August 3, 2012

Governor Phil Bryant wants the world to know that "Mississippi has changed."

And it was "unfortunate" that some people at a Mississippi church didn't want 2 black people to get married there.
"I'm sure there are very good people of Crystal Springs and in that Baptist church that don't feel that way and are supporting that effort," Bryant said of the Wilsons' desire to marry in the church.

"Look, when people want to get married, we ought to let them get married," Bryant said. "We have enough people that won't go and get married. I want to make every opportunity I can for any couple that wants to, to go get married."

But when asked if that should include couples where both partners are of the same sex, he added: "I wouldn't say gay couples, no," Bryant said. "I'd say a man and a woman. Let me make sure, let's get that right. When I say couples, I automatically assume it's a man and a woman."

105 comments:

Palladian said...

But when asked if that should include couples where both partners are of the same sex, he added: "I wouldn't say gay couples, no," Bryant said. "I'd say a man and a woman. Let me make sure, let's get that right. When I say couples, I automatically assume it's a man and a woman."

Blubbering and blabbering like this is exactly why it isn't, and shouldn't be, the government's business to define or regulate any kind of marriage,

Andy R. said...

I wonder how many people quit this church over their racism. Probably a lot, right?

FloridaSteve said...

Well I guess it's time for a boycot of the entire state... sigh..

Andy R. said...

Also, can someone help me find a way to condemn this without coming off as an anti-Christian bigot? I don't want the Christians to get their feelings hurt because someone said something not very nice about them. What would be the best way to phrase my criticisms? I don't want any Christians to feel attacked or persecuted. Tolerance towards these Christian is really important to me. Can someone help me out here? Was my earlier comment about "racism" over the line? I don't want to be one of those intolerant people that attacks Christians because of their racism and sexism and anti-gay bigotry. Thanks for the help!

Scott said...

You're so concerned about how you look. Get over yourself.

Paul said...

Really I don't care if gays hitch, shack up, hook up, etc..

But the word married and marriage has ALWAYS meant a man and a woman. Black, white, red, yellow, brown, etc... a man and a woman. PERIOD.

The gays can call it 'Gayage' or whatever, but not marriage.

Simple as that.

traditionalguy said...

Mississippi is a stubborn place. It is best left to work out the reconciliation of the gays and the heteros among themselves.

Being stupid is no excuse...except in Mississippi.

AllenS said...

From Random House -- Webster's College Dictionary, we have this:

marriage 1. the social institution under which a man and woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious commitments.

The Governor is correct.

AllenS said...

and so is Paul.

Aridog said...

This governor is misguided. Do we, anyone, really want to go there ... where government determines who marries in what church for whatever reason?

This instance was apparently initially racial in context, and that was quickly morphed in to a sexual preference issue ... I call BULLSHIT on the entire affair.

When Jewish Synagogues marry Christians, Catholic parishes marry protestants without any question, etc etc ... hell, any church from Buddhist to Scientologist is required just any one who comes along, upon their demand, then one of our foundation principles is long lost, and government is directing religious observance. The Dept of H&HS Obamacare mandate for Catholic enterprises is a first step ... this bullshit "racial" ho-do in Mississippi is just another distraction maker with an agenda.

edutcher said...

Like much of the rest of the South, it's a tale of 2 cultures.

In some places (and this is probably all Southern states), the Old South is alive and pernicious; in others, there reallly is a New south.

The Blonde has cousins in Pulaski TN, birthplace of the Klan, where there's a plaque commemorating the law office where Bedford Forrest presided over its formation. And every year, some students from the U of TN Law School demonstrate to have it covered up.

Go a little father south and you're in Memphis, a modern, cosmopolitan city.

Andy R. said...

I wonder how many people quit this church over their racism. Probably a lot, right?

Probably next to none, sad to day.

Also, can someone help me find a way to condemn this without coming off as an anti-Christian bigot?

I thought Hatman was into proclaiming his identity in all its glory. Why would he want to hide that part?

(maybe because it puts him in the same pack as the people he claims to hate so much)

Chuck66 said...

Are there more racists in Mississippi than anti-Christian bigots in Madison? Anyone want to read the comment section of the Wisconsin State Journal anytime a story about the Catholic Church come up? Who is more dangerous, the KKK or the People united for the seperation of church and state (or whatever they call themselves)?

Andy R. said...

Is there a word to describe how people can be confronted at the same with racist bigotry and anti-gay bigotry and realize with certainly how bad racism is and be completely oblivious to how bad anti-gay bigotry is?

Also, is there a word to describe when people have lost a fight but don't realize it and everyone else realizes it and is embarrassed for the people who still think they stand a chance?

The anti-gay bigots are like the dismembered knight from the Monty Python movie. Can someone just tell them they lost so they can go home and we can all stop wasting our time?

I do appreciate the media for writing these completely unsubtle articles about how similar racism and anti-gay bigotry are. I also appreciate the anti-gay bigots who completely miss the point that they are being compared to racists. It must be fun being that oblivious.

Chuck66 said...

Remember when the Madison city council held a vote to boycott the Jewish state? I do.

Carnifex said...

Nuthin' ever racis' happen in de no'ths, do it?

I would hope the congregation rethinks this position, but if that's how they feel, then it's their right. No matter how much the Professor, and Hatman dis-like it.

I have more problems with the Westboro Church protesting at soldiers funerals. That crosses the line. If they want to protest, give them a spot that's away from the grieving family.

It's none of the governments busines who people rent to/sell to/talk to/see/employ etc. It's not the governments money. If someone is stupid enough to exclude a share of the market because of some silly idea about racism, it's them losing money. If they are excluding market share for solid economic rerasons, then they are making money.

You say "Carnifex, can it be that easy?" And I reply "Yes! With the giant hand of economics, it is that easy"

But remember, we didn't build this. Somebody else had a hand in it.

The Meme

Chuck66 said...

Remember Mayor Soglin's vicious anti-Christian web site? The one he scrubbed when he decided to run for mayor again? I do.

Scott said...

Honestly.

Eventually my parner and I, who have been together nearly four years, will have our relationship acknowledged by the community and the government. The rector at my Episcopal church will call it a marriage; and so will we. The State of New Jersey will (for $28) call it a civil union. We will be afforded virtually the same rights and responsibilities that so-called married people enjoy.

Who cares what the governor of some benighted southern state wants to call it? It doesn't affect me. That's the beauty of living in a union of fifty states -- if I don't like how one of them is governed, I don't have to live there.

Gay marriage is happening. There's no turning back the clock. And I'm very happy to be part of a new social institution that stands athwart the rising tide of Islamists and their bedwetting bedfellows among the social conservatives in this country, the land of the free and the home of the Yankees!

Aridog said...

@ AllenS ... actually, federal law makes marriage definition fairly clear, as well, in the Defense of Marriage Act. DOJ ignores that little issue, regularly.

Skyler said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Andy...I see a sincerity in your question on how not to offend Christians.

Most Christians are smart enough not to exclude or condemn people for a different sexual orientation. If we did that,there would not be many of us left.

We like nice people and most gay men and women are very intelligent and very nice people. Come and see us if you can stand our small mindedness that thinks families raising children is all that life offers.

But it is unfair to attack Christians because they associate with a God who has a different opinion. We have always had a lot of trouble changing His mind on really silly issues. Try as we may to overlook Torah, that Word wins in the end.

Andy R. said...

I would hope the congregation rethinks this position, but if that's how they feel, then it's their right. No matter how much the Professor, and Hatman dis-like it.

Just to be clear, I'm not calling for any government intervention here against the church for its actions. I also don't think that churches should be forced to marry gay people. Bigots have the right to free association.

I think there are lots of things that private citizens should do, like quit the church en masse, for example. Not that I think that is particularly likely to happen.

Chip S. said...

Sadly, the couple's only alternative to the local Baptist church is Methodist.

Who wants to say they got married thanks to Crystal Meth?

garage mahal said...

But the word married and marriage has ALWAYS meant a man and a woman.

Don't crack open the Old Testament.

There, traditional marriage is one man with multiple wives, multiple concubines, wives conquered in war, with young girls possibly under the age of ten, and definitely not including anyone of a different ethnic group.

Mitt Romney said marriage was "always" between one man and one woman. Uh, except his own great-grandfather, who had five wives.

Christopher in MA said...

Also, can someone help me find a way to condemn this without coming off as an anti-Christian bigot?

Sure. State your opposition in good faith. Presume your opponent (should there be one) is acting likewise. Do not confuse opposition to your opinion as opposition - or, heaven forbid, hatred - towards you.

Perhaps realizing that one can support the traditional definition of marriage without being "anti-gay" would be a good place to start the exercise.

Otherwise, you run the risk of sounding like a smug, entitled, spoilt little clown. And I don't think you'd want that.

Andy R. said...

Don't crack open the Old Testament.

You're wasting your time if you think you can make any progress teaching Christians about their own religion and its history and the books it is based on.

Aridog said...

Scott ...since we're being "honest" (your word), tell me how you feel about the federal government and IRS treating domestic partnerships, regardless of whether hetero or homo, as defined by sharing a household for a year or more, the same as "married" or "civil unionized" for tax purposes?

Why do I need to go before a Judge or a Clergyman to validate a relationship for tax purposes, when the household is obviously unified and sustaining in its own right? Period.

Lyssa said...

I wonder how many people quit this church over their racism. Probably a lot, right?

Probably next to none, sad to day.


But how many were in the church to start with? In many rural parts of the South, a "church" can be 10 people, mostly related, meeting in some one room building somewhere.

Lyssa said...

Congrats on your upcoming nuptials, Scott!

Scott said...

A useful overview of the anti-gay "clobber passages" in the Old Testament.

Rose said...

The solution is simple. Dissolve marriage altogether. Some new hybrid will emerge.

That's what fundamental transformation is all about, right?

Christopher in MA said...

What did I say about smug, Hat?

Scott said...

Lyssa: Thanks!

Aridog: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." I'm in favor of eliminating the personal income tax. Until that time, I'm not going to lose sleep over the inherent inequities of the income tax code. I'll just pay it.

Aridog said...

Andy R ... I do appreciate the media for writing these completely unsubtle articles about how similar racism and anti-gay bigotry are.

Only your relative youth could excuse such massive ignorance. The core of racism is far, very far, beyond the pall of any discrimination regarding sexual predilection.

Name me a "riot" that has engulfed any city or large town over homosexuality versus hetero? And that is just the bare surface of the issue. I lived in and survived the riots here in 1967 ... I assure nothing en mass regarding sexualtiy has ever ofccured.

Just the fact you try to hitch the racial civil rights movement to gay rights is pathetic. You just have no real idea.

Brian said...

Ah, yes. Six people in Crystal Springs are jerks, and the world points its finger at three million Mississippians and screams about how we're all "benighted", "stupid", and "bigoted". Because of course there is nothing "bigoted" at all about that particular habit of mind, is there?

edutcher said...

Scott said...

Gay marriage is happening. There's no turning back the clock.

Much like Prohibition, it only "happens" if the Courts or vote-seeking politicians impose it on the people against their will.

And we all know how that ended.

Aridog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birches said...

I've been wanting to rant on this topic this week because of all the Chick-fil-a hoopla and this story seems like the perfect place to do so.

People have to recognize the difference between culture and religious doctrine.

Forty years ago, girls were routinely kicked out of the house for getting pregnant, perhaps sometimes in the name of religious beliefs.

Forty years later, most out of wedlock pregnant girls are not kicked out of the house. And yet, premarital sex is still considered a sin by these same religions. At least in my church, there is no wink wink "we'll let you pass" for the behavior that landed you out of the house 40 years ago but now gets you a big baby shower. Religiously, the consequences are still there.

I would venture to say that this whole racism/Church kerfluffle is culturally based. Some of the intolerant things that Christians say to gay people is also culturally based (and not because they go to Church). In 40 years, everyone will be better behaved towards gay people, but the religious consequences will still be there.

And in 40 years, no one will call me a hateful bigot because I believe that homosexuality is a sin, just as no one does now about my belief that any kind of sex before marriage is also a sin.

Andy R. said...

Ah, yes. Six people in Crystal Springs are jerks, and the world points its finger at three million Mississippians and screams about how we're all "benighted", "stupid", and "bigoted".

Poll: 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage

edutcher said...

Intersting to contemplate that, no matter how loudly the same sex marriage crowd tries to compare and align themselves with the black civil rights movement, the blacks, who were truly discriminated against, want nothing to do with them.

PS I hear the Chick-Fil-A kiss-in is drawing meager numbers and sporadic arrests. Let's hear again how same sex marriage is so popular.

And the moron who gave the girl at the Chick-Fil-A drive-in such a hard time lost his job.

Aridog said...

Scott ... interesting. Obviously I render my taxes IAW the law. Shortly you will have a legal advantage that I don't ...and you prefer not to discuss it. Cute.

How did you feel about rendering to Caesar before civil union/marriage, whatever, was made legal for same sex couples?

My point is simply that it is NOT a gay marriage/hetero marriage issue ... but one of real relationships attested to by property and conduct.

No worries, I don't expect a change. But please do understand why I'm not all atwitter about same sex civil unions while my own 30+ year hetero relationship is ignored because I/we have not signed a government contract or inveighed a preacher to bless us or chosen to have or adopt children.

In short: You got yours, right?

edutcher said...

PS Somebody tell Hatman if he's going to use a poll, try one from somebody who isn't so far in the tank for the Lefties.

Christopher in MA said...

And in 40 years no one will call me a hateful bigot because I believe that homosexuality is a sin.

Oh, I'll take that bet.

Scott said...

Aridog: I don't understand you. I don't believe that rights or social status are a zero-sum game. If it were, then freeing the slaves would have made free men less free; or by giving women voting rights would have made the vote worth less. By the same token, recognizing gay marriage does nothing with regard to the social standing or status of hetero married people. So what's your beef?

Andy R. said...

the blacks, who were truly discriminated against, want nothing to do with them.

N.A.A.C.P. Endorses Same-Sex Marriage

Christopher in MA said...

NAACP endorses same-sex marriage.

And yet, strangely, didn't see the need to address it before the Crackhead in Chief pandered to you.

Brian said...

More than half of Democrats believed Bush knew.

Polls that ask questions that no one ever really thinks about return goofy results with no relationship to reality. This is not news.

Lyssa said...

I don't understand what Aridog's complaint is, either. He(?) can get the benefits of being married, but chooses not to, but is troubled by the fact that other people who can get married (or civilly united) can get the same benefits that he chooses not to accept? What am I missing?

Is this one of those complaints about how the gov't should have no business in anyone's relationship? Because, sorry, I know that there are a lot of people who feel this way, but those people are pretty ignorant of how the world actually works. People in relationships share stuff. When those relationships go bad, or members die, that stuff needs to be dealt with, and, believe me, people cannot do that without government intervention (courts and a body of laws related to marriage/divorce/descent). People are crazy that way.

Fen said...

I'm with Palladian @ comment #1

And someone pull Gov Bryant off stage before he impales himself on the microphone.

Fen said...

Although a truly unbiased reporter would have followed up with:

"What about polygomy? Why shouldn't people be allowed to marry as many others as they want?"

rhhardin said...

They're right about marriage.

It's a defense of the word.

chickelit said...

Now, if I wanted to be one of those ponderous scientific people, and `let on' to prove what had occurred in the remote past by what had occurred in a given time in the recent past, or what will occur in the far future by what has occurred in late years, what an opportunity is here! Sociology never had such a chance, nor such exact data to argue from! Nor `evolution of the species', either! Social changes are great things, but they are vague--vague. Please observe. In the space of one or two generations or so the State of Mississippi has opened itself to many great and mighty changes—immutable changes: desegregated schools, biracial drinking fountains, even interracial marriages. These are not trifling changes. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the olden times of abject slavery, just one hundred fifty years ago come this January, the Great State of Mississippi was now where near even contemplating same sex marriage let alone accepting it. And by the same token any person can see that in two score years from now the Great State of Mississippi will be fully gay friendly (a tourist destination even), and Biloxi and New Orleans will have joined their fabulous beaches and resorts, and be plodding comfortably along under a single LGBLT mayor and a mutual board of like-minded alderpeople. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Fen said...

By the same token, recognizing gay marriage does nothing with regard to the social standing or status of hetero married people. So what's your beef?

I think he's saying that, like out-of-wedlock pregnancy, mainstreaming it will be bad for society.

Kind of like the "baby-daddy" syndrome thats ravaged black society today. Two decades ago they would have called you a bigot for warning against it. And today, they blame Bush or racism or anything but the truth.

I use to have the same belief that a rise in homosexuality was an indicator of a civilization in decline (Seven Signs of Rome). I guess I still do, but with everything else as fucked up as it is, homosexuality dropped off the radar. We have much larger problems.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Andy R. said...

the blacks, who were truly discriminated against, want nothing to do with them.

N.A.A.C.P. Endorses Same-Sex Marriage


The NAACP, which has a proud history, has now become a house organ for the Democrat Party.

Howsomever, more black clergy are coming out against it.

Could this be why Ras has Zero's support among blacks at 90%?

n.n said...

There was (and may remain) a legitimate concern that interracial marriages and relationships would be pursued for reasons of retributive justice. Unfortunately, there is no way to divine intention and therefore it is left to our better judgment to either assume good or bad intentions.

The marriage of couplets presents a materially different concern. Specifically, it serves to normalize a behavior which has no redeeming value to either society or humanity. A behavior which constitutes evolutionary dysfunction. Unfortunately, if that standard was universally applied, then many marriages of couples would also be denied, as they are similarly unproductive. However, this does not change the nature of a couplet, and as it does not pose an immediate threat to either society or humanity, it can likely be tolerated. Couplets should be permitted to protect their mutual interests through legal unions, but there is no legitimate reason to promote the normalization of their underlying behavior.

Lyssa said...

nn said: Specifically, it serves to normalize a behavior which has no redeeming value to either society or humanity.

I definitely disagree with that. Marriage in general is a good thing for society - across the board, people who are married are better citizens (on average) in almost every way - they are healthier, more civically involved, less likely to require welfare, less likely to commit crimes, etc. I can see no reason why this wouldn't be the same for gay couples; there's something inherently stabilizing about standing up publically and making a commitment. I see major social value there.

(Yes, it's evolutionarily useless, but hey, so's commenting on the internet.)

chickelit said...

(Yes, it's evolutionarily useless, but hey, so's commenting on the internet.)

I think the jury's still out on your latter point.

Unknown said...

Having just spent some time in Memphis, I had to laugh at "Memphis, a modern, cosmopolitan city." About 1/2 of the city is unsafe, & visitors are warned against crossing the line (a specific street) after dark. Corruptuion in the police force is currently in the news.

Regarding the marraige controversy, the local paper reports many of the congregation did not know about it. Having lived in Ms. for a couple of years, I have seen a core of older white folk who grew up in rascism and do not like the results that have grown out of desegregation -- it's grown a culture of corruption and protected incompetence based on affirmative action that honestly needs to be corrected. I suspected, and read between the lines, that the Pastor was trying not to offend a small group of older people crippled by thier rascist upbringing. He is a peacemaker.

furious_a said...

Also, can someone help me find a way to condemn this without coming off as an anti-Christian bigot?

...and...

You're wasting your time if you think you can make any progress teaching Christians about their own religion and its history and the books it is based on.

You two HatBoys have obviously never met.

edutcher said...

Unknown said...

Having just spent some time in Memphis, I had to laugh at "Memphis, a modern, cosmopolitan city." About 1/2 of the city is unsafe, & visitors are warned against crossing the line (a specific street) after dark. Corruptuion in the police force is currently in the news.

As I said, a modern cosmopolitan city.

Lyssa said...

Specifically, it serves to normalize a behavior which has no redeeming value to either society or humanity.

I definitely disagree with that. Marriage in general is a good thing for society - across the board, people who are married are better citizens (on average) in almost every way - they are healthier, more civically involved, less likely to require welfare, less likely to commit crimes, etc


But that's within a familial setting, particularly where children are being born and raised.

Homosexual relationships are notoriously transitory and we'll have to see if the data from NY and MA bear out whether "marriage" changes this or whether they follow the Dan Savage attitude.

Andy R. said...

"This country has a long history of discrimination against certain groups. Eventually we wind up getting it right. Right? Against women, against blacks, the civil rights movement and so on. And in justifying that discrimination when it was in place, some folks turn to the Bible and turn to their religious beliefs and said we have to have slavery because it’s in the Bible. Women have to be second-class citizens because that’s in the Bible. Blacks and whites can’t get married because that’s in the Bible. That wound up in a case. A judge wrote that in an opinion, which the Supreme Court ultimately struck that down, saying that’s not right, judge—the Equal Protection clause says you can't do that. Why is gay marriage any different?" - Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly.

Who wants to volunteer to write an angry letter to Fox News to complain about how they are making the obvious comparison between Christian racist bigots and Christian anti-gay bigots?

furious_a said...

J-sus was a stone bigot, too:

And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘for this reason an man shall leave his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall be made one flesh’?
--J-sus, Bible, Matthew 15:4-5

...or else just trying to gin up business for his Chick-n-Shak.

chickelit said...

Who wants to volunteer to write an angry letter to Fox News to complain about how they are making the obvious comparison between Christian racist bigots and Christian anti-gay bigots?

I nominate you!

Birches said...

And in 40 years no one will call me a hateful bigot because I believe that homosexuality is a sin.

Oh, I'll take that bet.


Really? No one seems to get their panties in a bunch because I think sex outside of marriage is a sin. It's just quaint and old fashioned. I have no problem intermingling with "those people" (while still keeping my beliefs) though one two generations ago might have felt differently.

I'm younger, and intermingle with gay people fairly regularly (though still keeping my beliefs), but people older than me have a harder time. Its a cultural issue and will die out, but the religious beliefs will not change.

Lyssa said...

edutcher said: Homosexual relationships are notoriously transitory and we'll have to see if the data from NY and MA bear out whether "marriage" changes this or whether they follow the Dan Savage attitude.

There are certainly some Dan Savages in the world, but bear in mind that Savage is specifically against marriage in general. If people are getting married, then it is likely that they are intending not to be transitory and are looking for a permanant relationship, as you and I and our respective spouses have.

el polacko said...

governor, you know what happens when you 'assume'.

Rabel said...

I know quite a few people in Crystal Springs and spoke to several this weekend.

They and reportedly almost all of the townspeople are embarrassed and angry over the Pastor's decision. They are more angry at the complainers.

The Pastor heard complaints from 4 to 5 older people and made a cowardly decision to hold the wedding in another church, which he thought was an easy way out.

FBC is the largest church in the town and while predominately white, it has several minority attendees. They have been welcomed and participate in other church activities.

Crystal Springs has a population of around 5,000 and is 60% black.

Believe it or not, in such a small, racially mixed Southern town, a great deal of effort goes into maintaining racial harmony and cooperation.

The Pastor's foolish decision, which everyone knows will be played up to the fullest by the media and the haters has undone much of those efforts.

It's a shame.

Joe said...

How about we also point the finger at the pastor, Stan Weatherford. The man is a shit who isn't worthy to call himself Christian, let alone a pastor.

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

I rise to defend my adopted city of Memphis--yes, bad crime stats, and considerable corruption under the former 4 term Mayor "King" Willie Herenton. That said east of the Parkway it is quite a nice place to live with affordable property, lots of free music concerts, a great outdoor facility in Shelby farms and a wonderful symphony. But in fairness to "unknown" I would not call Memphis "cosmopolitan" although that is changing with increasingly highly educated Indian professionals who work at St Judes and other good medical facilities.

If we could only do something about the heat, humidity, and pollen

Aridog said...

Scott said...

Aridog: I don't understand you...

Of course you don't You're not even trying. Nothing I said has anything to do with heterosexual marriage per se. You like it that you now have government recognized contractual privileges...and you could care less if anyone else does, short of a gpovernment sanctioned contract...e.g., if you are hetero, you should (must?) just go get married! Right? Government says so, so it must be so.

Darleen said...

Ten points

1) Race is a myth, sex is not
2) Bible does NOT condemn interracial marriage (e.g. Ruth) - the only ban is on interfaith marriage
3) Anyone that thinks with same-sex marriage as a "right" won't have government force churches/temples etc to marry same-sex couples either isn't paying attention (HHS forcing religious institutions to violate their beliefs) or is relishing such action
4) Marriage has always been a union of male and female. Period. Numbers may have shifted, but the foundation has remain unchanged. Changing the paint or trim on a house doesn't change the foundation.
5) Men and women are not fungible. So a same sex couple is as significantly different from an opposite sex couple as a man is from a woman
6) Same-sex couples should be afforded legal benefits for a registered public commitment. But not "marriage" as that will directly interfere with 1st amendment rights of others
7) The real hate going on is coming from the Left, who refuse to consider any dissent from their dogma, no matter how thoughtful. It is a Bizarro world where one expresses support for one man/one woman marriage and is, thusly, a hatey-hater filled with hate out to oppress/kill/lynch teh gheys!
8) It would be risible to consider the analysis of the Bible as presented by those that hate Judeo-Christian religions credible if it weren't also so worrisome that it is being done in sincere effort to destroy these religions.
9) The Left, which ostensibly bases it agitation on behalf of SSM because of "Love", has no answer to the question "If an adult has the right to marry based on love irrespective of sex, then there can also be no restriction based on number of people loved nor consanguinity" - If such question is asked, it is never answered with anything more than screams and rants of "You hatey-hater!"
10) The Left is all about substituting State for God. It cannot allow competition from institutions that allow people to live independently. It uses same-sex marriage to punish people, businesses, schools and finally churches & temples who refuse to celebrate. The Left doesn't want mere civility, respect and tolerance, it demands ankle-licking submission to its dogma or it will have the State punish you.

garage mahal said...

@Roger
The wife has been talking about visiting Memphis, maybe in the fall? Not sure why, maybe it was those ribs you mailed us. Um, dayum!

chickelit said...

Memphis, home of Elvis and the ancient greeks...

Roger J. said...

Garage--should you come to Memphis give me a call and I would be honored to host you and Mrs Garage--you can sample ribs in 20 different places. Memphians do not agree on who makes the best ribs of course. Arguments about BBQ in Memphis are standard and there is absolutely no consensus.

garage mahal said...

I'll for sure call of course.

What was the name of the rib joint you sent us the first time? There was a pretty memorable big ass brownie included.

Roger J. said...

Garage--think it was the original Neeley's--the Nelley sons have started their BBQ places, so there are at least three Neeley's to choose from.

Paddy O said...

Racism is antiChrist.

Christ did, however, say a lot about our behavior.

Roger J. said...

Garage: classic desert in Memphis is banana pudding--no trip to Memphis would be complete without tucking into a big bowl of banana pudding. You also should know that in Memphis, mac and cheese is considered a vegetable. If you are watching calories, you are coming to the wrong place :)

Paddy O said...

"The Pastor heard complaints from 4 to 5 older people and made a cowardly decision to hold the wedding in another church, which he thought was an easy way out."

Cowardly is right. I suspect those 4-5 older people likely were significant tithers, and so the pastor likely was trying to save his salary. Trying to make everyone happy usually just makes everyone unhappy. A very common predicament in churches.

creeley23 said...

Rabel @3:17: Thanks for an informative, thoughtful post.

Sounds right to me. I grew up in the South and have attended small churches.

It is a shame.

However, I'm not sure what the moral of the story is. The South and America were changed forever by the civil rights movement -- so much so that, when a Mississippi church today refuses to allow a black marriage at the last minute, it makes national headlines. That wouldn't have been a story sixty years ago because the possibility would never have arisen and if somehow it had, it would have been a dog-bites-man story.

Thirty years ago I remember being shocked at a news story which showed George Wallace, one of the most famous Southern segregationists, receiving an award from a group of black leaders.

Wallace had changed in the seventies and repudiated his past. "I was wrong. Those days were over, and they ought to be over."

Amen.

Rabel said...

Paddy O,
"I suspect those 4-5 older people likely were significant tithers, and so the pastor likely was trying to save his salary."

No. Just self-righteous busybodies.

garage mahal said...

Roger - Neeley's was the first [and IMO much better] rib package.

We wouldn't think of coming to Memphis without pigging out, homemade mac and cheese and banana pudding sound awesome. My kid love homemade mac and cheese. It's about a 10 hour drive, I might just take Fri-Mon off.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Is there a word to describe how people can be confronted at the same with racist bigotry and anti-gay bigotry and realize with certainly how bad racism is and be completely oblivious to how bad anti-gay bigotry is?

Very few people are anti-gay bigots. They just won't pretend that being gay isn׳t a mental illness.

Carol said...

"older people crippled by thier rascist upbringing."

How were they "crippled"? Sounds like they had the normal defensive mechanisms that the modern PC generation has lost.

Marshal said...

I hoped this case would turn out to be a case of journalistic error; a leap to conclusion contradicted by a simple explanantion others ignored in their zeal to charge racism. But if it is I haven't found evidence yet. This is crushingly disappointing, and it will be worse if this church has more than two members by the end of the month.

Paddy O said...

"gNo. Just self-righteous busybodies."

Wow. Cowardly and inexplicable then.

Carnifex said...

Here's some funny statistics...

white wifes/black husbands are twice as likely to end in divorce by their 10th year as compared to white couples. But black wifes/white husbands are 44% less likely to end in divorce over the same time period compared to white/white.

Whites average 27% divorce rates, while blacks divorce 22% of the time.

I won't look up unwed birth rates. We all know how damning that is.

Ps.

If you want a long lasting marriage, marry an asian. 8%.

jeff said...

"I hoped this case would turn out to be a case of journalistic error; a leap to conclusion contradicted by a simple explanantion others ignored in their zeal to charge racism. But if it is I haven't found evidence yet. This is crushingly disappointing, and it will be worse if this church has more than two members by the end of the month."

You think everyone should quit the church because of 4-5 people?

Dante said...

Also, can someone help me find a way to condemn this without coming off as an anti-Christian bigot?. . . Thanks for the help!

When I was in primary school, I went to inner city schools, and a bunch of blacks pulled in one of us whites, and beat the crap out of him. So let's see.

"Also, can someone help me find a way to condemn this without coming off as an anti-black bigot? I don't want the Blacksto get their feelings hurt because someone said something not very nice about them. What would be the best way to phrase my criticisms? I don't want any Blacks to feel attacked or persecuted. Tolerance towards these Blacks is really important to me. Can someone help me out here? Was my earlier comment about "racism" over the line? I don't want to be one of those intolerant people that attacks Blacks because of their racism and sexism and anti-white bigotry. Thanks for the help!"

You fucking bigoted fag.

creeley23 said...

This is crushingly disappointing, and it will be worse if this church has more than two members by the end of the month.

Marshal: You are "crushingly disappointed" that a handful of people in one church over the past several decades stopped one black couple from being married in that church so they had to get married in a different church a few miles away?

Quelle horreur!

How do you manage? It would seem that reading any daily newspaper ought to leave you in a fetal position.

Mundane68 said...

Do we demand that bacon be sold in Kosher delis? Do we expect to halal stores to have a liquor section? How about a Hindu BBQ?

What is happening is nothing less than the attempt to try and get a church to repudiate their doctrine or cease to exist. Churches are being sued because they won't marry homosexual couples in New York and Washington. Suits have been won against bakers for not wanting to bake cakes for and photographers for not wanting to photograph, the homosexual ceremony.

And while we are on the topic, if we are going to be discarding traditions, who does it have to be two people? Why can't three people get married? Four? Five? (That last one even has some religious backing, Mohammad said to take no more than four wives.)

Andy R. said...

Churches are being sued because they won't marry homosexual couples in New York and Washington.

Can you post a link to some information about this? I'm not seeing anything on google.

6) Same-sex couples should be afforded legal benefits for a registered public commitment. But not "marriage" as that will directly interfere with 1st amendment rights of others

Can you explain what you mean by this? It doesn't make any sense to me.

You fucking bigoted fag.

If you're curious why your side is losing, it's because of comments like this.

Andy...I see a sincerity in your question on how not to offend Christians.

Also, just to be clear, my comment at 12:01 was sarcastic. I'm not sure how anyone who has ever read any of my comments could think there was anything remotely sincere about it. I mean we're talking about Christians who are such bigoted racists that they refuse to marry a black couple, and people actually thought I sincerely meant this?: "I don't want the Christians to get their feelings hurt because someone said something not very nice about them... Tolerance towards these Christian is really important to me... Was my earlier comment about "racism" over the line?"

Apologies if anyone got their hopes up that I had some kind come-to-jesus moment. The scumbag racist church members and scumbag racist pastor can all go fuck themselves.

Dante said...

If you're curious why your side is losing, it's because of comments like this.


Please, do tell me my side. Do you think I'm Christian? Believe in God and eternal damnation for you soul? Do you think I believe homosexuality is not natural?

All I'm trying to do here is show you how badly your own words sound when you replace "Christian" with "Black." Do you not see how your rant is exactly what you rail against?

I should amend this:

Fucking bigoted fagot to:

Fucking hypocritical bigoted fagot.

Marshal said...

jeff said...
You think everyone should quit the church because of 4-5 people?

Any church that reaches a conclusion like this isn't fit to attend. Whether church policy is determined by 5 people or the entire congregation is irrelevant. Ignoring the fact that the 5 people assertion is your best case hope, not fact, why would you attend a church where 5 people can do this? Is not some repudiation expected if 5 people do this in your name?

kentuckyliz said...

Chip - "Crystal Meth" FTW

http://abcnews.go.com/US/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-couples/story?id=15065204#.UB0jd6CAoTA

Marshal: a similar thing happened in my county last fall, story linked above. A handful of leaders in the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church, Pike County, KY, in reaction to a member family's recent college graduate daughter showing up with her black African fiancee who is a pianist and they led music together.

The elders voted 9 to 6 to not accept anyone in interracial marriages for membership, ministry, or any services except funerals.

This couple wasn't even asking to marry in their church. They are marrying in a Lexington, KY church. Actually, they're married by now.

I found out from upset posts on fb by a friend/former student, who is daughter of the Harvilles in the article/video linked above.

Community response: outrage by Christians and non-Christians alike. Even more than Ruth and Boaz, Numbers 12--Moses and Zipporah. Aaron and Miriam objected and God struck Miriam WHITE with leprosy. There was national and international media coverage of this. We thought it brought shame on our community that these so-called leaders would be so racist. There is no biblical injunction against interracial marriage. (The proscription against Jews marrying foreign wives was about their weak faith and not being able to resist starting to worship their pagan gods...which is exactly what happened anyway...and why God punished Israel with the Assyrian deportation and then Judah with the Babylonian Exile.)

Here's Numbers 12
http://www.usccb.org/bible/numbers/12/

Cushite is from the Hebrew Cushi, a racial term referring to African
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cushi

So--the Bible says that being OPPOSED to interracial marriage is evil and merits being struck with leprosy, exiled from the camp for a week, holding up Israel's journey in the desert, and having to come crawling back for a declaration of clean once you're healed.

Continued....

kentuckyliz said...

The resolution: the FWB conference came in and had a meeting and declared that the vote was illegal, and such an issue had to go to the whole church and receive 75% approval. Nothing happened after that. So it was nullified by a Roberts Rules sort of technicality.

My words to my friend and the Harville family: OK the media problem is solved, but you have 9 racists in leadership in your church who need to be healed of their leprous taint. They need to understand how God views people, and how their racism is unbiblical and contrary to the will of God. What is being done to heal these people of their sin?

Crickets.

The Harvilles have not left the church.

I suppose their daughter and her new husband will find a different church to attend (if any) if and when they come home again for future visits.

kentuckyliz said...

Funny...I know lots of gays who oppose gay marriage, either on religious grounds (agreeing with the traditional Judeo Christian biblical model of marriage) or on proud-sex-freak grounds (let's not pretend we're monogamous and seeking out a lifetime of sexless suburban drudgery).

Are they homophobic? Bigots?

kentuckyliz said...

(Why seek to imitate your "oppressors" who "hate" you?)

Goju said...

Ah yes, print a story about a couple of idiots in Miss. and it gives everyone an opportunity to get all self-righteous and smug about their own supposed non-bigoted self. Throw in SSM and it gives everyone a chance to participate. Does everyone get a participation ribbon or is someone allowed to be the winner?

Or is to condemn people from a distance rather than look in your own backyard? Its not like WI ever had a group of kids of one race attack individuals of another race at the State Fair or anything - right? Or areas of Milwaukee that are unsafe for white people to walk in, day or night?

Get back to me when you start to condemn all forms of bigoted behavior - including your own.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...
Also, can someone help me find a way to condemn this without coming off as an anti-Christian bigot?


Sure:

1. You're an asshole
2. Being against gay "marriage" doesn't make you a "bigot"

Thanks for participating.

B said...

Andy Capp said:...If you're curious why your side is losing, it's because of comments like this

I know that thinking differently is a necessary delusion for you, but discounting Mother Jones' screeds, the opponents of SSM aren't losing.

Anywhere.

Now that doesn't mean that politicians in some blue states aren't forcing through laws that the majority in the individual electorates have already expressed opposition to. But that's just calculated pandering to a very small special interest group and their guilt ridden liberal allies for personal political gain. We just witnessed the president do that very thing.

When the tide completes its turning those majority opposed laws will come up for referendum in those states. The tale may be very different then.

Your pet scheme may end up the law of the land against the will of the overwhelming majority for a while, but that's the tyranny of the minority at work. If that becomes the norm, then not only are we all screwed, but the smaller the special interest group, the more vulnerable they'll be to legislation down the road against their interests. You may not like the long term implications.

And as someone else noted, being against SSM does not make one a bigot. However, denigrating a segment of society because they don't agree with your plans to impose your worldview on them despite their principled opposition does make you a fascist. And a particularly nasty and distasteful one.

jr565 said...

Andy wrote:
Is there a word to describe how people can be confronted at the same with racist bigotry and anti-gay bigotry and realize with certainly how bad racism is and be completely oblivious to how bad anti-gay bigotry is?

The word to describe you is "Confusion". because you are confusing two different things. The idea that a black man shouldn't be able to marry a white woman versus a man shouldn't be allowed to marry a man. If marriage means a a union between a man and a woman, then denying a man the right to marry a woman simply due to race is simply wrong. However,what you're talking about is in fact an entirely different defintion of how to define marriage. The two are not the same.
There may be merits for your argument, but you're comparing apples to oranges.

jr565 said...

Palladian wrote:
But when asked if that should include couples where both partners are of the same sex, he added: "I wouldn't say gay couples, no," Bryant said. "I'd say a man and a woman. Let me make sure, let's get that right. When I say couples, I automatically assume it's a man and a woman."

Blubbering and blabbering like this is exactly why it isn't, and shouldn't be, the government's business to define or regulate any kind of marriage,

NO Kind of marriage? So the state shouldn't regulate things like bigamy, or incestual marriages, or marriages with kids? Last I checked, those were KINDS of marriages that the state does in fact regulate. Since you are arguing an extremely absolutist position that I don't think even you believe, what's wrong with people asking about those other forms of marriages ALSO regulated by the state?

jr565 said...

Andy R. wrote:
Was my earlier comment about "racism" over the line? I don't want to be one of those intolerant people that attacks Christians because of their racism and sexism and anti-gay bigotry. Thanks for the help!

Would you define non recognition of marriages between adults and children as anti pederast bigotry and make arguments comparing restricting it to restricting blacks from marrying whites? If you are against adults marrying kids, is it ok with you if those who don't have your hangups call you a bigot over it? How would your bigotry be any better than those who don't want to redefin marriage to include gays?