Discussion (6)¬

1. Darrin Bell says:

   November 20, 2008 at 12:18 am

   “Until late in the last century, there was no where in the world or at any time that 2 (or more) members of the same gender could be legally “married”. It has always, in all places, and until extremely recent times been considered outside the definition of the term.”

   WRONG. Gay marriage was legal in the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire until 342 A.D. when a couple of the first Christian emperors, Constantius and Constans, outlawed it. For religious reasons. The banning of gay marriage has from the start had basis in nothing other than religion, but in this country, there’s supposed to be a separation between church and state.

   “The same cannot be said for any color or any religion or any gender about any other issue.”

   That’s also flat-out wrong. Bigots have, since the middle ages, used their religion to ban marriages between different ethnicities and between people of different religions.

   “What is being asked for is not simply “rights”, but redefinition.”

   No, they’re asking for a restoration, actually. The “redefining” happened in 342 A.D. when Christian emperors in Rome arbitrarily decided they didn’t like men marrying other men. Which, incidentally, didn’t affect any of the gay marriages that would happen in China and among the Native Americans over the next 1500 years.

   “I, frankly, have no opposition to legal civil joinings of property and income for tax reduction and other issues (although for medical insurance, the insurers must be allowed to account for a proven medical risk),”

   That’s mighty generous of you.

   “…but to enforce gay “marriage” the government will be forced to intrude on (read, “take away”) people’s already recognized religious rights.”

   How so? Tell us exactly how it would take away people’s religious rights. Your church won’t have to marry gay people if it doesn’t want to. If you believe otherwise, you’ve swallowed a bill of goods. Churches aren’t forced to conduct interfaith marriages, or even interracial marriages, if they don’t want to, so there’s no reason to believe they’d have to recognize gay marriages. You won’t have to become gay, and they won’t force you to attend gay weddings. All that would change is that people who aren’t YOU could marry who they want to without interference from YOU. How exactly does that take away any of YOUR rights?

2. Darrin Bell says:

   November 19, 2008 at 11:40 pm

   “Not granting further rights is not the same as taking rights away.”

   Gay people had the right to marry in California. Proposition 8 took that right away.

3. kempisosha says:

   November 19, 2008 at 9:48 pm

   Not granting further rights is not the same as taking rights away. Until late in the last century, there was no where in the world or at any time that 2 (or more) members of the same gender could be legally “married”. It has always, in all places, and until extremely recent times been considered outside the definition of the term. The same cannot be said for any color or any religion or any gender about any other issue. What is being asked for is not simply “rights”, but redefinition. I, frankly, have no opposition to legal civil joinings of property and income for tax reduction and other issues (although for medical insurance, the insurers must be allowed to account for a proven medical risk), but to enforce gay “marriage” the government will be forced to intrude on (read, “take away”) people’s already recognized religious rights.

4. PeaceZGood says:

   November 19, 2008 at 8:59 pm

   In my opinion, Lemont will still have Clyde and Susan, and the Rev. Weirdo to feed the fuel of comedy. 🙂

5. Ken says:

   November 19, 2008 at 4:35 pm

   The idea that everyone who suffers discrimination becomes more sympathetic to others who endure such treatment died long ago for me. I helped with a study of the attitude of Hispanics. They were not especially sympathetic toward African-Americans or women at the time (the late 80s). I also remember the violence between Cuban-Americans and African-Americans in Miami. The people lumped together under the umbrella of “minorities” often felt they little in common.

   This series of strips is related to an interesting question. With Obama moving into the White House are black Americans now more likely to feel like they are in the mainstream and/or feel like they’re part of the establishment? If so, how does that change how they view other groups?

   What’s life going to be like if Lemont feels he’s no longer the outsider looking in on politics?

6. MCsweeTea says:

   November 19, 2008 at 12:01 pm

   I’m pretty sure I’ve had this exact conversation with about… 50 people.
   I would laugh at it if I wasn’t busy banging my head against the monitor over the fact that these people actually exist in such large numbers.