(Seven Posts in Seven Days – Day 4)
Cecilia, the fact that you have two small children means that you of all people should be paying attention everyday. It’s their future, not yours that will be most impacted. I wish you the best of luck making your decision.
But onto another undecided out there. So I love my Whoopi Goldberg. And that Joy Behar makes me laugh. Barbara Walters has lost some of her edge, but she will always have my respect for her accomplishments. And then there is Moron Hasselbeck. Enough said. But, now there is that other one. Cherry? Cheryl? Philmore? I don’t remember her name. She’s pretty forgettable. Yesterday she announced that she was still undecided. OK. That’s it. She’s a jackass. I mean this woman is on a show called The View. What exactly is it that she can’t see? She has met, in person, all the big players in this little card game. Talk about being spoon fed. And as a fellow plus-size gal I know that she has had more than her share from that spoon. I am sure qood people like Cecilia wouldn’t squander such an opportunity. It’s five days away. I’ve got no more patience. What’s her name has to go.
So several of you have emailed me about something happening in California. Now, a lot of crazy stuff goes on in that state and so I may be getting this a little mixed up. Evidently they are wanting to pass a constitutional amendment to make only marriages between a man and a woman valid in California. Talk about an ignorant pot calling a gay kettle black. Somebody really should check the latest divorce rates because clearly many marriages everywhere are not valid.
Now I am an old broad. We didn’t talk about this stuff. I really don’t know why gay people want to get married. It’s not all it’s cracked up to be. Just ask Harold. But I guess if one consenting adult wants to declare their love for another, why would anyone have an issue? I do know one gay couple. Margaret’s nephew and his friend have been together for several years. They are a lovely couple and make me laugh and feel special every time I see them. A couple of years ago Texas passed one of these constitutional amendments. The place where Harold and I go to vote is actually an elementary school in the neighborhood. On that particular election day I was appalled to see all the signs that said “Marriage Should Be Between a Man and Woman Only”. As Harold drove us into the parking lot to vote, I looked out the window at those signs and realized that many parents had driven their kids to school that morning driving past those very signs. I wonder if any of them had the same reaction I did – those signs reminded me of the little signs we used to have back in the day that said “Whites Only”. Think about it.
And now I must go. This seven posts in seven days thing isn’t easy. Happy Halloween everyone.
For those of you that keep emailing me about the t-shirts… Margaret’s nephew is an artist and he created some cartoons. My grandson Matthew put them on something called Cafe Press. We told the boys they could keep whatever money they made. A little fun money at their age will be much better used than what Margaret and I would do with it. It think they’ve made about $100 so good for them.
Thanks for stopping by everyone. I mean it. Really.
1 Timothy 2:9: “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.”
Gee, someone should inform Sarah Palin that spending $150,000 dollars on clothes and adornment might not be Biblical.
Ephesians 6:5-9: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear…”
I guess Abraham Lincoln should have read his Bible before starting all that ruckus!
Timothy 2:11-14: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with propriety.”
Sorry gals, I guess that leaves Margaret and Helen out of the holy loop! (You certainly aren’t silent. I guess I don’t know about the rest.)
My POINT is that the Bible has ALWAYS been used by extremist and fundamentalists to justify discrimination and hate. Religion, like language, is a living thing and is changed by millions of people and ideas and by the times and cultures in which they have lived and are living. Once a language stops evolving with the culture it becomes extinct. Who speaks Sanskrit anymore? The same can be said for religion. Are there any modern-day Puritans?
The message of Christianity is not dead, however. Consider “What Would Jesus Do in 2008?”
Love your blog girls.
By: independentstinker on November 3, 2008
at 3:26 PM
Helen, You are my new hero. Forget the out of context scripture quoting from David – you have hit the nail square on the head.
As a people we always seem to have to make some group, some subset of people suffer to make ourselves feel better and right, starting in this country with the Irish, the Chinese laborers, the Native Americans, African Americans, people in interracial marriages, immigrants (legal and not) and of course, the gays and anyone who thinks and lives their life outside of the mainstream, whatever that is.
I applaud people like yourself, especially of your generation who can look beyond what they have always been “carefully taught” to see what is right in treating people with dignity and like fellow human beings.
Thank you –
Oh – and I agree – she is a bitch!!
By: Mike M on November 3, 2008
at 8:54 AM
To A girl: Who said we were talking about sex? Who are you to limit the dependents of a family? You give excuses for making the other scenerios illegal, but you miss the glaring fact that homosexuals can not have children. If all Americans were homosexual, then Americans would eventually become extinct unless they adopted children from other countries. That is one logical or moral reason…survival of the country.
To smteaches: Learn the Bible. How is that people who criticize Christianity do not know their beliefs? Everything you quoted is Orthodox Judiasm, not Christianity. And no, Jesus was not crucified because he “hung out” with sinners. The Jewish leadership, Pharisees and Sadducees, got Jesus crucified because he declared himself the Messiah and was a threat to their authority. If you can see past the priestly connotations, the irony here is that the democrats and republicans are much like the pharisees and sadducees. And find me one verse where Jesus said, “I love you just as you are.” I guess the call to repentance of the whole New Testament passed you by.
To Alaska Pi: We are on a slippery slope. The call of the day is if the constitution doesn’t specifically state it, then it’s lawful. Without the Bill of Rights and other amendments, we would have lost basic human rights, such as freedom of speech. Under Bush, we would have been in a military state if it wasn’t for the Bill of Rights preventing them. But even still, these rights are infringed or stretched until the courts condemn them again and again. The problem is the “Founding Fathers” had limited foresight. If they knew that their vagueness would have lead to a slippery slope, then they would have been more specific. Without a national crisis, it’s very unlikely we will ever see a new amendment to the Constitution because of the divisiveness of the 2 monopolistic political parties. Supreme Court decisions can be changed.
All it would take is enough of a group to advocate a certain issue for a slippery slope to happen, say…illegal immigration. Neither party wants to deal with it fearing that it will cost them a lot of votes in Florida and the Mexican border states. Same-sex marriage is only an issue because their are enough homosexuals and enough “who cares” heterosexuals in the country, but yet not enough for the 2 main presidential candidates to endorse it. Freedom does have it’s limits and it should. Changing marriage laws from a man and a woman to a man or a woman to whomever or whatever is such a limit that needs protecting, just like other limits of freedom such as murder, rape, robbery, incest, etc.. needs protecting.
You may not envision a slippery slope now, but neither did the “Founding Fathers” back in 1787.
To Gregg and James: Where in the Bible does God or Jesus talk about gays through man? No twisting the meaning and not my words here.
“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)
“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13)
“Some Pharisees came to Jesus to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:3-9)
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor boy prostitutes, nor practicing homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor robbers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
“realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.” (1 Timothy 1:9-11)
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:26-27)
By: David on November 3, 2008
at 8:42 AM
Dear Helen
I’m a South African (of colour) who grew up during Apartheid so I saw those “Whites Only” signs first-hand. I know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of that kind of institutionalised prejudice and I think your comparison is spot on.
I don’t see any reason why gays cannot be afforded exactly the same legal rights as non-gays. How on earth gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage is beyond me.
We are all human beings, infinite in our variety, but all still human. I feel so downhearted when I see so much effort being put into discriminating against gays.
By: Ishtar on November 3, 2008
at 7:30 AM
You are right, KS. Remember, SHerri sits next to EH. EH could smack her upside the head.
VOTE NO ON PROP 8!
By: Kim on November 2, 2008
at 4:52 PM
I record The View everyday so I can fastforward when EH starts to sound like SP. I think Sherri Shepherd has made up her mind and plans to vote for Obama. She says she’s undecided because she’s afraid Elizabeth won’t like her and her decision.
By: KS in Ohio on November 2, 2008
at 4:07 PM
What I don’t understand is why Florida’s Amendment 2 is not making the headlines as much as Prop 8. They are nearly the exact same law! Marriage between a man and woman will be the only thing recognized.
Le sigh.
By: Cora on November 2, 2008
at 3:29 PM
I just discovered your blog and you are a hoot! But more importantly, I love how you are speaking frankly and directly about important issues. I appreciate the sane voice.
Mel
By: melchristopher on November 2, 2008
at 12:20 PM
Wow, the guy showed up who compares homosexual marriage to people marrying dogs. Took you awhile.
Yes, because intelligent, consenting adults of the same sex marrying each other is exactly like marrying a canine, or any other animal. Oh, and yeah, while we’re legalizing gay marriage we should go ahead and allow incest and change laws about rape. Oh, and murder…certainly two consenting adults being allowed to enter into a loving marriage is exactly like murder, so let’s start allowing that too.
If that’s all you have to throw out there, it’s better left unsaid because you just showed yourself to be an ASS of the highest order, and it shouldn’t be legal to marry you. These ridiculous reasons that come out of the Christian right for why gay marriage should be illegal are insulting to the intelligence of the human race.
You say this absolute BS to stir people up, and it does work, because you may or may not be joking, but a lot of people truly think the things you said. And they are scary, backwards, closeminded people.
People like you, David, and those that think like you, are the exact reason this country needs to move away from the Christian right ideals-and certainly why we can’t afford to move closer to them.
As others have said, calling them Christian seems to go against that word. Religious zealots-though what religion they follow I do not know.
OBAMA ’08!!!!!!!!!!!!
By: Erin on November 2, 2008
at 8:34 AM
Hi Helen and Margaret,
It’s James and Gregg and yes we are a gay couple if you have been reading your posts then you know that we have been following your essays for quite some time and love them. We live in the state in question “CALIFORNIA” and just got married earlier this month (I hope it lasts) VOTE NO ON 8.
Anyway thought i is ironic that both the Mormon and Catholic religions are the biggest pushers for the proposition 8, and being that they want to protect marriage…okay the mormons that is the pot calling the kettle black, hipocrits they want to protect marriage so they say, well so which wife are they talking about the first one or number 12? Polygamy isn’t legal but that doesn’t stop them and we in california aren’t running to Utah saying anything about it (Mormons mind your own state). As for the Catholics well being that i was raised one and went through 7 years of the school I feel fairly knowledgeable about them… was even a Eucharistic Minister. But its funny how they are opposed to GAY marriage when 1. they won’t even let their own priests marry (hmmm) then 2. that those same priests who are preaching this B.S. are out there molesting your kids. So what’s wrong with this picture.
And by the way all you religious fanatics opposed to gay marriage. I pose this question to you. If the bible is written by men learning through the eyes of God, tell me where in God’s writing in the 10 Commandments does it say anything about Gays? I don’t recall seeing much in there about Gays. Then also in the New Testament as far as I know our Loving Lord Jesus has always taught Love, not hate, and even the prostitutes were accepted for whom they were, so how come you don’t come off your high and mighty and follow what GOD and JESUS teaches instead of what you twist it to mean.
Okay i am stepping off of my soap box, back to you Helen and Margaret.
Gregg and James in California
By: Gregg and James on November 2, 2008
at 1:18 AM
Tens of thousands of committed, same-sex couples are already legally married in Canada, Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands, Spain, and South Africa…..yet they do NOT have people marrying blood relatives, animals, or children.
David, your arguments are the same arguments used in this country just fifty years ago when it was illegal for white persons to marry black persons. Same old arguments, same old prejudices, same old fear-mongering, same old ignorance.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the only people who are ever against extending equality and civil rights to others are the people who already have them?
WWJD? Actually, Jesus was crucified by the religious and political right, who hated Him because He hung out with the “sinners” — the prostitutes, the tax collectors, the lepers, the unclean, the “others”. JWD what He always did: He would say to EVERYONE “I love you just as you are. Nothing you can say or do can make me like you or love you any less. You may not be good enough for the religious, but you are good enough for me. I’m sorry they condemn you. Please know that I still love you and value you and want you to spend an eternity with me. You may come to my table JUST AS YOU ARE.” THAT’S what JWD.
By: smteaches on November 2, 2008
at 12:09 AM
I dip my fries in mayo. Why do the catsup peeps give such a big eff???
Great post, great words. No on 8… it’s a good thing.
By: happy zombie on November 2, 2008
at 12:08 AM
David-
You are worried about the old slippery slope thing…
We don’t HAVE to fall down the hill to enfranchise a group of Americans we have ignored.
We are capable, with eyes wide open, of crafting legislation which plants our feet right where we want them. ( Hard to believe with all the laws that get cobbled together like alphabet soup, but quite possible. ) We can and should expand civil rights to include marraige equality .
Marraige equality for gay couples , in and of itself, does not lead to the increasingly wild scenarios you propose…for cryin out loud.
Nor is out of the norm in the manner you suggest… we ladies would still be out here waiting to vote if civil rights was based on the norm you suggest…
Civil rights are based on the rights and responsibilities of citizens to fully partake of the work and benefits of their community. There is no community or court, in this country, which would view counterfitting as a possible civil right…
By: Alaska Pi on November 1, 2008
at 11:19 PM
Thank you to many of you who made such kind and supportive comments! You are inspiring and encouraging and – like Obama – make me believe in HOPE!
And thank you to the many CA bloggers who are voting NO on Prop 8!
Reder: you missed my point entirely. I am not asking for any “special term”…I’m asking for marriage, period. You asked why I call it equality: because I do not have the same civil rights that heterosexuals have. Marriage equality is THE civil rights issue of the 21st century.
David: you say marriage has always been a religious institution. That’s not entirely correct, but let’s imagine it IS correct. Religious tenets change ALL the time. Even the most far-right-wing-conservative-evangelical-Christians-who-believe-every-word-of-the-Bible-literally have changed their religious beliefs due to changes (for the better) in cultural and societal beliefs. Afterall, the scriptures endorse polygamy and slavery and they condemn to death anyone who eats shellfish (sorry Red Lobster fans), anyone who touches the skin of a dead pig (NFL players beware), and anyone who wears clothes made with two or more different materials (sorry to the rest of the world – even if you don’t eat shellfish or play football, you’re still going to hell unless every piece of clothing you own is 100% wool, linen, or silk.)
Oh, and if your brother ever dies, the scriptures say you are obligated to buy his wife for the price of one shoe and impregnate her. If you don’t, you’ll find yourself in hell with the rest of us.
By: smteaches on November 1, 2008
at 10:39 PM
David: You can’t compare marriage between same-sex couples to those other marriages that you offered up. Sex between family members can cause serious inbreeding issues with their potential children… the main reason that incest is illegal… because it is actually detrimental to someone’s health. The same can be said of beastiality, which certainly can’t be healthy… and the fact that an animal with no verbal skills can confirm its willingness to participate in such an act. Between adults and children is also illegal, again, as this would be taking advantage of a child’s rights. And there are some young teenagers that DO in fact get married with their parent’s consent. As far as polygamy goes, that is illegal from a economic standpoint. Polygamy would take advantage of the government’s tax system, allowing them to claim additional exemptions. It would only further allow people to purposely abuse the system. There are polygamist colonies here and there, of course… but most of their marriages only have a single legalized marriage, whereas the other marriages are only in church without a valid license.
As you can see, none of these are for religious reason.. they are simply moral or logical ideals. With religion aside (or what some would try to find as interpreted from their religion), what is logical or moral about restricting a legal marriage between two people of the same sex?
And Barb, I would totally believe that Palin does not have the capacity for feeling that loss of spending time with her children. She seems cold and heartless at times. Statements such as that one convince me of it.
By: A girl on November 1, 2008
at 9:43 PM
Try reading first. I didn’t say all forms of government. BTW, puritans had arranged marriages and they didn’t allow marriages outside the church. It’s weird that you would bring up Puritans when they executed homosexuals.
By: David on November 1, 2008
at 9:36 PM
You believe in folklore and call it fact. Try learning the facts first.
By: oddjob on November 1, 2008
at 8:39 PM
Marriage has always been a religious union that eventually was backed-up by governments.
Kindly then explain why the Puritan colonists insisted that marriages not be conducted by any but civil authorities:
… the Massachusetts Puritans in 1646 passed a law making it a crime for anyone other than a magistrate — that is, a government official — to bring persons together in marriage.
By: oddjob on November 1, 2008
at 8:38 PM
It is always, always offensive when someone compares love between a same-sex couple to murder. See above. Love is not a sin.
I love your blog. It gives me hope for the future of America.
peace out, ladies.
By: Lisa on November 1, 2008
at 8:20 PM
I got to ask the question…Where do you draw the line? Marriage has always been a religious union that eventually was backed-up by governments. Which throws a needle in the eye of the “separation of church and state” crowd. Isn’t it the right of the government to decide what it will validate and to protect morality? If you allow same-sex marriage because it discriminates, then where do you draw the line? Do you legalize marriages between a father and a daughter? Do you legalize marriages between people and dogs? Do you legalize polygamy for those bisexuals? Do you legalize marriages between children and adults? It is the right of the government to say “this is unacceptable”, such as rape, murder, incest, fraud, robbery, etc. You still may think it is discrimination, but it is not. If someone wants to live their life, let’s say out of the norm, it’s not the government’s duty to give fair access to an establishment. For instance, if a group of Americans decides to print their own currency and they try to pay the government with that currency, then the government has the right to reject that currency as legal tender. That is what this whole same-sex marriage sounds like… let me print my own money and you must accept it because it would be discrimination not to accept it. BTW, those gay couples can get power of attorney for medical and estate issues.
WWJD? Love the sinner, hate the sin.
By: David on November 1, 2008
at 6:54 PM
re: Gay Marriage
In the LA Times today (11/1) I there’s an op ed piece pointing out that the Mormon church of ALL groups should be “sensitive to those seeking non-traditional marriages.” The writer of the piece is a member of the Mormon History Assn. and for the record, I’m not declaring support of polygamy, but think about what she’s saying: here’s a group that has had to fight hatred and prejudice for over a century and now they’re not only perpetuating it, they’re funding it. This just drives home what a whacky, xenophobic, and CONFUSED country we live in! sigh.
The supporters of prop 8 are scaring voters by flooding the airwaves with garbage like: gay marriage will be taught in schools. As if. I’ve been a teacher for 24 years and we don’t teach marriage, hetero or otherwise, in schools . And, hell, if we did, it would be taught as a math lesson (fractions, percentages, statistics) as we calculate how many ‘traditional’ marriages fail. Talk about your reality based word-problems. bahaha!
Seriously, though, it is just heartbreaking to see how much support (and funding) hate and fear will drum up.
Helen, I’ve been checking in w. you every day since I found you. Thank you for being a life line on those days when it feels scary to feel hopeful about the election and the decision making skills of some of our citizenry.
Love you BAD, girlfriend!!!
VY
PS: Oh yeah, and i remember NO On 8 — please say “N0″ to hatred, fear and discrimination. Please.
By: VY on November 1, 2008
at 5:11 PM
Yes Helen’s commentors are almost as much fun to read as Helen.
Drew – Exactly – WWJS? “Love everyone.”
smteach – big hug. And whenever you feel it’s about you remember that it’s about THEM and what they feel inside about themselves. – which is obviously not that much.
I like the “marriage equality” take. I live in CA and the biggest funders of the yes on 8 campaign – Utah Mormons. This is being done because the so-called Christian (remember WWJS/D) groups see prop 8 as the first battle in their efforts to promote hatred and ingnorance across the nation.
Thank you so much for writing about this Helen
NO ON 8!! It’s worth saying again so
Vote for Marriage Equality – NO ON 8!
By: JMC on November 1, 2008
at 2:00 PM
smteaches-
I am so sorry your family has not only turned their backs on you but have also actively sought to sabotage your livelihood.
Your argument for marraige equality as a recognion of kinship is the finest I have ever read or heard.
In the abstract, it has never made sense to me to deny some folks who are ready and willing to take on the responsibilities of a commitment the rights generally conferred to others who make that commitment.
I come from a mixed race marriage ( and a mixed religion marraige for that matter ) . My folks’ marraige raised some eyebrows, especially on my dad’s (white ) side, but apparently , over the years, Alaska Native heritage ended up being considered more exotic than unacceptable by most of the family.
No one ever denied them the kinship they formed…though there were plenty of questions about their judgement in picking a partner.
I hope for you what should be yours too. As someone else here said- Hang in there!!!!!!!!!!
By: Alaska Pi on November 1, 2008
at 10:40 AM
I had my 59th birthday last week. I want to be like you two when I grow up..
By: barryweber on November 1, 2008
at 10:36 AM
Mr. Parson,
I agree with Alaski Pi, and I would say that your use of the term Fair and Balanced gives insight into where you get your news from. You might want to take a look at just how accurate their reporting is and since this is a blog not news, she can say as many lopsided things as she wants to.
If you look at the last four Presidents, they only one who managed to balance the budget and create a surplus was Bill Clinton, and all this while having to work with a Republican controlled congress.
The only thing that George Bush has managed to do in eight years is create the largest Government and national debt in American history, completely blow the response to four major crisis, and start two wars that have sucked the life out of our country and or military. Heck of a job Bushy!
You had better just go back to watching Fixed Noise because, the truth might hurt your feelings!
By: Steve McGovern on November 1, 2008
at 10:22 AM