This is one of the most intriguing blog posting I’ve ever seen. The author, The Angry African, expressed nearly the exact sentiment I wish I had the talent to. I’ve included it in it’s entirety here to share with you, my visitors.

…

The time has come for people to realize that we have to consider everybody’s rights as important.

You have made the case and I am pro your stance.

Please stop by my blog. I have something there for you.

Sadly it’s the same all over the world – in France, I hear on a daily basis the following examples : “I don’t have anything against gays/blacks/jews/arabs…etc, it’s just that it’s not natural/normal that they should take our jobs/run our most profitable businesses/live off our social security system…etc”

I was brought up to “live and let live” + I was always encouraged to seek the difference in others that could enrich me as a person and help me grow – as an adult I gravitate toward people who are generous, open-minded, and DIFFERENT (whatever that differnce may be..!) and I shy away away from narrow minded bigots..!

Beautiful post, as always, thought provoking and full of insight – I’ve missed reading your posts in my brief absence..:)

Feel free to check me out at:
http://www.leahomar.wordpress.com

You are so right, there is no gay issue, no gay agenda; it is a human agenda. An agenda toward total human self-realization, spreading the love, spreading the love, spreading the love.

For a government, or its citizens, to think that it can legislate love by telling some of us that we are not allowed to marry is really ridiculous. We love in spite of that denial of equal rights…… we love in spite of that, we go on and on and on with that love, into infinity………..

There was a time, not very long ago, when I was willing to accept if we would just be given civil unions, you know, if that would not be too much trouble???

Fuck that……. I want equality, pure and simple. The idea of marrying my beloved, with our closest family and friends with us, brings tears to my eyes….. not a pseudo-marriage or something “like” marriage under a different name, but the real deal. And, it really isn’t about having a ceremony for the hundreds, or trying to prove a point or make a statement…… it is about what is equal and fair and right.

The love will go on no matter what we are allowed to do by law, because our love is permanent, and infinite, and pure……

No matter what…….

Basically, giving people the right to find out how their loved one is doing in hospital shouldn’t upset anybody. But, apparently, it does… enough for people to go out and vote against it.

Great post, AA.

AA, thanks for your singular voice You’re a great soul!

@TheGT – Thanks. And odd. I had to come over here to fight this issue and you had to go over there to find peace… Weird world hey?

@Mark – Thanks! Yep, happiness and love. Just that.

@sayway – I get that. I don’t expect churches or synagogues or mosques to do that. Some churches already do it. Hell, churches don’t do recognize other marriages outside of their own churches. My point is that there should be no difference in government policy or treatment. The religious groups can do what they want. As long as they don’t force their ideas on others. So my “tolerance for everyone” includes churches doing what they want. I don’t expect the Catholic Church to marry a Muslim couple. And I don’t imagine a Protestant Church will marry a Hindu couple either. That’s something different. But the religious groups can’t decide who should be called “married” under the government rules should they? Seperation of church and politics I think is what they call it.

It is a decision that shuuld not be decided “by the people”. Like I would expect the voting rights of others (women, minorities etc) not to be open to debate. Equal rights isn’t a debate. Or don’t I get the freedom and liberty part right?

Let religious groups do what they do. But let them stay outside of what rights should be given to others or not. Or whether people should be treated and called the same thing under the law. Or else remove all reference to marriage in the books. Either everyone is in civil union or everyone is open to get married under the rule of law as set out by government. What the church decides… That’s up to them. And that is their right.

Government recognition of marriage is a policy decision that should remain in the purview of the people. After all, no one argues that relationships require government sanction; two people can cohabitate without permission, as long as they’re consenting, unrelated adults. They can form contractual partnerships just like any two adults can, as long as the purposes remain legal. The argument in this case is for government sanction of the relationship as marriage — and as such is a public policy decision.

Had the people of California chosen to recognize gay marriage through legislation, I’d accept it — and in truth, I’d consider that a more rational policy than civil unions, which basically reproduce marriage with a different label. Government stopped being in the sacrament business at the moment it offered no-fault divorces. A civil-union contract has more binding power than does marriage these days. States would do best to leave the term “marriage” as an exclusive province of the churches and have all couples sign civil-union contracts instead, and let the individuals determine whether they feel “married” or not.

Bottom line is, asking churches, synagogues and mosques, etc., to recognize gay marriage is an infringement on religious liberty, and contrary to one of the great ideals on which this country was founded.

Your mantra seems to be “tolerance for everyone, except the religious.” Not really fair, if you ask me.

You would do well to check out the terms “projection” and “self-loathing.”