Video: Franken grills Focus on the Family head during DOMA repeal hearing

Don’t know what more to say than very Proud of Franken for having the foresight and guts to point out the reality of this study that is often misconstrued for their purposes.

I will say this for Sen. Franken – despite my initial reservations, watching him absolutely demolish witnesses who try to obfuscate or shade the truth has been a treat. He and his staff do their homework. While it may not garner a lot of headlines and you tube hits, it shows his effectiveness as an advocate for those he championed.

I am very proud of Senator Al Franken. He is a tireless champion of the the people, not corporate interests.

This is beautiful to watch! Thank you, Andy, for posting this clip.

Senator Franken fights for equality time and time again. Our family is so grateful he is our Senator. He is always prepared and fights for us all brilliantly!

The fact that Franken’s staff took the time to investigate the details says a great deal about how Franken selects and manages his personnel. It’s really the key to being an effective legislator.

I had the pleasure of high-fiving him at the Minneapolis Gay Pride Parade. I’ll mentally keep on high-fiving him every day at the
rate he’s going. Thanks Senator Franklin!!!

The witness was just trying to justify his own prejudices when Franken viciously assaults him with … with FACTS. How rational.

I am SO proud of Sen Franken.

“I frankly don’t know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies this way.”

Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Thank you Sen. Franken!

This is something you really never see or hear about. Everyone assumes when someone gives testimony it’s factual and important. Sen. Franken knew he was witness to a lie and he called the dude out.

Oh my, is there anything more disgusting than when a bright light shines on bigotry?

these people play on words better than the marx brothers

@John I: Yes, there is! It is more disgusting when bigotry is never exposed and tacitly accepted. That’s why we need people like Al in the government.

GO AL! Proud to have you for my Senator. Can’t wait to vote for you again!

Voted for him once… will vote for him as long as he wins and runs.

Se. Franken makes me want to move to Minnesota just for the honor of being represented by him in the Senate. Thank you, MN, for showing us all that considered, reasoned statesmanship is still possible on Capitol Hill.

Amen@ Pirate. All any of them have now is their laughable and discredited Paul Cameronisms they regurgitate over and over and over again. Minnery DID perjur himself in testimony today though, which is also why they dont try to cite Paul Cameron in front of Congress. Heads up Minnesota for the ickey creepy-scaryisms in your mailbox and on TV though. All lies. Well done Al!!!

Yay, Senator Franken! Keep speaking up for what is right! If only there were more like you in our Congress.

It’s official, Sen. Franken has taken the keys to the Straight Talk Express.

Actually, wouldn’t Minnery be correct since (for purposes of Federal law) “marriage” means a man and a woman? Franken is incorrect, since he ignores the fact that HHS defines a nuclear family to include people who are married to eachother.

[...] has been a tireless advocate for gay marriage. The Minnesota Independent reports that Franken said, “The Defense of Marriage Act is an injustice. It is an immoral and [...]

Listen to the what he says… Quite possibly the author of the study just meant “married parents” the same way President Obama (his boss) defines “Marriage”. Married Parents that are one man and one woman. Is that too hard to imagine? I believe the author of the report meant the definition to imply the obvious but that is one man’s opinion. Franken and his ilk just wants to redefine marriage to make other’s look bad and himself seem intelligent. It looks like many of this websites followers are drinking the same cool-aid and the truth doesn’t really matter.

AL FRANKEN FOR PRESIDENT

@Davd Hart: I will give his staff all the ups in the world for helping him with this hearing and kudos to them. But, knowing Senator Franken’s original background (A Staff Writer for Saturday Night Live) I’m sure a ton of the research came from him too.

This man can draw the US Map by memory. He has one of the biggest political brains in the Senate. He’s an avid reader on the topic. What some comedians are to Comicon? Al Franken is to Politics. He fights the good fight with simple facts and his scathing sense of dry humidifying needing humor, keeps him from sounding like a screaming banshee doing so.

I’m proud of him. Not only as an American…but as a comedian old enough to remember Franken and Davis.

Don’t you just love it when the truth rears its head and bites the Hatemongers off at the legs?

This just goes to show how far into the wrong these religious fanatics will go just to try and shove their ideals down on EVERYONE!!!

Remember Focus, America is NOT a Christian nation, and never will be. Give this up, and go find some island in the pacific if you want your perfect Christian Utopia!

I’d say that ALL of the arms of Focus on the Family are political arms. The only reason it exists is to promote its skewed political point of view. It just uses “the family” to make it look benign.

I for one am very happy that I grew up with a mom and a dad. They both fulfill different roles in my life which would not have be fulfilled growing up with 2 moms or 2 dads. Would I have turned out okay? Maybe, but wow, what a different family dynamic…. I think of so much I would have missed out on.

Go Al! Destroy the bigots at their own game.

I think we should take this as a given by now: any time someone from Focus on the Family quotes a study that uses the concept “nuclear family” we have to understand that it means something different to them. It does not mean the definition given by the conductors of the study (that is, a two-parent family). It means a two-opposite-sex-parent family where the parents are married to each other. Hence there’s no point having a dialogue with Focus on the Family because there’s no agreement on the meaning of the basic concepts.

@Sarah – What would you have missed out on if you had a “mom & dad”, but they didn’t want you. In some states, lots of kids have to stay in foster homes, etc because two guys or two girls that love each other and could make a wonderful home for kids are not allowed to adopt. People would rather the child would be unhappy that be happy with a gay couple…

@Sarah, as those are happy for with whom they grow up with. All families are different, all families have a different make up. Its the focus on the family that makes a different. Purposeful loving, caring and endearing parents that guide and direct their children into adult hood.

There is nothing to “miss out on” its different not better. Every adult in ones life takes on a different role as well, just cause you have two women or two men raising you, doesn’t mean you get the same response to everything. No one is alike anyone else. ever.

@Sarah: Does that mean that if I grew up with hispanic parents, and therefore can’t imagine a family without hispanic parents, all non-hispanic parents should be outlawed? Imagine what all those children of non-hispanic parents are missing out on! Maybe I should just accept that I live in a pluralistic society, and that there are a lot of different ways to arrive at the same place, and everyone’s circumstances need to be respected.

@twitface

Excuse me, but you are incorrect, the author of the study explicitly states that the study did not distinguish between hetero or homosexual couples:
“Sen. Franken is right,” the lead author of the study told POLITICO. The survey did not exclude same-sex couples, said Debra L. Blackwell, Ph.D., nor did it exclude them from the “nuclear family” category provided their family met the study’s definition.

The study is actually attached to the article here, and marital status was self-reported by the study participants. So to the bigots who are somehow trying to defend Minnery here … wrong again.

Good for you Senator!
Someday I hope to hear that one of our Senators or Congressman fed-up with the lies of bigots from FRC and NOM will do likewise when Tony Perkins and Maggie Gallagher come to testify.

Sarah, did your dad ever change your diaper? Did your mother ever work out of the home? Honestly, what does their gender have to do with being good parents? If it’s possible for a woman to be the breadwinner and a man to be the caregiver, isn’t it possible to have a woman be the breadwinner and a woman to be the caregiver?

It’s absolutely sexist to assume parents need to be particular genders to assume those roles. Study after study after study shows that it’s not the gender of the parents that matter, nor which role they take on, but the fact that you have two parents, regardless of gender, who will care for you and raise you that will lead to success.

This morning, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is holding a hearing on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Focus on the Family’s Tom Minnery — a strong opponent of marriage equality — admitted during the hearing that children living with same-sex parents are hindered by the lack of legal protections and benefits that are denied to them by DOMA:

LEAHY: Are they not disadvantaged by not having the same financial benefits that an opposite sex family would have?

MINNERY: Well, as I say, not knowing the details of which families you are speaking off, certainly children are better off with parents in the home.

LEAHY: Yes or no, it’s not a trick question — if you have parents legally married under the laws of the state — one set of parents are entitled to certain financial benefits for their children, the other set of parents are denied those same financial benefits for their children…are not those children of the second family, are they not at a disadvantage, yes or no?

MINNERY: That would be yes, as you asked the question earlier Senator.

@Sarah – wow. You have astutely pointed out that growing up with a mom and a dad is different than growing up in any other family dynamic. And for you, it’s great that you value your experience.

However, your post leads one to believe that you place a higher value on a family with a mom and dad more than one that exists with any other family dynamic…and judge other families accordingly.

It may very well be difficult for you to comprehend, but I have known young people who have grown up in same-sex parent households who have said virtually the same thing: “My parents have fulfilled needs in my developmental process that would not have been fulfilled if I grew up in a household with a parent of each gender.” I think the difference between them and you is that those young folks not only respect their experience, they don’t tend to judge you for your family and find you lacking.

@ Sarah, … and benefited in other ways. It’s only different when you don’t have it.

I have no struggle with this issue. I see a lot of people bringing up details and studies about this or that.

I am a simple person and make things simple. Two people who love you and nurture your growth to adulthood is better than one. To say what gender it has to be is short sighted and naive.

If two hetero men live together and love you it is no different than two gay men who love you. To think otherwise is bigoted and short sighted.

This argument is simple and obvious. To not come to this conclusion shows lack of self assurance and confidence in yourself.

As someone who did not grow up in the studies “Nuclear Family” (One mother no other parental spouse within the home) I can easily say this: I was *lucky* as the *nuclear family* that was around my home made up for the slack of not having another parental unit in the home.

You see…that is the thing about the whole study in the first place: There are many shades of gray to the Nuclear Family in current day standings. And lets face it: You can have a completely whacked Father and Mother Nuclear Family as much as any other combination of a family. In other words: There are completely well functioning one parent homes as much as there isn’t.

But that is really not the issue here. This nimrod who spoke in front of Sen. Franken assumed this study meant “Between a Husband and Wife” Which also means not only did he assume that it did not mean a married heterosexual couple..this dimwit also assume “An Extended Family” “A Foster Care Family” and anything that does not include being a woman and a man married in the home.

But oh no. He focused on “Same Sex Couples” I can’t even muster up respect for this guy because of the obvious hate rolling off this cat. He couldn’t even misrepresent the study for the people who grew up with one mother who had their aunts take care of them while the mother was away trying to work.

Minnery is lucky I’m not a Senator.

I wish more politicians had the brains, insight, and guts of Sen. Franken. I’m so proud that he’s my Senator! Way to go, Al–keep giving the bigots hell!

@Shaun, first I am very happy you had a good family experience.

Second of all, you example beautifully what I mean by purposeful parenting. being present, being engaged, supportive, guiding without being indoctrinating.

The biggest harm a parent of any kind, straight, gay, single, fostering, extended or outside of a family is to indoctrinate a person into their singular views. Each of us can grow and have differencing ideas and thoughts and processes that fits for us.

My grade school children already have different views as me, we have rules, we have life rules, and house rules. But we have room for differences.

One life rule? Not to force your opinion on someone else.

Franken is FANTASTIC !!! Clearly he has a grasp on modern day society and can see through other people’s (Tom Minnery) total warped BS.

You can just see that look and expression from Franken like “Dude, are you seriously that out of touch with reality with the true broad scope of the diversity of our American country??? SERIOUSLY???”

priceless

Franken grills Focus on the Family head during DOMA repeal hearing…

"At a hearing on the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, Sen. Al Franken took issue with the testimony of Tom Minnery, the head of Focus on the Family’s political arm, CitizenLink. After Minnery cited a government study he said showed that the …

Minnery could easily have avoided his shellacking at the hands of Franken by simply being honest about the research he was referencing. But that gets to the heart of the reason why there is any conservative religiosity to begin with: this is a social cohort that traditionally has little regard for the life of the mind–rational analysis, evidence-guided decision making, and in general critical habits of thought. Conservative Protestantism has traditionally been suspicious of higher education, seeing in it a threat to their beliefs. (And for good reason.)

It’s sadly amusing to watch the Minnery pattern play itself out again and again in innumerable situations. It’s the pattern of religious right in-group myths being called to account in public spaces–legislatures, courtrooms, the media, etc. B.s. and lies among religious conservatives, that few among them have the integrity to question, repeatedly get knocked down.

Remember the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover case, for instance? Creationists got the crap kicked out of them in court. The Reagan-appointed judge issued a devastating ruling against the creationists, which makes for eye-opening reading. One sees revealed a whole pattern of shoddy lies and intellectual dishonesty that quite stunning in its brazenness and frequency.

Or, how about Tom Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council? As reported here on MN Independent, Prichard was using falsified and dishonest claims to demonize LGBT people. Once the document containing this nonsense was discovered on the MFC website, it disappeared shortly thereafter. Why? Was it because Prichard knew he was foisting bullshit on his gullible and easy-to-command supporters? Did he suddenly have a realization that if he had to make an accounting of his beliefs among people who have the integrity to respect reason and evidence that he would lose credibility? (Not that many people think he had any in the first place.) If his information was scientifically valid why did he feel the need to hide it like some shameful secret?

The study’s author has already said that none of the data in the report gives any information whatsoever on same-sex couples, and that at most only a very few same-sex “parents” would have even been included. What Franken did was masterful, but it was one step short of a lie–a spectacular half truth that hid the truth–the results of the study were generated by normal nuclear families comprised of mothers and fathers, not same-sex couples. You might call it Franken’s monster of a whopper….

Franken was unambiguously correct in pointing out Minnery’s dishonesty or rank stupidity, or both. Minnery apparently wished to use this study to demonstrate something that it wasn’t designed to do: compare child outcomes of heterosexual and homosexual married couples. Franken called him on it.

Before you can claim Franken told a “half truth”, you first have to demonstrate that Franken was making this same mistake as Minnery except in reverse–claiming that this study proves no significant statistical difference in effect on children between heterosexual and homosexual parents. I don’t have a transcript of Franken’s comments, so I don’t know.

However, to my knowledge there’s no study showing children’s outcomes to be worse simply on account of having same sex parents. No doubt Franken is aware of this background, and could be forgiven for assuming that research that has shown to be empirically and theoretically valid in the past would not suddenly change in light of a new study. Upsets of previous understanding happen, of course, but theoretically there’s no reason to think that same sex parents are worse than opposite sex parents.

Ranger….

The word “normal” was never used, it stated nuclear as any family where there were purposeful parenting. The study purposefully was including all alternative out of the majority (majority does not equal in translation as normal) as well as the majority like family make up.

a whopper of a bigotry going on with your statement.

“The study’s author has already said that none of the data in the report gives any information whatsoever on same-sex couples, and that at most only a very few same-sex “parents” would have even been included.”

RangerG, the most charitable conclusion I can draw from that remark is that the study should not be used to draw conclusions about same-sex parents (no quotation marks needed, unless you want to practice using them). It certainly cannot be used to support an argument that DOMA serves any kind of legitimate purpose.

Seeing that the Family Research Council had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of this study, Perkins’s words are moot.

The words of the lead author of the study, Debra L. Blackwell, Ph.D.,on the other hand, has more credibility. And she said Franken was right:

The survey did not exclude same-sex couples, said Debra L. Blackwell, Ph.D., nor did it exclude them from the “nuclear family” category provided their family met the study’s definition.

The study’s definition of nuclear family is: “one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents of all the children in the family.”

That means the study does not provide evidence that straight couples’ children necessarily fare better than same-sex couples’ kids, as Minnery claimed.

http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2011/07/family-research-council-is-mad-at-sen.html#.Tiipd26dCkg.facebook

Liars lie. This tactic of purposefully distorting legitimate studies for a manipulated and biased agenda of hate has been used for over 40 years, most notably by the loudly repudiated and censured Paul Cameron.

It’s really interesting to watch The Family council complain about the truth of the research being revealed and the researcher who wrote it confirming it.

…. did not exclude same-sex couples from the “nuclear family” category

So glad I voted for Al, and I will do so in the future as well. He stands up for the little guy in the name of equality and justice for every American.

Who in their right mind would listen to Franken yet alone vote for him? What a stain on this state to have him represent us. The Senate is suppose to be one of the most prestigious bodies in the world and the best we can do is elect Franken? Government sanctions marriage between a man & a woman because it is the only union that results in children and future generations of our population. The government discriminates in law all over……. if you murder someone you are treated different than if you don’t. Gays can live together, marry in a church ceremony, enter into contracts, etc. The only thing they can’t do is be sanctioned by the state as married. Can people recognize that the union of a man & a woman is unique and the only way we reproduce? This is simply a fact. Getting back to Franken, I don’t see him fighting for equity in the tax code and to have a tax system that treats everyone the same. I don’t see him fighting so I have the ability to keep the majority of what I earn and not have the government take it from me to give to others. I don’t see him fighting to reform our failing public schools and migrate them to a private education system where parents have real choice and the children would benefit from more opportunities and higher quality schools. I think many people have a very short sighted, distorted and self interested view of what Franken is doing and what our government is suppose to be doing. I prefer to have a Senator that fights for individual freedom, limited government, low taxation and the ability for me & my family to live our dreams and prosper based on our talents and hard work. God Bless America.

“Government sanctions marriage between a man & a woman because it is the only union that results in children and future generations of our population.”

Both of my siblings are married, yet neither of them has any children (okay, my sister has a stepson), nor do they plan to do so.

Are their marriages invaild? Should they not have been sanctioned by the state?

inreality,

“Government sanctions marriage between a man & a woman because it is the only union that results in children and future generations of our population.”

My parents weren’t able to have kids and so I was adopted. Should they have been prohibited from marrying?

I can name a dozen off the top of my head hetrosexual’s that are married that either a) couldn’t have a child, and never will. or b) didn’t want children and will never have them,

I personally am and know 100′s of people (since I am only a singular person and these are people I know personally its a lot!) that either got married in no way in a religious way and have either no christian faith or no god at all.

I personally know a couple dozen families that are gay and have been sanctioned by states, or other countries for their marriages.

I personally know a hundred people that believe in their faith same sex couples are equal, within their religion.

I am just one person. But I represent a billion.

that think differently than you.

should all these people’s marriages be null and voided?

There are people that try to run our country like gingrich that can get married as many times as he wants and leave wedded people on their death beds and re marry and their marriages are sanctioned, but two people who have lived together for 50 years, have children, grandchildren, are respected tax paying add to society but their union can’t be sanctioned because they are gay.

your a bigot plain and simple.

inreality, Not all couples can have children. My own parents were infertile, and thus I was adopted. In fact there’s still roughly 250,000 kids in foster care in the US alone. Thankfully there are couples who can’t have children on their own, both same and opposite gender, who can adopt these children and give them permanent, stable homes to grow up in. After all, we all know that just because a man and a woman can make a child, it doesn’t automatically mean they make great parents. Would it be better they grow up in an abusive household? Or to a parent or parents who can’t or won’t care for them? Or to a loving family to care for them? Just because two people didn’t create the child does not mean they aren’t good parents to them. In fact, studies show that adoptive parents, or either gender, do just as well as those that created them, if not better. After all, adoptive parents never have an “oops.” Their kids are always planned and chosen.

It is a patently absurd statement to say “marriage between a man & a woman because it is the only union that results in children and future generations of our population.”

LGBTI’s also have and create children. Lots of them.

@ twitface, scientific articles do not leave these thing to the imagination they clearly define there terms to make it clear they did not. However, there were not sufficent same sex couples to make a comparision, so they did not. The study did not compare same sex couples so to use the study is lieing no matter how you define the terms. So even if he made the assumption that they were refering to opposite sex couples the study still would not address the issue. But to make things even clearer. A correlation study should not be used to make causal claims EVER…. The mantra of science is correlation is not causation. This study compared same sex to two parent homes. It is likely that some third varible is reason these kids are more likely to have problems. Think of all the things that are more likely in a single parent home, parental problems, drug abuse on parents end (people who abuse drugs are more likely to divorce), poverty etc. Now if a kid grows up in a single parent home without any of these issues will they have more problems I doubt it. The cause is not single parent homes but some of the problems that are more common in those homes.

in my prior post there is an error. I should have edited. :) but I meant the study compared two parent to single parent homes.

@ ANYONE THAT SAYS OR THINKS THAT SANCTIONING A MARRIAGE OF TWO OPPOSITE SEX PEOPLE ONLY CAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES THAT CAN PRODUCE.

Being Gay is not illegal. Gay families have existed for century’s and will continue. Meaning gay people will bond together and bring other people into the world, in what ever fashion, with science there are more ways now, but adoption is a big choice for gay families.

To deny a family bringing up children the same rights as any other family bringing up children in a family is discrimination. So even with your own thought process the only conclusion is to accept gay families and give them the same rights as all other families.

One CAN accept even if they do not support an idea.

So I’d like to ask Al what proportion of nuclear families are same sex families. He’s reeeeeel good at saying “You’re wrong” and having NO evidence to support his position. He found a minor detail that the FOTF guy was wrong about. OK – fine, how about being honest about the data? How many nuclear families ARE same sex families? I would like to know what the percentage is.

Don’t believe for a second that a government study doesn’t list this detail. I’m sure it would have hurt his case to mention it.

I liked Al in “Trading Places”

@ Inreality- Senator Franken is indeed fighting for individual freedoms and rights. He has been a champion for rights for all. The DOMA takes away freedom for a certain class of people but from your post I would think you are OK with that. As to the Senator, I have been watching him since he got involved in politics and have been impressed with him. He is obviously very intelligent and a champion for the people. Good to see.

You presume a little too much. I don’t want anyone’s freedom taken away. I’m just saying that what I see here is the junior senator operating in typical “Progressive Mode”: meaning silence your opponent, marginalize them and STOP talking about facts. He basically said as much.
Please! 9% unemployment, we are broke as a nation, and we want to talk about peoples’ sexual persuasion (something the government has absolutely NO business in)…
Senator Frankin is one of the most powerful 100 people on the planet (let that sink in a little). I can see from most of the posts here that most of you like what is doing – fine…but shouldn’t the US government be doing something important? …And not just trying to show the people that elected him that he is “on their side” and compassionate. Doesn’t he have real work to do?? Shouldn’t he have real work to do??

and Ranger G was dead-on

I wish we could clone Franken and replace all the Politicians in Texas with clones of him

Why is it so impossible for some to realize that DOMA is just as valid as LBGT issues? Both can be right and neither inherently evil.

I see when it’s brought up that only males and females can procreate, immediately, those that are infertile and LBGT folk who choose to do the deed are mentioned, etc., etc. Does this change the fact that it takes both male and a female to produce an offspring, no matter the intended living arrangements post production? No, it decidedly does not.

Accept that as much as LBGT folk want their ‘financial rights’ some of us who support DOMA do so because we simply believe it to be factual. After all, updates to many dictionaries will be in order, won’t they?

Oh, I almost forgot — Franken.

I find Franken to be an unmitigated git. And no, that’s not a good thing.

Let’s get it straight. Gay marriage is NOT a civil rights issue. It is a moral choice issue. The notion that gays are denied equal rights because they cannot legally marry is ludicrous. No one is stopping anyone from choosing to be gay. However, marriage is reserved for opposite-sex couples. Let’s not get swept away with the GL propaganda that this is a “minority group”. It is not and never will be. It is a MORAL CHOICE group.

@shirley

Only in your opinion, not in millions/billions of others eyes. This is a choice of yours to have this opinion, cause religion is the choice, not being gay. You can change your religion, you can NOT change being gay.

and the court has sited that it is a civil right to marry.

so you are just wrong.

@Patt–I don’t understand your point about procreation. I think most of the people here are well aware of how babies are made, thanks very much. It has nothing to do with the right to marry.

DOMA is not “factual.” It is a policy decision. It is a “fact” that gays and lesbians are denied the right to marry, but that doesn’t make it right. It was a fact that, for much of this country’s history, women were denied the right to vote. What does that have to do with laws granting suffrage to women.

I see in the end you resort to name-calling. Evidently, you realize that’s all you have. Stay classy.

@ Pratt

There is not Factual anything when you base your actions on Religion. religion is an opinion. Which is not fact.

Fact… Gays couple up and have families.

Fact… They are not given the rights and support for their families like everyone else.

Fact.. Gay people have always done this and always will.

Fact.. you can accept that they are here and real, even if you don’t support it.

Fact.. Religion is a choice being Gay is part of who you are.

How can you say you cannot change being gay? Scores of people have lived heterosexual lives and suddenly decide they are “gay”. There are many many people who thought they were “gay” and decide to live heterosexually. You cannot label this a true minority group. In a true minority group, you are who you are with no mistake from the time you are born. I’m not denying anyone the right to choose to be gay. But to say there is no choice involved is false and ignoring the facts. Be happy with what you decide for yourself, but don’t try to sell this as a civil rights issue.

How can you say you cannot change being straight?

In a true minority group, you are who you are with no mistake from the time you are born; sometimes it takes a while to figure out who you are. “I’m not denying anyone the right to choose to be straight. But to say there is choice involved is false and ignoring the facts.”

Yes, Shirley, it is a matter of civil rights for us gays and our children.

Not only that, Shirley, it is morally wrong to deny us gays and our children our civil rights just as it is morally wrong to deny you and your children your civil rights just because you are born a female (something you had no say in) and to have your children’s civil rights conditioned on whether they are born out of wedlock or not.

Let’s also not get carried away with the propaganda that “marriages are reserved for opposite-sex couples only.” Meh.

@lane GBLT have civil rights already. They have the rights that all people enjoy. To ask for “special rights” is the issue. GBLT should not have the right to marry, because they are not a minority group. You cannot grant “special rights” to a group of people based on their moral preferences. Indeed, if we go down that path, we will be guilty of infringing on the religious rights of others. There is no scientific proof that anyone is born GBLT. It is from this misnomer that the entire controversy as sprung. The idea that a person is born GBLT is the propaganda I refer to and is being accepted without question because of years of liberal media indoctrination. Many ex-gays understand this, as well as the majority of our society. If a person is a member of a true minority they cannot at any time choose to be an ex-member., as many ex-gays have done. This is common sense.

@Pratt You’ve got one fact sadly wrong. Being gay is a choice. We all are born with “tendencies” but acting on the tendencies is indeed a choice. With each choice comes consequences. Is choosing to be gay worth it?

Shirley, sexual orientation and gender are morally neutral. And no, you may not have “special rights” to deny others full equality under the law citing your religious beliefs. You need to work harder at minding your own business and not infringing on others including their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

@Shirley, How about the choice you are making to make other peoples choices? If you honestly believe that its a choice to be gay, who are you to make that choice for somone? Are you God?

@Lane Sexual Orientation is a term used to evoke the idea of neutrality. It is based on the premise that an individual has no control or choice in their sexual attraction. It is one point of view. My question is that if this is true, why has it been disproven so often by ex-gays? Science points to the fact that people are born with tendencies, whether homosexual or otherwise, that are acted upon, or not, through feelings and perceptions that are largely dependent upon environment, circumstances, personal experience, etc. If we accept this opinion, which has more validity than many of the others, then it stands to reason that GLBT cannot qualify as a minority group in the true sense of the term. If, therefore, this is true, then it stands to reason that gay marriage should be considered a moot issue.

@marie As I said, Marie, being gay or not is your choice, and I respect that. I have many GLT friends and colleagues that I care deeply about. However, the issue of gay marriage is the subject I’m trying to get at here. Thanks for your input.

@Shirley, the right to marry is not a “special right.”

Being what you might define as a “minority (a mathematical, not a sexual, political, or biological concept, BTW)” has nothing to do with anything.

Shirley, it is really lame for you to assert that “science points to the fact that people are born with tendencies …” without citing credible sources to start a flawed logic chain to support your conclusion that those who are gay choose to accept themselves and live open, honest lives with many choosing to enter into committed relationships that may or may not involve children are not deserving of all the protections, rights and responsibilities of a civil marriage. We are seeing more and more ex-ex-gays, too, which indicates that sexual orientation is more “hard-wired” than a mere matter of choice. [If you use the nebulous word "tendencies," then I am free to use the equally nebulous phrase "hard-wired." Sheesh.] Additionally, you are incorrect that the LGBT community does constitute a minority group based on any criteria that you care to look up online.

Shirley, as I said elsewhere recently, given the harm a gay person often experiences while undergoing “reparative therapy” which has no basis whatsoever in medical and psychological sciences, I feel strongly that those who attempt this on vulnerable, questioning people should be sent to jail, if not shot on the spot. Religious beliefs does not shield one from being able to harm another person.

Finally, who cares whether you think this couple or that should get married or not? It is none of your god-dang business to begin with. Maybe you should look into your tendency to be mistaken in understanding other people as they really are. Meh.

How does Shirley account for those recognized minorities whose membership is based more on choice of religion, culture/ethnicity/language and lifestyle than due to being “born with tendencies that should or should not be acted upon …”? Again, it is but a lame attempt to justify her blatant anti-LGBT animus. Meh.

Some examples: The Amish. The Wicaans. The Sami. The Roma. The Deaf.

*Wiccans.

@Shirley

First of all, the idea that being gay is an OPINION of yours and you can not prove it one way or another just as you can not prove your God.

This is a civil right issue. Gay families with children and couples are being denied the same right as you.

Take your choice of your opinion and live with it, do not force it onto others.

But thank you for your opinion, its accepted but I will never support your bigotry.

Shirley’s choice to use GLT omitting the B is revelatory in the sense that we know a lot of “ex-gays” are in reality bisexuals. There is ABSOLUTELY NO shame in being sexually attracted to both genders; matter of fact, these are the lucky ones as they get to experience the best of both worlds.

@shirley

The only morality that is going on is that of indoctrination.

you write ….ou cannot grant “special rights” to a group of people based on their moral preferences. Indeed, if we go down that path, we will be guilty of infringing on the religious rights of others. There is no scientific proof that anyone is born GBLT.

There is no scientific proof that you are a christian, or that there is a God.

To sanction your religious marriage is against your own bigotry therefore your own marriage should be nulled under your own choices of words and lifestyle.

Religion is a lifestyle, Being gay is an identity. Ex-Gay therapy has been proven by science not to be true and actually dangerous to society.

@Shirley

mo·ral·i·ty/məˈralətē/Noun:
. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

I am a bit hung up on your use of Morality. There is nothing wrong with being gay. There is no wrong behavior. It is legal, and its defined by every single credited medical association in the world as normal.

Again, the only wrong morality going on here is your force of the idea of that it is wrong.

Freaking awesome Franken!

If Obama had the guts of Al Franken, he would accomplish a lot for the people instead of acting like a wimp.

@Randy In the state where I live marriage is legal for a man and woman. To grant marriage to same-sex couples would be a “special right”.

@ Lane A lot of your comments are opinion, as are mine. I respect that with no animosity toward you because you have the right to your opinions, just as I have the right to mine. It would be nice to be able to carry on a dialogue that could benefit both of us. As I said, you have the right to your choices. I have the right to my opinions.

@marie How are they being denied the same rights as me, other than marriage? And since you brought up God, let me say that marriage (matrimony) is a religious ceremony, unlike civil unions which are state and/or government ceremonies.

@ Lane On the contrary, my use of GLT was intentional since I was stating the fact that I have colleagues and friends who have described themselves as gay or lesbian or transgender. However, I do not personally know anyone who has described themselves as bisexual.

@marie Once again, let’s keep to the topic.

@ marie I use the word “morality” only in the context of the scope of “marriage” since this is a religious ceremony and by definition would be giving moral legitimacy to the couple being “married”. Since this comes under the auspices of the church, it therefore would be immoral for same-sex couples. Civil ceremonies would not require religious sanctioning, however.

Unfortunately, Shirley, there can be no dialogue that can benefit both of us as long as you continue to deny the full humanity of those of us who are LGBT, as long as you are able to vote on what is rightfully ours as we continue to pursue full equality under the law as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It is also pathetic that you are not able to respond to my rebuttals other than dismissing them as mere opinions. And yes, I have a certain animosity towards people like you.

Shirley, just because you don’t know anyone who describes themselves as bisexual doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Actually, limiting civil marriage to opposite-gender couples and their children has the effect of granting hundreds and thousands of “special rights” that are not also available to same-gender couples and their children. This goes against the principle of full equality under the law.

Those that justify their anti-LGBT animus by citing marriage as a religious ceremony do not take into account civil marriage and associated rights and privileges, the separation of church and state, and the fact that there are many religious organizations that bless same-gender unions. This dishonesty is further evidenced by marriage amendments in 29 supposedly secular state constitutions of which none are accountable to any one church or faith.

Meh.

@Shirley again your wrong,

First of all, Marriage is a legal binding contract, not a religious one. One can not be married unless the legal state civil documents are signed, no matter who does the ritual end.

Second of all, morality and religion does not equal each other.

The courts have decided that it is a civil right to marry.

therefore you are taking away the civil rights of Gay couples and Gay families of the same legal rights that you have to be with the one you love and to bring up the children you might or might not have brought up.

So again, legally you are wrong.

@Shirley

you are the one that brought up that there is no science that proves that you are born gay.

Tell me where is the proof the science fact based proof you are straight, and a christian?

@Shirley To grant marriage to same-sex couples would be granting them the same right as other couples. That’s not “special,” that’s equal.

@ et al Please read my remarks more carefully, without bias or emotionalism, so as not to misunderstand their intent. It seems pointless to repeat what I’ve already said.

Shirley, since you ask for more careful reading I will quote you directly….

“morality” only in the context of the scope of “marriage” since this is a religious ceremony and by definition would be giving moral legitimacy to the couple being “married”. Since this comes under the auspices of the church, it therefore would be immoral for same-sex couples. Civil ceremonies would not require religious sanctioning, however.

All Marriages are a legal contract, ALL ARE PART OF THE CIVIL SERVICES. One can not just go get “married” by having any one that calls themselves a religious house leader and you are “married”.

“GBLT should not have the right to marry, because they are not a minority group. You cannot grant “special rights” to a group of people based on their moral preferences.”

There is no morality in being gay or straight. There is no morality in sexuality. One is attracted to one or the other, one does not choose to be attracted to a person or who they love. you can say they do but that is your opinion, that you base in your religion which is a choice. definition of morality is to know the difference between bad or good, both gay people and straight people do that. so your wrong here.

you state that science can’t prove that you are born gay. Prove science wise that you are straight and or the fact that there is a god that said exactly that it is immoral to be gay.

You say it comes down to choices, your choice is to be a christian that makes the choice not to support gay people as couples and as families. that is your choice. Do not make that choice for others.

Special rights is what Shirley’s got and wants to keep for herself.

Gay p4eople are not immoral, but your sanctimonious judgment is.

I would like to point out also Shirley, that you do not speak for most Christians.

Jesus left room for people who do not fit inside the “one man + one woman marriage” paradigm and New York State wisely, and finally rushed in. After speaking directly about marriage and divorce (Matt. 19: 1-9), Jesus says “Not all men can accept this statement (about man/woman marriage), but only those to whom it has been given.”

http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/2011/07/26/jesus-left-room-for-same-sex-marriage-and-new-york-state-moved-in-mazel-tov/

Join us!

I am not even trying to say to Shirley that she must change her own mind about things. I have hope for her and anyone that has bigotry in their hearts, but I am saying to Shirley that she has to be honest about where her opinions come from which is her choice of religion. Her personal choice of what is morality to her personally is not fact and is not science. It is not even the norm world wide, doesn’t even fit the definition of what is morality and that she denies all credited medical associations across the world to what is normal and or “moral”.

With that in mind, it comes squarely to her religion. her personal journey she has taken on for herself.

This is where she needs to stop though. To push it on anyone else is indoctrination and is a personal political attack on a group of people.

it is purely Dominionism in its purest.

This is NOT a christian nation, it was never a christian nation, there is no politically sanctioned religion.

When Shirley can prove that her God and her Religion is fact, that her choice is the only choice that is considered moral, and that non of those opinions are not based in religion, then I will listen a bit.

until then, accept even if you can not support. For that is the moral thing to do. As a former christian, one that studied the bible fully, know the history of the church and the bible, I can tell you that to accept what you can not support and to not judge or force others to live within your choice is actually the Jesus way.

Well Marie,
Well Marie,
I disagree with you on two points.

I believe bigotry comes from the brain and is a learned behavior. Matters of the heart are more instinct and bigotry is not instinct.

The other is arguing with Shirley. Same cadence for argument as Tim had. The difference is Shirley came in religious where Tim came in without any religion.

Same cadence same argument plus or minus religion equals same person.

So where I disagree with you is that you are writing to a different person and I believe it to be the same person.

ahhhh oh, yes I am way to simple and I only have one persona.

the bigotry thing, she/he/it can choose to unlearn, or to at least keep it to themselves.