Justly Married

I'll most likely be buying one of these posters and you should, too. My gay and lesbian friends have just as much right to have their love legally recognized as do those of a strictly hetero persuasion. It amazes me that government can so blatantly saction such bigotry as trying to amend the constitution to outlaw same-sex marriages... just makes my blood boil.

100% of the profits from the poster will go to DontAmend.com.

Hat tip to Eric Meyer.

Posted by Daniel Short on Feb 25, 2004 at 12:00 AM | Categories: Rambling -



Dade wrote on 03/08/04 7:48 AM

I have to disagree with ya on this one; Marriage is between a man and a woman, in the earliest of dictionaries you would see it defined as, the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. I don't believe the constitution should be amended, I just believe the true values of a marriage should remain the same. Dade
Daniel Short

Daniel Short wrote on 03/08/04 7:48 AM

While I agree that that was the traditional definition, definitions and values change. To me marriage is a commitment between two people. It's saying "I want to spend my life with you" and isn't about sex/gender. If we always stuck to the way things *were*, then we'd still have slaves and women wouldn't be able to vote. Things change, and almost always for the better :)

Nanny wrote on 03/11/04 10:49 AM

Dan, I just have to say a word on this. Same sex marriages may not break a law of the land but it does break the law of the Lord. The laws of the Lord do not and will never need to be updated. I love you and pray for you, Nanny
Daniel Short

Daniel Short wrote on 03/11/04 10:49 AM

Hi Nanny :), While I agree completely that the Christian religion has some dim views on same sex couples, that shouldn't play into what rights a couple (whether gay or straight) has from a governmental standpoint. If anyone could justify why my friends shouldn't have the same rights to property, possessions and spousal rights without invoking a passage from the Old Testament, I'd be completely on their side, but I don't feel that's possible. Separation of church and state was put into place by the founders of the constitution for a reason, and that reason is to keep religion (and to some degree religious zealots) from governing our country. The fact that Bush feels it's alright to deny someone rights based on *his* religious views is to me disgusting. What about Buddhists, Saris, atheists, etc... The entire country shouldn't be held to one religious standard, because much of our country isn't Christian at all... I love you too Nanny :)

Nanny wrote on 03/13/04 4:49 AM

Dan, you have some very valid ideas and I agree that their should probably some form of legal "partnership" where a committed couple can have benefits of community property, insurance, etc. But, your straight laced Nanny, still feels that "marriage" is a religious ceremony in all religions and is generally not to be same sex. I realize that your generation is more liberal on this. Your are a special person and I love you, Nanny
Daniel Short

Daniel Short wrote on 03/13/04 4:49 AM

Then we do essentially agree, just with different terminology :).

Nanny wrote on 03/16/04 6:17 PM

We only agree if this is a finanical or ins. benefit thing and not sex between two of the same sex. Love, Nanny
Daniel Short

Daniel Short wrote on 03/16/04 6:17 PM

Understandable, but from a government perspective that should be a non-issue, since same sex relationships being a bad thing is a religious/moral issue, and not one of pure legality. When the president threatens to enforce his own moral/religious beliefs on the entire nation, that's when things are too close to the line. That's why we have democracy, so those thigns don't happen...