Welcome to my coffee shop in the cyber neighborhood!

Welcome to my cyber neighborhood coffee shop! Grab a mug of your favorite beverage and a cozy chair to read and comment a bit. Be sure to try a piece of black forest cake or tiramisu. Try both; cyber-cake is calorie free!

Contact Nani at

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Soap Box Again - Grrrr

A group calling themselves “Preserve Marriage Washington” blocked the law which would make marriage an equal and valid institution rather than a segregated entitlement with signatures from 200,000 insecure and confused people the day before the law creating marriage equality went into effect. The block will send Referendum 74 to a public vote.

You might say, “That’s democracy, it’s good.” But cults have voted to do great harm before and we say it’s bad. It leaves me a little confused. What is good and American about select entitlement, about prejudice and hate? I know our history is peppered with those things, but why are we still fighting those social wars? In 2012, we are still social cliques at war with each other to be recognized as the “superior clique.” Yes, if you read into that as me calling many of the fundamental religious groups “cults” and “cliques,” that’s exactly what I meant. My Bible says “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” I’m seeing a lot of judging of things that have no effect whatsoever on the people doing the judging. I see telling God he made a mistake in bringing two people together to be a far greater sin than loving someone.

The thing that I really don’t understand is the whole “sanctity of marriage” thing when it comes to wanting to keep marriage an entitlement for heterosexual couple only. First off, if we are not going to allow same-sex couples to marry to save the “sanctity of marriage,” we need to outlaw divorce too. That’s a way bigger destroyer of that sanctity. I do realize that if divorce was illegal David would still be married to his ex and her husband and I would still be single. Four happy people would be miserable or lonely, but that “Preserve Marriage” group would be happy and isn’t that all that’s really important?

I’ve had a participant on the occasional debate that sprouts when I post on Facebook that insists that allowing same-sex marriage is a “slippery slope” that next is “marrying your dog.” Aside from the fact that “marrying your dog” is quoted propaganda and not original thought and “slippery slope” is just a desperate catch phrase used when one really has nothing left to present, that argument is the silliest thing I’ve heard. Last I checked dogs can’t give consent and they can’t contract. I don’t think there will ever be a time that a doctor will call your dog when you’re on your death bed but they will call your spouse.

As far as a “slippery slope,” that slope slides both ways. Marriage equality is a plateau. If we can’t reach that plateau, if states keep putting the hate and entitlement language in their constitutions and the hate groups block the states that move towards equality, how soon before the country slides down the way it came?  How soon before laws are put in place to define marriage as “between a man and woman of the same color, same religion and same financial level?” Sanctity of marriage; keep the gold-diggers from destroying the sacred institution! That side of the “slippery slope” makes as much sense as marrying a dog does. 

Allowing same-sex marriage is allowing all couples of consenting adults to legally contract their partnership. That’s all legal marriage is. It has nothing to do with any church; it’s just a contract. I didn’t get married in a church at all and my marriage is still valid and legal and called a marriage. A church that scorns same-sex couples doesn’t have to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple. Churches don’t have to change based on new laws, so why do they want laws to be governed by their rules?

The creation of the United States was greatly based on those fleeing religious tyranny in England. Freedom from the government establishing a single religion is in the Bill of rights. It’s the very first amendment to the constitution. We have the free exercise of any religion so no one religion should be allowed to demand laws reflecting its beliefs be made. One country, one religion, one FAIL. If religious interests take over our government and it becomes necessary to flee from the tyranny again, where will we go?

Get the special interest religious groups out of our government and let them tend to their churches; maybe they can do something about that divorce rate.


Items in red are sarcasm. It pains me to have to note that.

I’m not really looking to debate, just to get some anger off my chest. Feel free to disagree with me, but please don’t leave a dissertation to me of “why you’re wrong” in comments. It won’t be published. I will publish any “I disagree and here is the link to my blog” comments if you’d like to post a differing opinion. Thank you!


Debby@Just Breathe said...

Amen and Bravo!!!


Here - here [or hear hear --I never could figure out which spelling is correct]. Anyway, you hit the nail on the head there with the reference to "social cliques" wanting to be superior cliques. It's frustrating to say the least.

Mama Hen said...

Agree completely, and well said.

joanne said...

Great post! Are you from my lovely state???? I was so proud of the Governor when she signed the law for marriage equality and now we have another fight on our hands. I wish people would just think, really think about the issue and get off their slippery slope. Great post dear one!!

Edna B said...

I agree totally with you. I think the Church should stay out of trying to run our life. I think everyone should have the same right to marry and spend their life with their loved one with all the benefits that go with marriage. It's sad to think that there are so many unhappy people out there trying to make everyone else's lives just as unhappy. I'm at work now, so I'm off. You have a wonderful day, hugs, Edna B.

Mrs4444 said...

You make some of the best arguments I've heard on this subject. Well-done.