Gay Marriage Debate gets Heated at Families.com

Wow. Where to begin… Perhaps I should start with the comment I intended to leave on Heather’s latest gay marriage article: I agree that the Indiana legislation is somewhat vague. Legislation is to be written in a way that allows a person of reasonable intelligence to understand its meaning. If reasonable people question what is allowed or denied, it can be declared unconstitutionally vague, and clearly, people are questioning the meaning of this particular measure. Then I read the rest of her article, and all I could say was, “Wow!” Heather went on to write: “I can’t say I’m surprised, … Continue reading →

Am I a Ms. Or a Mrs.?

My husband and I have been married for almost twelve years. I kept my maiden name. Wayne didn’t seem to care if I became Courtney Pryor or stayed Courtney Mroch, so I decided to stick with what I knew. Some believe I did this because I’m a feminist. Not so. There’s really only one good reason I never changed my last name: laziness. I didn’t want to go through the hassle of contacting the credit cards companies, the bank, the Social Security office, et cetera. Okay, I’ll admit there have been times I questioned why I was the one expected … Continue reading →

Marriage Debate? No Debate Here

Heather and I agree on a marriage debate topic! How did that happen? Well, it took something extreme, but nonetheless we agree. Heather discussed the issue, requiring proof of procreation to maintain a legally recognized marriage. She mentioned how nonsensical the arguments for this initiative are, but I’ll go one step further. Not only is it ridiculous to attempt to force procreation, but to also demand a certain timeframe is more than absurd. Government functions do not include telling people they must have children or when. The hypocrisy here is not on the side of those who maintain that marriage … Continue reading →

Marriage Debates: Wyoming Tackles Two Tough Issues

This week, Wyoming’s lawmakers will address two of the toughest issues in politics today, or at least two that tend to generate a great deal of emotion and controversy. State Representative Bob Brechtel (R), and Senator Gerald Geis (R) are in for some heated debate and confrontations. The House Judiciary Committee has endorsed Representative Brechtel’s bill. The Senate Judiciary Committee has endorsed Senator Geis’s bill. Both are slated for debate on the respective floors throughout this week, which promises to bring both those that support and those that oppose these bills to the state Capitol to be heard. Brechtel’s bill … Continue reading →

What about a Father’s “Right to Choose”?

I have very strong feelings when it comes to abortion, but the point of this particular article is the fact that fathers have no rights when it comes to deciding whether or not they want to become parents. If the mother wants the baby, the father is held responsible financially and he has no choice in the matter. If the mother doesn’t want the baby, she may end his or her life, without any concern for the father’s feelings. She may even be able to force him to pay for the “procedure” despite his objections. I’ve heard all the arguments. … Continue reading →

How Did Your Senators Vote on the Marriage Amendment?

Whether you agree or disagree with a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage is not really the question for this discussion. The main question is do you know how your senators voted? Next, is the question did they vote in a way that represented the will of the people in your state? Both of my senators, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lambert Lincoln cast “nay” votes according to the most recent Senate roll call vote. I found this curious since in 2004 voters in Arkansas overwhelming voted to ban same sex marriage in this state. In fairness, that doesn’t necessarily mean … Continue reading →

More Thoughts on Marriage and State’s Rights

I’ve been giving this some thought, and I must reiterate that the same sex marriage debate should be occurring on the state level, in my opinion. For more on why I feel that way, please read, “…..” The reason it’s even more clear now is because I’ve been mulling over the fact that each state was meant to be a sovereign entity. We are “united” states, but not conformist states. By arranging this nation as a group of individual states, under the umbrella of one central government for the purpose of national security and few other specifically detailed necessities, the … Continue reading →

Marriage Debates: Here We Go Again

As many of you may be aware, we’ve been following the marriage debate that has been hotly contested throughout the country as same-sex couples and more have sought recognition for their rights to be married. A majority of states have incorporated bans for gay marriage or a definition of marriage being between a man and a woman . California In California the newly elected state Legislature is reintroducing legislation that would allow gay couples to be married in the state of California alongside another piece of legislation that would allow unmarried, heterosexual couples to be registered as domestic partners. It … Continue reading →

Lessons from an Arranged Marriage

Do you know anyone whose marriage was arranged? I do. I have good friends who are Laotian. He saw her at the grocery store and saw that she was respectful to her parents, was kind and compassionate and decided that he wanted to marry her. So he had his father meet with her father and they agreed on a price to pay for the dowry. And voila–they were married. She of course, agreed to the union as well. It may surprise you to find out that all this happened in the United States and within the last ten years. My … Continue reading →

Appealing the Will of the People, Part II

In the previous article, I addressed some of the legal issues surrounding gay marriage. In this article, I’ll address Heather’s statements in the “Why does it matter to me?” section of her article, Marriage Debates: California Gay Marriage Ban to Be Appealed. Comparing sexual preference to skin color is a common gay rights argument. Modeling the cause after the civil rights movement seems to give it more credence. There is no comparison. Slavery and being treated as less than a person because of one’s skin color is not at all the same as being prohibited from creating extraordinary, special statutory … Continue reading →