Disqus - Friends of jeffrhodes

Re: McCormick annexation out of the Woods - Port Orchard Independent

LocalPoliticalJunkie — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:05:13 -0000

There was a map displayed in the back of the room that showed Bremerton's prospective expanded Urban Growth Area, and it includes the Woods.

Re: Inaccuracy stokes legislative race - Port Orchard Independent

LocalPoliticalJunkie — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:01:37 -0000

This is unfortunate for Jan. I'm glad to see her step up immediately, take responsibility and set the rcord straight. For Kim's campaign to making an issue of something so trivial is exactly what Carnes said it was - desperation on the part of the Democrats to find ANYTHING to tar Jan with. This is temest in a teapot.

Re: Mayor shouldn’t pick our slogan - Port Orchard Independent

LocalPoliticalJunkie — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:16:53 -0000

It sounded to me like Stigler was looking to generate some work for himself.

Re: Same-sex marriage bills violate Freedom of Religion - Port Orchard Independent

Talyn — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:17:08 -0000

I’m a mother, a Christian, a pro-life, conservative voter. And I’m also a lesbian. My partner and I have been “married” for 15 years and are raising children together.

Once again, I see the old arguments dragged out: Our children aren’t safe; gay men and lesbians do not deserve to be married, etc.

As a Christian, I would be remiss to ignore the threatening language of the original letter and other comments posted here. Christ wants us to speak out for what is right or He would not have turned over tables in the temple.

Gay men and lesbians are already living in long-term relationships and raising children right here in your community. We shop where you shop, go to the movies, greet our neighbors and throw neighborhood parties. I cannot speak for the far left, but personally, what appeals to me about having our partnership acknowledged is that our partners won’t have to show Power of Attorney before being allowed in our hospital rooms; knowing that if I die unexpectedly, my children won’t be taken away from their other mother or my house won’t be taken from my family.

These are simple, basic rights, and not much different from what interracial couples faced as recently as forty years ago. Many churches openly preached against interracial marriages and refused to marry these couples. Now, it's commonplace.

Our former President told us not to be afraid of terrorists, because if we are, they will have won. It’s harder for me to not be afraid of the Americans who preach hatred and bigotry. This is why you won’t see my name at the bottom of this letter. In the name of their God, most certainly not mine, they continue to stand against everything America truly is – equality, acceptance, and freedom of expression.

Re: Same-sex marriage bills violate Freedom of Religion - Port Orchard Independent

Talyn — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:51:48 -0000

Tro: I haven't broken any law. Why am I not entitled to the same privileges as anyone else? Why do I have to sign special paperwork? You don't. And since I am a law abiding citizen who pays taxes just like everyone else, I should not have to jump through extra hoops just because my nuclear family doesn't look the same as yours.

I have to agree with Twibel on this one. It seems like you're looking for a fight here. Why? Can't people who disagree have an adult constructive discussion without stooping to sarcasm? No one here is out to attack you, as twibel pointed out.

As far as the Constitution is concerned, I believe that the 14th Amendment speaks to the "specific clause" you're referring to:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The key part here is that I should not be denied the liberty to raise a family with whomever I choose and have equal protection of the laws. I really don't care if it's called "marriage" or not. That's semantics. If heterosexual couples want to call a union between a man and a woman "marriage," that's fine. I want the same protection under the law. That's all.

And how exactly am I a scourge to our society? Whether or not gay/lesbian unions are legal doesn't actually affect you, I'm not sure why it's an issue. The fabric of society didn't unravel when multi-racial couples were allowed to marry, when women were given the vote, when slavery was abolished and at the time there were doomsayers claiming just that.

How are the legal advantages of a civil--not religious--marriage privileges rather than rights? Where in the Constitution does it says that? In fact, where in the Constitution does it address marriage at all?

Re: Same-sex marriage bills violate Freedom of Religion - Port Orchard Independent

Talyn — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:13:11 -0000

Christ has nothing to do with the Old Testament. In fact, he spoke out against many of the Old Testament practices including the idea of an eye for an eye and more, which I am surprised you don't know if you claim to have read the Bible. In Terms of Sodom and Gomorrah, that actually had to do with an issue of hospitality, not homosexuality. Look more closely at the New Testament, the one that has Christ actually in it and then look for words actually ascribed to Christ. Stop listening to the words of man. Listen to the Christ inside you. He never preached hatred, why are you?

Re: Same-sex marriage bills violate Freedom of Religion - Port Orchard Independent

Talyn — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 00:30:12 -0000

Trohigan. Look, I'm not looking for a fight either. I'm interested in a productive exchange of ideas.

The language of the bill is about domestic partnerships, not marriages. Couples who wish to register for domestic partnerships have to provide proof of certain conditions, but these bills only extend civil benefits to domestic partners. The word "marriage" isn't used to refer to these unions at all.

I don't understand what you mean about having to prove that a domestic partnership will have an unquestionable postive impact.

But I think there are a lot of positives here. Twibel is right about taxation. Couples are taxes more than individuals and men do tend to make more than women so a gay male couple in a domestic partnership civil union, will actually be adding to the money available to the state through their higher tax bracket. This to me seems like a postive impact.

Also, a lot of lesbian couples do raise children together. MOre than half of the gay and lesbian couples I know have children. So, it's a bigger percentage than you probably may have realized. Many of those children are from heterosexual marriages that ended in divorce. Personally, I think that a stable two-adult household is better than any single parent situation. There's a lot less stress on the single parent and the kids spend more time with one parent or the other instead of babysitters and in daycare. Others adopt children they've been fostering. Very few have the money to use artirficial insemination. Any couple who has gone in for fertility treatments can tell you that it costs thousands of dollars just to try to get pregnant. Creating a stable two-parent environment for kids also seems like a positive.

The bills don't endorse gay and lesbian marriages, per say, but instead change the language of husband, wife, widow, widower, etc. to be gender neutral. While this does open the door for same-sex civil unions, one could also argue that it was proposed to raise the tax base by allowing couples, who independently pay lower taxes, to register as a unit.

Re: Same-sex marriage bills violate Freedom of Religion - Port Orchard Independent

Talyn — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:56:28 -0000

Noneforme, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I disagree. Biologically, 10% of all animal populations are --and that includes humans--genetically homosexual. So if you're saying it's biologically wrong, then you are incorrect. If you're saying it's morally wrong, that's just your opinion. Since this is an open forum, you're certainly entitled to express it.

Re: Same-sex marriage bills violate Freedom of Religion - Port Orchard Independent

Talyn — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:14:48 -0000

Tro, thank you for considering the feelings of those on this board. I appreciate your consideration here. In this same way, I'm not trying to pick a fight and I'm glad you see that.

I'm not sure exactly where you are getting the impression that this change in civil law will impact your religious freedom. It concerns me that this misinformation is being spread because it's simply not true.

The Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment, protects freedom of religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If you actually look at the text of the two Bills, you will see that there is absolutely no mention of any kind of restriction regarding religion. You are still free to practice your religion as you see fit. A gay couple isn't going to walk into your church on any given Sunday and demand to be married. Nor are gay couples going to be welcomed into any of the churches that don't already do so. None of that is going to change.

The idea of same-sex marriage and the inclusion of legalized same-sex unions isn't a new idea or a new practice. White Americans--and I'm making an assumption here that you are white--trace their ancestry from Europe as well as ancient Greece and Rome. Greece, which was considered to be an extremely advanced culture, openly accepted same-sex couples. In fact, Plato argued in his Symposium that men who prefered other men were "bold and brave and masculine, and they tend to cherish what is like themselves." The Symposium is still taught in freshman Philosophy classes and is part of the canonical teachings in Universities in the Western World.

In 1994 Yale Historian John Boswell published Same-sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe which included the text of a same-sex marriage ceremony that was as much a part of the church's sacraments and ceremonies as heterosexual marriages, baptisms and the like. The material comes from an eleventh-century Greek manuscript labled "Grottaferrata G.B." The title of the piece is "Akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin" or Office for Same-Sex Unions. In other words, it's a marriage ceremony.

In this country, marriage has always been a civil matter. There was no clergyman in the Plymouth colony until 1629. It wasn't until 1692, when the Plymouth settlement merged with the Massachusetts Bay that clergy were authorized to solemnize marriages.

Additionally, according to Reverend Peter J. Gomes, "No clergy of any denomination are required to wed anyone of whose union they do not approve: There is no civil right to be married in church or with its blessing. The civil law is just that, and the distinction between it and ecclesiastical law is as important as the necessary distinction between church and state." He goes on to say "It is to the civil rights of the citizens of Massachusetts that the Supreme Judicial Court responded in the Goodridge case, and this was no attack on the church, nor on religion. It was recognition that the social custom restricting marriage to heterosexuals, a custom long sanctioned by church and society, was no longer to be regarded as consistent with the rights of citizens under the constitution.

"We have seen this before. When the courts eventually invalidated long-established laws sanctioned by church and society that forbade interracial marriage, the so-called "miscegenation" laws that obtained in many parts of this country within living memory, the courts that did this were invariably maligned as interventionist, arbitrary, and usurpatious. Most now would agree that those laws were wrong, indeed unconstitutional, and that the courts were right in their judgments on behalf of the petitioners." You can find the entire text of this essay here: http://gbge.aclu.org/images.... Peter J. Gomes is the Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister in the Memorial Church at Harvard University. He is an American Baptist minister.

Actually, in terms of the tax exempt status being taken away, churches in Canada that discriminate against gay people are still exampt from paying property taxes. According to an Op Ed piece in The Huffington Post on February 23, 2009, writer Emma Ruby-Sachs says "Gay marriage advocates have never been interested in forcibly quashing the churches and organizations that feel compelled to oppose homosexuality. We are in suppport of the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech." She's responding to an article in the New York Times by David Blankenhorn which proposes a compromise that specifically addresses the issue of a church's right to refuse the marry a same-sex couple and tax exempt status. His proposal, which protects your freedom of religion as well as your concerns about tax exemption is exactly what the current Bills propose--a civil union. Period. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009...

What do you think abaout Blankenhorn's proposal? A civil union that grants only civil protections while protecting the religious freedoms of both individuals and church organizations as well as their tax exempt status?

Looking forward to your reply.

Re: Same-sex marriage bills violate Freedom of Religion - Port Orchard Independent

Talyn — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 03:06:04 -0000

Tro, I'm not sure I understand how the fact that the Plymouth colony had civil marriages for 72 years before the church began to sanctify them shows contempt for mainstream American values. The Plymouth colonists were pretty much where mainstream American values began. As for the other examples, you said "you just don't redefine the institution around which societies have ordered themselves for thousands of years." I was simply pointing out that what constitutes American values has only been a reality since the 1700s, which isn't thousands of years.

Unfortunately your logic has some holes in it. You have to be able to step back and look at the big picture. The big picture is simply trying to level the playing field, so to speak, to ensure that *all* citizens receive the civil rights granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

And same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, by the way. So you can't say that the idea of civil same-sex marriages has been rejected across the board. Personally, I think that the hate campaign waged by the Mormon and Catholic churches who poured more than 9 million dollars into an advertising campaign to overturn same-sex marriage in California was heinous. Nine million dollars. That boggles the mind.

It's true that property taxes go into the school budget. In fact, *my* property taxes go to support a school system that neither of my children are welcome in--because of medical issues, not social ones. The school system that I pay to support will not accomodate my children. Period. But I accept that as a fact of my life. Is it fair? Not really. But I believe that it is my duty to pay my taxes, even if I don't agree with how they're allocated.

It doesn't follow necessarily that schools will teach that same-sex couples and same-sex families are considered acceptible. The school boards make curriculum decisions, and school board members are appointed from the community, not by the state or federal government. The current school curriculum does not include "homosexual" content as far as I know. I don't expect that will change.

Also, you still haven't shown me how a *civil unions* violate your rights. I can't concede a point you haven't effectively proven. Just because the government doesn't make a distinction, doesn't mean the school district and the churches themselves can't and won't.

Getting into the religious areana opens up a whole new can of worms which legally has nothing to do with these Bills. I think, that's the major stumbling block here. Whether or not you agree with a same-sex marriage on principle, isn't what this is about. Unfortunately, that's what it has turned into.

I understand that the conservative Christian right, which does not represent all those who call themselves Christian, has an agenda to prevent gay men and lesbians from forming civil unions. This same group has, in the past, attacked any group of people that were outside of their perceived norm. This is what you refer to as mainstream American values. I understand these. I live inside a society that hates and vilifies me--but I don't want or need anyone's approval, certainly not from groups such as this.

Sure, we can have our power of attorney papers and our living will and our other paperwork. But we have to have it with us at all times. You don't. If my family is in a car accident and I don't have my paperwork, it's not assumed that I'm related to my children. I have to *prove* it. You don't. I want that to go away. I want to be treated as an equal citizen under the law. Not by the church--your church or any other church that preaches hate. That is not Christ's message. He did not preach hate. Ever. Man preaches hate. Man decides what is "normal" and what is not, despite all the evidence against it.

I'm not after "bigger game." My purpose here is to engage you and others in a discussion about this issue. I don't expect I will change your mind and, to be honest, I'm not trying to. I only hope that you will begin see how the legacy of hate has made this into something it isn't.

Re: Same-sex marriage bills violate Freedom of Religion - Port Orchard Independent

Talyn — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:12:50 -0000

D_racer. Your idea is a good one. It's hard to put into place, however. When you try to please one group, you're bound to offend another, unfortunately. But I do agree that parents are ultimately responsible for helping their children negotiate the difficult and complicated world we live in. Personally, I think we do our kids a disservice when we tell them there is only one way to be, believe, think, etc. We live in a global world, where we regularly come into contact with people from cultures very different from our own. The more we can help them understand that different cultures are different--not better or worse--the better adjusted they'll be.

School systems, because their board members come from the community, generally teach to the predominate beliefs in the community. The curriculum specifics can vary quite widely from state to state as well as county to county depending on the population. It would be nice if all perspectives could be presented without prejudice and then the discussion of the family's particular beliefs could be handled by the parents. And in communities that are more integrated, that sometimes happens. I'm not sure I see that kind of tolerance in P.O. quite yet.