California & Gay Marriage

There's a very interesting thread over on the R&R Forum if anyon is interested in playing. Just FYI, it can get a little ugly over there. http://www.obesityhelp.com/forums/rantsandraves/a,messageboard/action,replies/board_id,841 8/cat_id,7617/topic_id,3615279/ Sharyn nurse2b

It was a way more positive thread than I expected from the R&R group (where I lurk instead of posting). Connie

Yeah, I started out lurking and now look at me ~ trying how to not get in a fight with Gilberts Wifey. Had to take a break for a while to get my head cleared. Sharyn nurse2b

WOW...I had to post to that gilberts wife or whatever. I hate to even make a point with her. I just had to be rude.

Yeah, gilbertwifey is a lost cause. A fundamentalist who's whole identitiy is as some man's WIFE. Gag.

I know! I looked at her profile to see what her name is and it is NOWHERE in sight. Unbelieveable!!! You will NEVER see me with the moniker Janet's_Wifey!!! Sharyn nurse2b

Here on OH, you see a lot of women married to career military men who choose a moniker more or less like this. Will we ever encounter a male OH member choosing a handle identifying himself as the husband of a career military woman? An interesting thought experiment, at least! /Steve

I peeked last night (so things may have changed since then), but they should have relocated that thread OFF of "R&R", because it wasn't much of an R&R, it seemed like a love-fest! There was too much sense being made over there, and that makes me nervous! My assessment of "gilberts_wifey" was that she's simply regurgitating a ridiculous straw-man non-argument against same sex marriage handed to her by her pastor. Jeez: "Churches *** that means REAL Churches, folks) OWN the word 'marriage', and we can't force REAL Churches to marry anyone against His will". Duh. AS IF that were ever a matter of contention! I don't care if the "Holiness Temple of Christ, Laundromat" refuses to marry gay couples, just as long as every city clerk in my state treats my marriage license with the same dispassion and dispatch as everyone else's. When last I looked, Jasmine... (forget her full handle)--someone I've generally felt to be non-flaky--seemed to be agonizing over the lack of due process and inattention to the stated will of the California populate, in the face of apparently-outsized judicial activism. We saw a lot of this kind of argument after the Massachusetts decision. "I'm not a homophobe...BUT...I really am UNEASY about the IMPLICATIONS that such a judicial ruling has!" As if any of the folks expressing this ever gave a fig about legal minutiae until now! Suddenly all the hand-wringing I'm-no-homophobes are posing as up-n-coming constitutional scholars in preparation for their appearances on Nightline. Well, this too will pass. What DOES worry me is the timing of this before the Nov. general election. We all know what the Dems need to say in response, and it isn't pretty (CA Gov. Schwartz... manages to have his wedding cake and refuse to eat it too; he ends up smelling sweet regardless.) Plus, today's paper seems to indicate that there will be yet another binding referendum amending CA's constitution to ban S-S marriages on the Nov CA ballot. Did I get that correct? /Steve

What chaps my ass about Gilberts_Wifey is that, until 1967, it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry. Yet, she is married to a black man. It just brings to mind the whole Holocaust thing. I did nothing because they didn't come for me.......She has been the beneficiary of social reform, but wants to keep others from benefitting from it, too. Sharyn nurse2b