After putting up Dawn and Laura's story yesterday, I was contacted by a friend of theirs who wanted to tell her story as well:
" My name is Audrey, my partners name is Bernie. We were so excited when the same sex marriage bill passed this summer, but we didn't dare to set a date knowing the closed minded opponents were setting out to get those signatures.
They speak of us as some evil individuals that will change the meaning of marriage if we are allowed to do so. Just what will it change?
I read daily about all these politicians carrying on with pre-marital affairs, but this doesn't seem to change the meaning of marriage.
I do not love Bernie any different then my Mom loves my Dad. I am dedicated and committed to Bernie and want to spend my life with her and only her.
We get up every day, have coffee, read the paper, do the same thing our heterosexual neighbors do. So why do these opponents insist we are so different? We don't do anything any different, and we deserve to have the same legal rights!!
You peop le (the opposition) may slow us down, but you can not stop us! We will prevail one day! One day Bernie and I will be able to legally marry.
We are proud of who and what we are. Nothing anyone says or does can take that away from us!"
Couples like Audrey and Bernie, Dawn and Laura, and thousands more are having to wait for their fellow Mainers to VOTE on whether or not to repeal our newly minted equal marriage law, before a single couple has been able to actually GET married here.
We have a law that passed easily through both chambers and signed by the Governor, yet it is sealed up and locked away.
While I sympathize, I cannot fully know what it feels like to be in this position. Even though I am I am an atheist and was married by a phone book JOP to a divorced man in a restaurant in Baltimore, my marriage is legal worldwide.
No one has EVER demanded that MY legal status as married be revoked or forced into recognition as a domestic partnership or[civil union.
We did not have to "ask permission" from our fellow citizens before we wed in 1992, just file and wait 3 days per Maryland law. He filed; I picked up the license, and I didn't even have to show proof of who I was, nor did he.
No state in the nation has declined to recognize our marriage, deny us full marriage protections or rights, or demand that our children should not be considered ours under the laws.
I have never had to show proof of the marriage to any legal authority or on any application whatsoever. My word of being married is acknowledgement enough whenever we have bought a house together, applied for insurance, or registered our children for school.
~~~
Another video has submitted, this one regarding the motives of "Stand For Marriage Maine":
The credibility of the homo-obsessed, perpetually frustrated Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readin ess is shot. Not only is she wholly unqualified to speak about the military as any kind of authority (she does not have any military experience), she delivered jack*ssery testimony that drew laughter on Capitol Hill last year as she defended the discriminatory Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Let's hope she shows up for the Senate hearings.
In the current issue of Human Events, the doyenne of discrimination bleats:
Murphy has replaced former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) as the new lead sponsor of H.R. 1283, a bill that would repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. That law, Section 654, Title 10, frequently is mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Murphy's bill would replace the 1993 statute with a new law forbidding discrimination in the military "based on homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation tion is real or perceived."Here we go, you know what's coming -- discussions of sexual tension, naughty bits being shaken around to entice horny service members who think with their genitals and not their brains -- and yes, they handle guns and WMDs! ZOMG! If you didn't catch Elaine's sitcom-worthy testimony in defense of DADT, here's Patrick Murphy and Elaine in action on video.The open-ended language in "Murphy's New LGBT Law" would mandate accommodation of professed (not discrete) sexual minorities in all branches and communities of the military to include Army and Marine infantry and Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALs, and submarines. This would be tantamount to ordering military women to live with men in close quarters offering little or no privacy on a constant basis.
Men and women are human, and therefore imperfect. Homosexuals are no more perfect than anyone else. Sound military personnel policies encourage discipline rather than indiscipline, but Murphy's New LGBT Law would have the opposite effect.If Congress passes Murphy's New LGBT Law, the armed forces would have to disregard the normal human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual matters. Unprecedented male/male and female/female sexual tensions will ensue, but the military will try to override them with mandatory sensitivity training courses. Corollary "zero tolerance" policies would deny promotions and end the careers of thousands of military personnel who disagree for any reason.
Her interpretation of her appearance:I tried to present comprehensive testimony on the history and purpose of the 1993 law and the consequences of repeal. But Murphy and other committee members demonstrated little concern about predictable problems. Instead, they diverted attention from serious issues by trying to bully me with derogatory comments or questions. Their dismissive behavior proved my point about intolerance in the name of "tolerance."Yes, serious issues like this
Donnelly treated the panel to an extraordinary exhibition of rage. She warned of "transgenders in the military." She warned that lesbians would take pictures of people in the shower. She spoke ominously of gays spreading "HIV positivity" through the ranks."We're talking about real consequences for real people," Donnelly proclaimed. Her written statement added warnings about "inappropriate passive/aggressive actions common in the homosexual community," the prospects of "forcible sodomy" and "exotic forms of sexual expression," and the case of "a group of black lesbians who decided to gang-assault" a fellow soldier.
..."Like a woman who is stared at, her breasts are stared at," Donnelly explained. She further explained the "absolutely devastating" effect of homosexuals "introducing erotic factors" and made a comparison to Sen. Larry Craig's adventure at the Minneapolis airporirport. She said admitting gays to the military would be "forced cohabitation" and a policy of "relax and enjoy it."
Bam Bam is worried about his tax dollars going to gender reassignment surgery in his latest hysteria-laden e-blast. He calls it "subsidizing the elective practice of genital ‘sex-change’ mutilation."
The right wing has been knee-deep in shilling misinformation and twisting facts to frighten people. It's no surprise he wants to fixate on something he believes is fertile ground for generating heat on Obama's health reform. Trans-bashing is easy; I'm sure we'll see more about this, since even he knows trying to ban reproductive freedom at this point is a losing proposition for his crowd.
Gee, a lot of people call circumcision genital mutilation, since it is not medically necessary or medically appropriate, but is commonly covered by health plans. Is Barber against that as well, or is that just a matter of religious freedom subsidized by the taxpayer. Just asking.
DATE: August 4, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ObamaCare Likely to Mandate Free “Sex-Change” Surgeries
Washington, DC – When asked by Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) whether President Obama’s proposed socialized healthcare plan will mandate taxpayer funded abortion, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) admitted that it will require “any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.” It now appears that the plan’s “medically appropriate” umbrella is far more expansive than most Americans could have imagined.
In addition to abortion on demand, the weight of the evidence indicates that cosmetic “gender reassignment” surgeries for both U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants who suffer from APA recognized “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) may also be provided – free of charge – courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. The current price tag for such a procedure can exceed $50,000.
Page 972 of the House version of the bill (H.R. 3200) provides for “standards, as appropriate, for the collection of accurate data on health and health care” based on “sex, sexual orientation [and] gender identity.” The Senate draft indicates that the government will “detect and monitor trends in health disparities,” requiring the Department of Health Health and Human Services to “develop standards for the measurement of gender.” (i.e., officially recognize subjectively self-determined “transgender” or “transsexual” gender identities). It further mandates ‘‘participation in the institutions’ programs of individuals and groups from…different genders and sexual orientations.”
Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action commented: “There’s a gulf of difference between what Obama and liberals in Congress, and the American people deem ‘medically appropriate;’ especially when it’s ‘we the people’ footing the bill. To force Americans, against their conscience, to fund abortion on demand and to facilitate gender confusion by subsidizing the elective practice of genital ‘sex-change’ mutilation is unconscionable.
“After hearing Sen. Mikulski’s ‘any service deemed…medically appropriate’ admission, I was prompted to dig a little deeper. I contacted the offices of Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Charlie Rangel, Rep. Barney Frank and the House Subcommittee on Health. I asked, very simply, for ‘an assurance that the proposed healthcare plan will not allow taxpayer funded gender reassignment surgeries or hormone therapies.’ When faced with the bill’s relevant language, every staffer I spoke with either declined to answer or would neither confirm nor deny that such procedures would be covered.
“It’s time for the mainstream media to do its job and demand straight answers on this government healthcare scheme. Instead of acting as ObamaCare cheerleaders, journalists need to ask the same questions I did and refuse to take ‘no answer’ for an answer. I also call on the American people to ask their Congressional representatives the following question: ‘Will you pledge to oppose this legislation unless taxpayer funding for both abortion and sex change surgeries are expressly excluded?’
“It’s no wonder that, as Americans find out what’s hidden within this socialized ObamaCare monstrosity, furious opposition to it continues to skyrocket.”
When: August 22nd from 12 p.m.-7 p.m. Where: Cascades Gateway Park in Salem
BRO Staff in Attendence: Juan
Mark your calendar now and get ready for the event of the year:
www.GayTalkRadio.org
No comments:
Post a Comment