcy and let's leave that question of morality to God too. So, this question really has nothing to do with sex for me.

Given the choice to issue a license for a couple of the same sex to marry or issue a license for two people to climb into a boxing ring and beat on each other for 12 rounds, or until one of the them is knocked out while possibly becoming permanently brain damaged or killed, what would I do? Which license would my morals allow me to issue a license for?

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Wed, May 28, 2008, at 11:48 PM
In response to Cory Noles. In California the court did go against the people of California. In 2000 the people voted in favor of prop 22, which went into law stating that marriage was between a man and women then was recently overturned by the court. The issue will be on the ballot in November. I laugh at how the liberal media takes a field pole and is saying tonight that a majority of californians now support gay marriage. That is so not true. There are a few other polls such as the L.A. Times which say that a majority of californians still oppose gay marriage. We are supposed to be a democracy. The people decide law not judges and politicians.

I believe they should wait until November to decide this issue,because the amendment banning same sex marriage will pass.

-- Posted by fftiger97 on Thu, May 29, 2008, at 12:44 AM
I.B. Le Truth, you are right that this is a discussion of law and not morals...but where do the laws come from other than people with or without different morals? Sure, we live in a democracy, but sometimes (actually most of the time), democracy sucks. But you can't make everyone happy all the time.

A friend of mine said it best earlier..."God made us all and if he didn't want there to be gay people....he wouldn't have given them the desires they grew up with." I agree. I know God exists, and I pray, and I try to do right...but I do not go to church. I chose not to because there are too many preachers/ministers/etc etc out there that preach too many different beliefs to too many different types of religion. If it's all coming from the same Book, how can it be different? This is why I can't have a religious issue on this, or any other topic. I ask Him the questions, I wait for His answers, and I go on with life.

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Thu, May 29, 2008, at 1:21 AM
Well, crucify me here, I don't care. Homosexuality-same sex marrige, whatever you want to call it is an abomination in the sight of God Amighty. The lawmakers and judges and we American people that agree with it will some day stand in judgement for standing up for something that is the one thing that the Bible says makes God sick. My view, there may be a few small group of people who are "born" that way but the majority of the gay and lesbian are gay and lesbian by choice, and yes, I know some, I have realitives that prefer that lifestyle, and I work with some everyday. I still say that some day they will stand in the presence of God, lets see what thier choice is then. Yes, I think that California law will definately effect Missouri, maybe not immediately but soon enough.

Dexter Lady

-- Posted by dexter lady on Thu, May 29, 2008, at 2:55 AM
Luckily we live in a country with a consitution that protects us all. If we lived in a christian theocracy women probably couldn't cut their hair, wear blue jeans or polish their fingernails and forget the tattoos and bikinis. I could probably discipline my wife weekly by beating her with a cane stick if I wanted to. My children could be put to death for cursing me and I couldn't eat catfish or shrimp or lobster because they have no scales. Fortunately for me I live in a Republic with a constitution that preserves my right to freedom of religion and freedom from religion if I choose because I love steak and lobster, my wife in blue jeans and someitmes I understand my kids cursing me.

Is homosexual marriage constitutionally legal or is it forbidden? That is the problem in California. What does their constitution say? A group of judges has interpreted that the constitution does not prohibit this activity. Let's see what the people of California do to ensure their constitution reflects their desires.

What they do will not affect me unless they say baby can't wear her blue jeans anymore and I can't eat catfish.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Thu, May 29, 2008, at 9:42 AM
Good stuff here. Sorry to Ducky for not wanting have sex with anyone. Goat: Please check out the NEA's agenda and see if you still feel homosexuality is not being taught in schools all over our great country. Hopefully it WAS NOT in the community you retired from, but it IS prevelent in many, many schools. Obviously a touchy topic that strikes a nerve and ignites a lot of emotion. I don't care what two folks do behind closed doors or even in the woods on a blanket somewhere, I just don't see why we have to change laws and labels because of them.

Dolphin....find a church and attend.

-- Posted by shannonhoon on Thu, May 29, 2008, at 11:30 AM
shannonhoon, read my comment, and understand why I do not, and will not attend. Ever been to different churches? They all preach the word of the bible to have completely different meanings. There are enough confusing things in life...I'll stick to my way...don't need you to tell me what I should and should not do.

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Thu, May 29, 2008, at 11:51 AM
Mrsdolphin, I'm sorry you feel that way. Actually most Protestant churches and denominations teach basically the same things. There is a division between liberal theology and conservative theology. We don't want to get bogged down in theology on this blog since it is about a legal issue.

That being said, we are all born into this world sinners. We all are born with a sinful nature because of Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden. Homosexuality and ALL other kinds of sin is condemned in the Bible. Since we are all individuals, the sin nature in each of us shows specific tendencies. Some people have a tendency to be dishonest. Some have a tendency to steal what is not theirs. Others have a tendency to want to satisfy sexual needs outside of marriage. Those are just a few examples. The point is, a tendency toward homosexuality is one of many tendencies to sin. I repeat, if homosexuality is the same as race or gender, then God is evil because He created homosexuality and then condemned it.

-- Posted by swift on Thu, May 29, 2008, at 3:02 PM
Such a good discussion. So good to see everyone being rational and no one shouting.

Shannonhoon, the NEA does not determine what's taught in the schools, as far as I'm aware. It's a teacher's group, similar to MSTA but more radical. In Missouri, at least, most school teachers belong to MSTA. Of course, that's my perception - I haven't googled it to check it out. I know at least one school in which the teachers are divided, half and half, between the two teachers' organizations.

They're both more concerned with teacher rights than they are with curriculum.

-- Posted by goat lady on Thu, May 29, 2008, at 8:59 PM
I appreciate everyone for their insight as reading this has been entertaining, especially Le Truth...he brings it.

It is apparent that God has blessed us with free will. And we are fortunate to live in a country that allows us the liberty to pursue happiness. Therefore, if two people love each other then they should be able to join together in union. However, it should not be called marriage. By definition, marriage is "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Call it a gayrantee or whatever, but it must be accurate so our language endures.

God is the creator of all things good and evil. If homosexuality is evil b/c the Bible says so, then I suggest you read Leviticus, Chapter 15 and be prepared to wear gloves for the rest of your days. And good luck finding two turtledoves (or pigeons) on the eight day after your next discharge.

If God is anything, he's a comedian.

-- Posted by layne staley on Thu, May 29, 2008, at 9:08 PM
Marriage is a government licensed contract between two people. Should it be legal for two consenting adults of the same sex is the question? A marriage performed by a minister without a license from the government I do not believe is legal. Maybe a minister can ordain a marriage for the purposes of your religion but it would not be legally binding, however a judge can perform a legal marriage without a minister. It doesn't matter what the church approves or doesn't approve of in this matter. If it makes you feel better to have your marriage performed by a minister then do that, but make sure he signs the license or it will not be legal. Will the state force ministers to perform marriages between partners of the same sex? I don't think that will happen. This decision has no impact on me. I do think that all homosexuals may not be happy with this decision. Just wait until the divorce's start.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Thu, May 29, 2008, at 9:16 PM
True - my brother did NOT want any marriage license issued by the State, but his minister would not perform the ceremony until he got one. He finally had to decide just how serious he was about getting married...

-- Posted by goat lady on Thu, May 29, 2008, at 9:25 PM
Goat: Who or what did your bro marry?

Layne: Gloves are on for at least 6 more days!

Dolphin: I understand that most of this area's teachers are MSTA, but many, many, many of our larger school distiricts are NEA, which was created by the GREAT James Carter as a favor, and the NEA is about much more than teacher's rights. By the way, just what did MSTA do for you besides tell you you were covered by some 1 MIL if ever sewed? Pay raises....nope, local school boards approve those. Please tell me something MSTA did for you.

Layne: You are a sick man....or woman.

I say, love everybody and everything....just take lots of showers.

-- Posted by shannonhoon on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 12:06 AM
I think laynestaley might have got hit in the head with a basketball to many times. Man he sounds a lot like Rush Limbaugh

-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 12:38 AM
shannonhoon...I wasn't the teacher, Goat Lady was.

Now, on the topic of religion...so if they all preach the same thing, then why can't I go to a specific church in nice blue jeans and a casual shirt without having myself brought to the attention of everyone else that there is a "dress code." Yet, at another church, it's come as you are. I don't need to wear a dress and bonnet to worship Him.

As I said before, every other type of person outside of white men has overcome the obstacles of prejudice, gays and lesbians can too. It'll just take time, as everything else does.

I agree with Layne Staley...God must have had a sense of humor. Ever heard the expression "If you don't laugh, you'll cry"...look at the world today and tell me He's not had the urge to throw his hands up in disgust. Though, the only unforgivable sin (contrary to popular belief) is to deny Him. Let them present themelves before Him to wed...so long as they recognize his presence...they'll be forgiven.

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 1:04 AM
SH, MSTA gave me legal advice when I really needed it.

Funny how many people who have never been in the field of education get so alarmed over what's "being taught," just because they've read a few things...

So much of it is a matter of perception: Ask a person what they think of education in general, and they'll express all sorts of alarm and say that the schools are doing a terrible job. Ask them what they think of the schools in their own town, and they'll rank them high. Why? Because they know what their own schools are doing.

Then, there are people like my brother - who feels that public education should be privatized. Sure, he can hold an opinion like that, because he doesn't have, nor ever will have, children, and what the heck does he really care anyway? It's just an intellectual exercise for him, something to have fun arguing about, some issue he uses to show off his massive brain power. In reality, he doesn't care about schools, children, or the price of soybeans, he just cares about arguing an issue.

Talk, talk, talk...but heaven forbid he should ever do anything to help.

Off the soapbox and back to the gay issue, though - I don't recall ever seeing a M.A.P. question about homosexuality. And, since the M.A.P. test is all schools have time to teach these days, I seriously doubt that your fears are well-founded.

-- Posted by goat lady on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 8:12 AM
GL, this may not be the correct approach to education woes overall, but the only thing I care about is the school MY children attend. My main concern in life is every aspect of their lives, and this may sound selfish, but if a public school in Chicago is doing poorly, or teaching things that shouldn't be taught, how does that concern me? Dexter school does a wonderful job for being a small-town school. Of course I won't always agree with everything, but it's the overall that counts.

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 11:54 AM
Goat: As I said, locally, we are sticking to a less progressive curriculum....but please don't deny that urban and big city districts aren't teaching much more liberal curriculums. True about the MAP ruling the education scene, but horrible way to make your point. And flipper, I understand you concern for only your school, but this topic started off talking about California, which to me made it more of a National issue.

So Goat, would you consider yourself a quality former teacher or one who just held down the job because that was all you were capable of doing? Fill me in if you don't mind. I know people in both of those categories. I feel I am a quality educator. I care about the kids and do my best to motivate them. I try to go above and beyond, spending extra time being involved outside of school hours. I see others who do the bare minimum and who can't wait to beat the buses out of the parking lot.

-- Posted by shannonhoon on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 12:08 PM
It was also questioned how it would affect us on a local level, which puts the topic leaning towards local and national. Take some lessons from I.B. on how to have a discussion without ridiculing other posters when it isn't necessary.

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 1:45 PM
I can respond to shannonhoon's question about Goat Lady - she was a FANTASTIC teacher. She taught for the love of the kids and the job. She went far and above anything I ever saw as a student or later as an adult. Quality "educator?" You'd better believe it.

Also, don't feel sorry for me for not wanting sex with anyone - been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

I.B., thanks for reminding some people that we do not live in a democracy - we live in a republic ("...and to the republic, for which it stands...").

-- Posted by Ducky on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 1:47 PM
goat lady has said in the past on other blogs that her brother married a nice lady and that he doesn't approve of government involvement in a religious decision because he's a Libertarian. That government is best that governs least is the motto, I believe.

-- Posted by mokath52 on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 1:50 PM
Mrsdolphin, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this church thing. I wish you didn't have such bad experiences with churches. I like your posts on this because you do give us food for thought.

Goatlady, I was under the impression that the NEA pretty much controlled our education system. Now I know better. Part of the problem is my bias; our children went to private schools and were homeschooled until highschool graduation. Thanks for giving a different perspective.

One of the problems with the homosexual issue is where to draw the line between religous belief and political policy on the subject. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and Prohibitionists agree on less government but vary greatly when it comes to how to draw the line on some moral issues.

My this is a good subject! All my favorite posters are on this blog, we have varying opinions and beliefs, yet this has been a civil discussion!

-- Posted by swift on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 3:33 PM
mrsdolphin,

In response to your quote, "A friend of mine said it best earlier..."God made us all and if he didn't want there to be gay people he wouldn't have given them the desires they grew up with."...

Based on what you said, then it's ok to be a theif, liar, murderer, etc. because God gave us those desires? No, God gave us free will. He wants us to honor him, but He does not force us to do so.

-- Posted by happyday on Fri, May 30, 2008, at 10:56 PM
Swift, my grandmother was a VERY christian woman. The church she attended back then was a come as you are, straight to the point, back woods church that I would love to find today. I just find that there are too many religions, and each vary too much...too confusing for me lol. But thank you for the compliment. Sometimes I carry on about these kinds of things, and later wonder if I've carried on too much. Some may highly disagree with me, but that's the point, right?

happyday, that was a direct quote. She was speaking about the gay/lesbian desires. She believes they are born with it, as do I, and several others. I, nor she, ever mentioned liars, murderers, or thieves. Thanks for the input though...I understand where what was quoted could have been mistaken.

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 1:37 AM
Touchy subject indeed! I think those of us opposing same sex marriage still outnumber those who are for it. I will always think it is wrong for people to be homosexual. God says it is wrong, who are we to say different?

-- Posted by mizzou_mom on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 3:04 AM
shannonhoon, your posts are quite entertaining! I think swift says it best, in fact all his posts make sense.You are a smart man Mr. swift.

-- Posted by mizzou_mom on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 3:09 AM
We have several smart people posting on these blogs, I agree! Sometimes we get close to the edge, but we always manage to bring ourselves under control. (barely)

SH, I never considered any other field but education, because I felt a calling to work with kids. I loved it. I know the ones you're talking about - who went into it for all the wrong reasons. Those people exist in every profession.

I should have figured you were a teacher: You knew too many of the inside things...but you're so off-the-wall...I wasn't sure.

Though I so often disagree with you (often violently), I appreciate that it takes someone playing the role of Devil's Advocate to bring out the best arguments. (I do hope our bloggers understand that phrase and don't think I'm calling SH the "devil"! The term refers to someone who takes the opposing position in an argument. It could be seriously misunderstood in the context of this particular conversation!)

Mrsd, I think so many (most) church goers get caught up in the social aspects of church attendance and forget about the message they need to hear. They bicker over what someone is wearing, instead of thinking about God.

-- Posted by goat lady on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 8:13 AM
Thanks Mizzou, you're smart too. I like your posts.

GL, You're so right about how these blogs go! One thing about it, we get to express our opinions and then learn from each other. Ourcampaigns.com is like that. You've checked out my blog on there.

-- Posted by swift on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 10:30 AM
Mmm...I did, didn't I? Wow, that seems so long ago, I'd almost forgotten. I like you a lot better now than I did then! I guess I've gotten to know you better. Now, it seems funny that I found you irritating. Could you tell?

-- Posted by goat lady on Sat, May 31, 2008, at 9:08 PM
So.....let me get this straight....Goat taught Ducky in school?

Thankful to not be on the wall,

HOON.

-- Posted by shannonhoon on Sun, Jun 1, 2008, at 12:23 AM
Not quite accurate, but close.

-- Posted by goat lady on Sun, Jun 1, 2008, at 8:03 AM
This is a great blog and it does give me access to many different views without seeing the hackles. However I am still inclined to believe this is a legal question and has nothing to do with my personal morals. Sure there probably are no christian churches that will perform a same sex marriage but judges will be allowed to and will if it is the law.

Although some weren't, I do believe that a large number of these people were born with these inclinations and I am not going to blame God for making a mistake. I have no idea what Gods plans or reasons are. Some people are born physically with both sex organs so why couldn't they be born mentally as the opposite sex.

I have been thinking hard and trying to imagine how two homosexual people being married would impact me and I just can't think of one negative thing.

Right now I guess I am just glad that I am enamoured with the opposite sex and it isn't me that my fellow man is using the bible to condemn for the way God made me.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Sun, Jun 1, 2008, at 10:32 PM
I.B., that summary covers all the bases! Very well put!

-- Posted by goat lady on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 7:03 AM
The issue of same sex marriage is NOT the issue. It is the COURTS overturning what the VOTERS (that is you and me folks) voted on in a public election. In California years back they voted on Prop 13 that froze taxes for certian home owners, can the COURT now overturn that Proposition and make all those people pay BACK TAXES. I was taught in school that this was a government OF the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE. When did we lose that right? When did this nation become a governement OF the COURTS, TO the People?

I could care less if two people of the same gender live together, don't care if they are "married", and REALLY don't care what Born again Christians think, as far as what THEIR view of right and wrong is and should be. I know my God, and I don't need "bible thumpers" telling the world that they are right and EVERYONE else is going to hell.

-- Posted by D.W.B. on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 8:47 AM
OK D.W.B. I understand how you feel about the voting thing, but there are procedures for changing the constitution. They are trying to organize a constitutional amendment in California which is what they should have done in the first place. We can enact laws or vote on the ballot, but if it is not constitutional it will not be upheld in the judicial branch. This is a good thing. They make me mad sometimes, but it is a good thing.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 8:59 AM
dolphin I can't believe that you of all people talked so much about God and how it was wrong for your mom to take her own life; but now you have no room for what is correct/right in God's eye. Sorry, I do not intend to hurt anyone...just reach the right side of the fence and stay there. Why do people continue to think that things going on in another state is not going to have its time and place right in front of them some day and sooner than later. Just like gas prices and food prices.

dwb "Bible Thumpers"....cute! I'm so glad that "your" God is not about to change his view of right from wrong!!!

ibletruth Since when have you seen the constitution rule in this day and time? We have a whole new rule book that comes under the United Nations and what they deem lawful.

gl I do keep up with our public schools and it is funny how cameras are now installed and last year my grandchildren came home with Spanish under the English written on their take home/bring back folders. I told my kids to get to school and make sure what it was all about. Not on them this year. (another issue)

English is what any and everybody should learn if they intend to live here.

Considering that we all chose to get involved in this blog says a lot about where and what we deem to be important to us. What we consider far away one day seems to be knocking at our door the next. Wake up!!!! What is it that you want to see happen next before you seem to realize you can no longer live in a world where you think that others and what takes place around you (around the world you live in) has no effect on you in your curled up fetal position/safe and sound????!!!!!

-- Posted by Grati Tude on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 5:23 PM
Man Grati Tude, that was intense. And just think, this all started because a bunch of homo's wanted to get married. You made good points, although it was hard to follow at times. You're definitely correct about it affecting us at some point in time. There are way to many bureaucrats and do-gooders in this country that are out of control. Someone needs to reel them in.

-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 6:36 PM
Mmm..and our solution is...??

-- Posted by goat lady on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 7:18 PM
Back to the original question: Gay marriage in California won't affect me one wit. I was taken aback the first time I saw two guys smooching at a table in the back of a restaurant that unbeknownst to me it was frequented by gays. So if anything I was invading their space, and they weren't doing anything to hurt anyone. In retrospect, it didn't compare to the shock my system experiences every time I see an obese woman in a tank top and shorts, or the nausea I feel when I see someone in a restaurant put ketchup on french fries! Now those are offensive things! Look below the surface and there are things that give others enjoyment that bother each of us -- but the discomfort is a reflection of who we are -- not them.

-- Posted by FJGuy on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 7:52 PM
Grati Tude, number 1, keep that topic out of this discussion. Apparently you didn't read my comments on that discussion anyway, because I didn't say "it was wrong." I was questioning her possibilites of going to Heaven. That subject was clarified for me, end of story.

Religion is one of the most confusing things I've ever seen, as I've said repeatedly in my previous comments. It says one thing here, and another thing there, and it's preached like this here, and yet another way there. I stay home, I pray, I try to do right. I don't need money and status mixed with my religion, thanks. That's my religion. If it's wrong, so be it. Don't tell me I'm being two-faced or hypocritical just because I don't do things like you do. I think that's exactly what D.W.B. was referring to by "Bible thumping."

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 8:29 PM
I love this country and I know that our constitution is the greatest one ever written and am not one bit worried.

I used to get upset about the spanish language and thought that everyone should speak english until I figured out that part of my ancestry is of foreign origins and the language of some of my native ancestors is long gone and forgotten.

All my life I have been a pretty conservative person, but as I have gotten older my views on some things have changed dramatically. I would understand a minister refusing to perform a same sex ceremony even if it is legal, but it wouldn't bother me if a judge did it and the couple lived next door. I don't frequent the river boats and wouldn't care to see the minister there, but if the judge goes it is OK with me. I could say it is immoral to gamble, but it is not illegal.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 9:50 PM
Le Truth,

With all due respect, you being "not one bit worried" is simply foolish. Through the years, our constitution has been manipulated by those who hold God near in their mouths, yet far from their heart. If we don't stand up to that, all of our rights will eventually be lost. I refuse to accept that!

-- Posted by layne staley on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 10:26 PM
You are possibly right, but the constitution is not the bible and gav marriage will not have an impact on one of my rights even though at this time I am not sure that our constitution allows it. It is certainly not federally legal and that may be the way it should be. It may be something that each state should control under a states right to decide. Our constitution is a living thing as they say and must be constantly interpreted. It took a long time and a war to figure out that all men are created equal.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 10:50 PM
And I say AMEN layne staley. That is exactly what is happening. Whether you want to be a "bible thumper" or not, we are slowly losing our rights. And yes I love my country and almost everything about it, but like I said in my earlier post, some of these "decision makers" need to get clue.

-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 10:53 PM
Haven't seen one constitutional right that I have lost. Some people have or may have gained freedoms, but I haven't lost one right that is guaranteed by the constitution and allowing same sex marriage will not impenge upon any of my constitutional rights. I may not approve or like it, but that is true.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 9:53 AM
the truth, I am not necessarily talking about your constitutional rights. I am talking about laws like banning smoking for example. I have never smoked a cig in my life, but to enforce a law like that is ridiculous. We can go on and on about that, but that is the type of stuff I was talking about.

-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 11:20 AM
BonScott, I do smoke...but I don't think there is a constitutional right giving me the freedom to kill myself and others around me. I'd like to quit, so maybe this would help. Lord knows nothing else I've tried has.

I just want to ask one question. I know some of you don't care. You don't feel it affects you, or whatever the case may be, so this question isn't necessarily for you.

How would you feel if you had homosexual desires? Or how would you feel if one of your children grew up to have homosexual desires? We're not supposed to judge people, right? Isn't that the word everyone passes around? So aren't you judging someone when you say homosexuals are sick, twisted individuals? Or you say what they do isn't right? I guess I just don't understand how people who are so christian can be so prejudice and even hateful...no offense, this is just the way I'm reading some of these posts.

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 11:54 AM
D.W.B, what exactly is a "Bible Thumper"? I'm wondering if that term's deffinition depends upon one's point of view? One person's "Bible thumper" is another person's prophet. The Old Testament characters Ahab and Jezebel hated Elijah because he preached the truth. Sometimes truth is very uncomfortable, especially when it contradicts our opinions or way of life.

On the other hand, apparently enough people in California disagree with the judge's edict so that the issue will be voted on in Nov. Watch the drama begin!

-- Posted by swift on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 2:56 PM
dolphin you did say that you were not ok with the fact and you were concerned you would not get to see your mother on the other side.....end of subject There is a difference in judging and going by the good book. God spoke on the matter long ago and made it clear that homosexuals are not of God. "If" your kids grow up to be homosexuals it will not be surprising. You are not taking a stand against it. You are indeed saying that you cannot judge or say one way or another whether one should or should not be.....whatever.???? Do you or any of you honestly believe that the "if it feels good - do it" mentality is going to be peachy with God? God is not wavering; but the same all the time.

swift you are so right on....just stick to the truth and God's teachings.

-- Posted by Grati Tude on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 4:54 PM
Grati Tude, you were taught different than me. You have different beliefs than me. You're not supposed to judge, yet you're judging me based on something I don't care if OTHER people do? Mighty christian of you.

I was concerned that she may or may not have went to Heaven based on what I was RAISED to believe. Again, my concerns were taken care of...don't tell me I'm wrong just because you believe different. How dare you come on here and say ANYTHING about my dead mother OR children when the topic is about homosexuals, and I just asked a few simple questions you obviously cannot answer in a civilized manner. I'm not going to tell my children who they can and can't be. A person's character is their own...I'm not going to "play God" and try to change something that wasn't meant to be changed.

THIS RIGHT HERE IS WHY I DISLIKE THE DIFFERENT RELIGIONS!

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 5:05 PM
To clarify...my beliefs about suicide changed from then to now, so don't try to hold that against me. What you're saying about my mother and children is uncalled for, and I don't appreciate it.

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 5:16 PM
dolphin, I understand someone just touched a nerve with you and maybe that's not right. But you made it open forum when you brought it up previously. Religion is not for everyone, and that is your right(may GOD bless your soul), but you have to have some type of morals. You can't just let everything that comes at you in this f***ed up world sweep right over your head and you sit there and say, "well, that's ok, it's their decision. I don't want to judge anyone." It's not about judging others. It's about right or wrong. You don't have to stand tall dolphie, but you got to stand up.

-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 6:02 PM
I stand up for what I believe in. I didn't make the possibility of my children being gay an option to be spoke of. I asked a question of others about their children. As for the topic about my mom, that was a totally different forum, and what was said was misunderstood, then brought up in a forum where it didn't even matter.

I do know right from wrong. I preach right from wrong to my children...but it's about the stuff that I KNOW is right or wrong. Like treating others the way I wish to be treated, or, if someone speaks about my children when it isn't warranted, etc. I will say this ONE LAST TIME...the problem with religion is the differences. I was raised to believe that suicide was the only unforgivable sin...yet found out different later on from the mouths of preachers/ministers. I read the Bible, and I pray. I never said I didn't believe in God, nor did I say I worshiped anyone other than God. When it comes to the decisions others make for themselves, I, as I.B., don't believe it's taking away from my rights, so I DO NOT CARE! I have morals. I don't steal, I don't lie, I don't molest children, I don't cheat to get ahead, I don't do drugs, I don't drink and drive, I don't beat my children, and I don't kill people. If someone wants to have sex with another person of the same sex behind closed doors, so be it. If they want to unite in marriage, so be it. If it's against God, it won't happen, but since marriage doesn't mean much to most people now-a-days, what difference does it make? These are the points I've made, this is what I believe. If that makes me different, so be it. I don't want to be like anyone else.

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 6:28 PM
dolphin, good enough. We could type until we are blue in the fingers about topics such as this. Personally, I think I am going to go smoke a cigar in public and drink a beer, you can actually still do that in the Show-Me state. Keep it real.

-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 7:00 PM
I am not concerned about not smoking in public places. My wife and I both smoke and when we go somewhere that it isn't allowed I don't mind. Usually it is a restaurant and I go there to eat, not smoke anyway. As for the right to pray in school I don't care about that either. Pray before you go and when you get home. I have been to and lived in countries where prayer of a specific religion was basically mandatory. If this is what we have to do to prevent that type of country that is OK with me. After seeing some other countries I now understand separation of church and state completely.

As for the sexual preference of adults I just don't care. I don't care what homsexuals do and I don't care what heterosexuals do as long as it is between two consenting adults. Since I feel that way there is absolutely nothing they, nor my heterosexual friends can do that will have an impact on me.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 7:26 PM
You can't smoke at my son's baseball games per Dexter Park and Recreation Rules. That's fine with me. I'd rather not smoke in front of kids, especially my own. I wish I would have listened to my parents about not smoking. I'll quit eventually...

-- Posted by mrsdolphin on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 9:35 PM
Sorry it took me so long to reply...I was out back on a smoke break.

We live in a capitalistic society where our liberty lies in our purchasing power. Many times when the gov't creates a new program or law, we get to pay the bill. And what's really awesome is we don't even get to write them a check each month. No, they just take it every two weeks. Our forefathers didn't intend on that! And YES we are all affected by it.

Out of my bed and out of my wallet!

-- Posted by layne staley on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 12:16 AM
Yes Greer, our rights as Christians are slowly being taken away. If certain people in politics have their way, we will go down the road of European socialism. Canada has already gone that way. Generally, socialism and secular humanism go together. It is considered "hate speech" in Canada to preach against homosexuality. Focus on the Family is banned in Canada because of its pro traditional marriage stand.

"Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution. The concept is a part of Marxist thought. Our nation's founding fathers were against a government established church as Church of England, etc. George Washington said that "religion and morality are the pillars of good government". Marx said, "religion is the opiate of the people". Unfortunately, the latter philosophy is practiced in the teaching in many of our government schools and halls of higher learning.

That being said, liberals are tolerant of everything liberal. In their way of thinking, it's alright to be intolerant of conservative Evangelical Christianity because it is supposedly unintellectual.

-- Posted by swift on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 2:56 PM
Uh, oh, swift, now you're stepping on new toes. The schools do NOT teach that religion is the "opiate of the people," and even though someone might read Marx, that doesn't mean they accept his belief.

I keep hearing people say that religion is losing its influence in America - and you make it sound as if there's another holy battle going on like the Crusades. If religion is declining, why is it that the "Religious Right" managed to get George Bush elected, not once but twice?

-- Posted by goat lady on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 3:37 PM
So true, goat lady. I read Marx in high school, as well as Chairman Mao's little book and Hitler's. NOT as part of a course, but just on my own to see what all the fuss was about. I was singularly unimpressed with their philosophies. Studying them did not sway me to their way of thinking, it did the opposite. I was well prepared to defend myself intellectually when I encountered their adherents in college and thereafter.

In my opinion, religion is not losing its influence in the US. Candidates for public office can now openly speak about their religious beliefs while on the campaign trail -- something which almost never used to happen. There are more religious opportunities on tv and radio than there ever were before. There are whole Christian networks. Christian churches are offering a much wider variety of days and times for religious services now than before to accommodate more worshipers and their varied schedules.

Is there room for improvement in some areas? You bet. Could network tv be better? You bet. Are there alternatives to offensive network tv? You bet.

-- Posted by Ducky on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 4:26 PM
You are right Swift, that specifically separation of church and state are not mentioned in the constitution, but the wording that it does use leads most everyone to interpret it that way. As with church and state, a right to a fair trial is not specifically mentioned and I assume that you would interpret that as a given. Our precious "right to privacy" is not specifically mentioned that way either, we do interpet it that way though. We christians may like to think that this country was founded as a christian country, but that is not exactly true either. It is probably more based on "we will establish this country and you worship as you please or not please". Our constituion is a lot like the bible in that we need help interpreting it. Just because you or I think what it says means one thing, that might not be exactly what it means or we could be 100% correct. If we want it to be specific then I have seen nowhere in it that it says homosexuality is illegal, specifically that is anyway.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 10:05 PM
Sorry GL! I should have specified colleges and not have included all government schools. I'm sure there are teachers in some government or public schools who do teach according to their own political philosophy. I don't think religion is losing its influence; I just think that conservative Christians are not taking as active a role as they should be. Sometimes, we here in the Bible belt take our conservatism for granted. We are blessed in this area with good old fashioned values that are not being taught in schools in the big cities. My grandmother taught in public schools for 40+ years and was a principle of two public schools in Pomona, CA for several years before retiring in '71. What was being taught (in some cases) out there would not be taught here now. Anyway, the "Religious Right" has been supporting the Republican Party way too long! Many times, Republican candidates on the national level only court the "Religious Right" to get their votes and financial support. Once they get elected they show their true colors. That's why I've been a supporter of "third party" politics since '88. In my opinion, traditional moral values are top priority. That's why I have "Vote Pro-Life" yard signs in my front yard. they don't say "Vote Republican". Traditional marriage will probably be upheld better by true conservatives of third parties. Anyway, enough of my rambings! I'm off to church camp tomorrow! Won't be back 'til the 16th!

-- Posted by swift on Thu, Jun 5, 2008, at 3:23 PM
Well, swift, all candidates court different groups to gain their votes and then abandon them after the election. Democrat, Republican, third party - all of them.

Do you know how you can tell a politician is lying? His/her lips are moving.

-- Posted by Ducky on Thu, Jun 5, 2008, at 6:09 PM
Hahahaha! That's an oldie but a goodie!

On the religious right controversy: I have a very conservative friend who says he voted for George Bush (twice) because he talked about God... Now he realizes he was hoodwinked.

"Hoodwinked.." I really like that word...wonder how it got started? Oh, no, I just tried to look it up, but there's a movie by that name...I'll have to try again later...Can't believe I'm looking up words at 10:30p.m....ridiculous...Go to bed...zzzzzzzz

-- Posted by goat lady on Thu, Jun 5, 2008, at 10:28 PM
A cover placed over your eyes like a blindfold or something is what I have always thought a hoodwink is.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Thu, Jun 5, 2008, at 10:54 PM
I've checked several online sources for the etymology of the word, but I can't find how it originated. However, one of the definitions gave a neat synonym - "bamboozle"! Another cool word!

This is what happens to me when I start looking up words: One leads to another...leads to another...and pretty soon I've lost several hours and my original motive for checking the dictionary...

-- Posted by goat lady on Fri, Jun 6, 2008, at 7:17 AM
I guess it is none, can't tell the difference in my life today and I am sure that California is allowing gay marriages to occur. No problems at all today.

-- Posted by I.B. Le Truth on Tue, Jun 17, 2008, at 2:29 PM
I thought I might comment just a bit on what has been called the culture war. There is a conflicting point of view in our country which has to do with one's world view. The battle actually has more to do with the heart (not the literal). Jesus said that the issues of life come from one's heart. The batlle is fought in the prayer closet, from the pulpit, and in the voting booth.

On one side are those who believe in moral relativism. The opposite side believes in moral absolutes. On one side are those who believe it is the government's responsibility to feed, clothe, educate, and provide health care. The opposing side believes that individuals and charitable organizations as well as free enterprize can best handle that responsibility.

Secular humanism and moral libertarianism are taught in our universities. Culture war? Yep! Did you know that the battle between the two opposing views has been waged ever since Adam and Eve fell in the garden? After the universal deluge of Noah's day, humankind thought that one could reach God and be safe by building a tower of Babel. There's nothing new under the sun!

Hoodwinked? The Good Book tells of all kinds of instances of being hoodwinked, starting with Adam and Eve and the ole serpent!

-- Posted by swift on Tue, Jun 17, 2008, at 3:05 PM
Now, speaking of hoodwinked and serpents:

What's more dangerous? A snake on the sidewalk in front of you rattling its rattler or the snake hiding in the grass in front of you? The least dangerous is the one in plain site! Well, don't let those neo-cons fool you! They talk conservative and even pretend to uphold pro-life and pro-family values until elected.

-- Posted by swift on Wed, Jun 18, 2008, at 3:12 PM
Hey, I didn't know this blog was still blogging along... Cool!

However, I have no idea what you're talking about!!!

-- Posted by goat lady on Wed, Jun 18, 2008, at 9:23 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register