Tag Archives: gay marriage

I got this email this morning and I'm about ready to boycott Penzey's. - update:  I sent an email letting them know that as soon as they stop shoving their politics down my throat, I'll start shopping with them again.

It reads like this

In our celebration of the one-year anniversary of Marriage Equality we've arrived at Garlic/Yellow and Parsley/Green recipes. If you missed our previous Cayenne/Red and Now Curry/Orange recipes click here:Guacamole, Butter Chicken and Cumin Rice with Saffron or Curried Potato Salad with Craisins. As part of our celebration, now through June 27th with any $5 purchase you can get a free half-cup jar of your choice of any of our featured Rainbow Spices (up to a $6.95 value).

And yes, Marriage Equality is totally about cooking. What separates humans from everything else that came before us here on earth is our million-year symbiotic relationship with cooking. Once we were animals. We could see the benefit in looking out for ourselves, and looking out for the herd, but that was about it. Through tens of thousands of generations of mealtimes spent together around the fire, we became something more. Those trillions of meals created a much larger circle around the fire, and in that process so much more was set in motion.

Without cooking, we would never have come to understand how much we all benefit when we take care of everyone, even those we do not even know. The gift of cooking is the gift of our humanity. Without cooking, there would be no religions teaching us that how we treat others is every bit as important as how we treat ourselves. Without cooking there would be no governments ensuring that even the least privileged among us also have a pathway to success.

Cooking is the best thing ever. And now, through cooking, we've arrived at this day where everyone has the right to be married, where everyone has the right to be a family!

Well, there you have it.  Every time you cook, keep in mind that you made gay marriage possible!  Through evolution.

GetReligion.com on "Kellerism" - once i trained myself to look for these things, they become obvious.

~~~

on gay "marriage"

Now, slowly yet undeniably, evangelicals are changing their minds.

Well, sure.  All you have to do is broaden the term "evangelical" until it's meaningless, then everything changes.

~~~

Books to read since...forever.

I'll put them on my list...because...classics.

And (these are "new" fiction...I'll add these because...brain candy.

and another list...

~~~

Why I’ve Stopped Singing in Your Church

Wonderful!
~~~

'“Islamophobia,” which, like “homophobia,” is a way to pathologize those who disagree with a dominant narrative'

"Change Your Thinking on the Role of Government‏"will make you think - it made me think again.

The media is completely missing the most important point of the Eric Garner story. A precious life was ended and the entire City of NY is in disarray because of overreach of government. The problem here is that there was a law against selling a single cigarette. Why? The law was passed because taxes would not be collected on that cigarette transaction. The police are therefore overburdened and over-empowered. They can’t possibly be operating on a “right v. wrong” mindset. There was nothing immoral about what Mr. Garner was doing; he was simply not complying with man’s law to control – or enslave – its citizens.

~~~

Stop trying to cure cancer...

Seriously.

~~~

Why Do Black Lives Matter?

“Black lives matter.” “All lives matter.” These slogans may forever summarize the deeptensions in American life in 2014. Catalyzed by the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and two New York Police officers who were murdered while sitting in a police car, Americans are in the midst of a crisis of human dignity. Are we still able to articulate why anyone’s life matters?  We can loudly protest that “Black lives matter” but it will mean nothing in the long run if we cannot explain why black lives matter.

(...)

Black lives matter not simply because they are black but because blacks are persons—persons who are a necessary variable to the flourishing of others so that we all may attain the end for which we were created.

~~~

Gay Weddings and the Shopkeeper's Dillema -

One option for pro-marriage business owners: obey the law and serve gay weddings, but make it known publicly that you believe that the law forcing you to do this is unjust, needs to be changed, and is obeyed only out of your respect for law and the democratic process.

But the small, mom-and-pop shops have always been something more than a means for their proprietors to escape poverty and participate in the American Dream. They have also been family businesses, employing aunts, uncles, in-laws, and older children. Thus, they have generally reflected the attitudes, values, faith, and hopes of a small, tightly knit family group within an intimate work setting.

~~~

and in the "I need to go shopping" category...

Ten Best Houseplants for Cleaning the Air...

And the larger, NASA version...

 

an article here

As I read Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals for the umteenth time, and as I read this article, I'm reminded that (Rule #5)

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

“…you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”

I put "false accusation" in that category.

Read this article quoting Mozilla, and consider Brendan Eich.

Eich co-founded Mozilla. His guidance got it up and running. Last week, he quit in disgrace. His "crime?" Eight years ago, he donated $1,000 to California's Prop 8 (Constitutional amendment banning homosexual "marriage." I'm not going to send any readers there, but find an article on the matter and read the comments.

No longer can "same sex marriage" be a matter of opinion - those who hold the view that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman should be drummed out of the public square.

Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn’t live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it’s because we haven’t stayed true to ourselves.

Really. What standard are they not living up to...the one that the co-founder helped to set in place? If this is the "true to ourselves" that they want to live up to, the world, in one week, became a much scarier place for people of a more conservative faith.

We didn’t act like you’d expect Mozilla to act. We didn’t move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We’re sorry. We must do better.

How did we "expect" them to act? Obviously, liberals expected Eich to be forced out (or not promoted in the first place) much more quickly.

Oh...and "engage" must equal "get rid of all those who don't toe the gay agenda party line."

Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.

As long as "standing for both" means "getting rid of everybody who disagrees," Mozilla is doing great at that.

Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness. We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all.

And some are more equal than others.

We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public. This is meant to distinguish Mozilla from most organizations and hold us to a higher standard. But this time we failed to listen, to engage, and to be guided by our community.

The rank hypocrisy makes me angry.

This week, not quite so diverse,

Not quite so open,

The beliefs and opinions of those who think that marriage should remain defined between a man and a woman...not quite so encouraged to share.

If their "higher standard" is anti-Christian, shutting down of conversation, and shutting out all who disagree, they seem as if they are on the right track.

As I write this, an alert came in telling me that SCOTUS has declined to hear Elane Huguenin's case in New Mexico. The world can now force Christian photographers to either act against their conscience, or be forced out of the public square.

There can be no disagreement on the "SSM" issue, or you will be ridiculed, fired, sued, forced out, called vile names...

all for the sake of "tolerance."

Welcome to the New United States of...

Last Friday, Michigan became a "gay marriage" state, by the decision of a federal judge, overturning a vote of the people.  Even though the governor has requested a stay until it can be sorted out in SCOTUS, at least one country clerk has "gender neutral" marriage licenses ready to go today.

I want to be clear.

I am going to be a BRIDE.

I am NOT "applicant A"

I am NOT "party B"

I am NOT "thing one" or "thing two"

1 - A license, by definition, says that the state is giving me permission to do that which is otherwise illegal.  If I must have a license in order to marry, then marriage is illegal, unless the state gives me permission to enter into a marriage.

2 - the state, by way of being the one who gives permission to marry (as opposed to God giving permission) now has the authority to define marriage (as opposed to God defining marriage.)

3 - what the state is giving "us" (citizens) permission to do is no longer "marriage" (according to Scripture.)

When is it time for Christians to opt out of a corrupt system?

Do Christians need the state's permission to enter into a covenant before God, their family,  and their church community?

I don't want a "gender neutral" marriage certificate.

 

Will there be a backlash from the more conservative parts of the African-American community, since President Obama came out in support of gay "marriage" - and since the DNC officially added gay "marriage" to its platform?

It's nice to think so, but I think, in the end, African-Americans will rally around the skin color.

The issue is heating up, and heating up quickly.

The "tolerant left" simply cannot tolerate that Christians have a moral code that differs from theirs and that Christians may dare to want to live by that code.

Chick-fil-a. Nuff said.

Now, there's Lakewood, CO

Threats of boycotts, death threats, petitions...etc.

Death threats. Really? because of a cake? Grow up.

From another paper:

All we wanted was a cake. We didn't want him to put on a rainbow shirt and march in the gay pride parade. This is me standing up for my community's rights

This is them, standing up for their "right" to force Christians to violate their conscience.

This wasn't a plain old wedding cake...oh, no.

the couple was "hoping to get a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting"

rainbow - hmmm...stand for something? Like being gay? And then getting all pissy when the Christians don't roll over and play dead?

We'll be seeing mre.

Good for the goose?

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez needs a new hairdresser — or a new stance on gay marriage.

Martinez was recently dropped by her hair stylist, Antonio Darden, who is gay.

Darden told a local news station that he cut the governor’s hair three times, but won’t do it again as long as she continues to oppose gay marriage.

Is it okay for a photographer to decline a client, involving taking pictures for a gay wedding?  Is it okay if she is sued for doing so?

Is it okay for a gay stylist to decline a client because of their political stand?  Should it be okay to be sued for doing so?

(for the record, I believe that a private business owner should be able to live out their conscience, no matter what side of the fence, without fear of a bankrupting law suit.)

6 Comments

States at odds over gay marriage recognition:

When Massachusetts passed their law providing for legal, same-sex marriages, they also made provisions to NOT grant marriage licenses to out-of-state couples who live in states that have laws or constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage.

A gay couple residing in a state with a DOMA (defense of marriage act) could go to Massachusetts to get "married" and be denied.

This "helps" prevent a state with a DOMA from being forced to recognize a gay union from another state.

California has no such residency requirement.

A gay couple can come to California to get a state issued marriage certificate and then go home (wherever home is).  Hetero couples do it all the time.  I was at a wedding last week in the Las Vegas area (Valley of Fire - wonderful location) - the couple resides in California.

California may be the "Nevada" of gay marriage.

Scenario...a lesbian couple drive from Wisconsin to California to "get married".  Driving home, in Kansas, they are in a car accident.  Does the hospital in Kansas (a state that prohibits gay marriage) have to recognize the "rights" of the spouse that have a legal marriage in California?

Scenario:  Does a divorce court in Michigan (that grants divorces to couples married in other states) have to grant a divorce to a gay couple married in Massachusetts or California - thus lending legitimacy to that union (how can one dissolve something that one does not accept as existing in the first place?)

Attorneys general from Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah were so worried about potential legal complications they asked California to postpone marrying gay couples until after the November elections when voters will have a chance to overturn the court's ruling.

California declined.

We knew this was coming, but it is still frightening.

The Speech Code of the Month "Award" goes to Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.

Richard Stockton's anti-harassment policy not only infringes on protected speech - it explicitly infringes on the free exchange of ideas in the classroom setting.

Here is the policy: "All forms of unlawful discrimination based upon race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, marital status, familial status, affectional or sexual orientation, atypical herededitary cellular or blood trait, genetic information, liability for service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or disability are prohibited and will not be tolerated."

The policy also prohibits "Displaying or distributing material in the academic setting that contains language or images that are derogatory or demeaning, based on any of the foregoing classifications." The policy also notes:“harassment or the creation of a hostile work environment can occur even if there was no intent on the part of an individual to harass or demean another” (emphasis added).

FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) notes: Since “derogatory” and “demeaning” are not defined, students are left to guess at what a fellow student or professor might find “derogatory” or “demeaning.” This is made worse by the fact that the policy does not require intent on the part of the “harasser,” and explicitly applies to classroom speech. In other words, students who express an opinion in the classroom that someone else interprets as derogatory or demeaning may be punished. One can imagine many legitimate classroom discussions in which this might happen, such as: a student in an American politics class who opposes affirmative action or gay marriage; a student in a women’s studies class who suggests that men are responsible for society’s ills; or a student in a religion class who expresses the opinion that religion is fantasy or escapism. The result of a policy like this is a terrible chilling effect on student speech in the classroom, stifling the free exchange of ideas that is so crucial to a liberal arts education.

This policy "applies to conduct which occurs in the workplace/educational environment and also extends to conduct which occurs at any location that can be reasonably regarded as an extension of the college, such as any field location, any off-site camput-related social function, or any facility where Richard Stockton College of New Jersey business is being conducted or discussed."

Extend this out a couple of years...a young person at a football game who turns down a date (on campus) because the person asking is gay (or straight), or for religious reasons could reasonably have a complaint filed against them...