Reformed Chicks Blabbing

Reformed Chicks Blabbing


Evidently, gays do blame blacks for the failure of Prop. 8

posted by Susan Johnson

Recently I noted that I didn’t think gays would protest black churches:

Protest black churches? *snicker* That will never happen, they don’t have the guts to do it. It’s easier to beat up the Mormons, no one will call them bigoted for doing so (except maybe conservatives and religious people who understand what’s going on here — the left doesn’t want us to bring out religion into the voting booth).

And as one of the commenters, ar, noted:

i doubt that the activists are stupid enough to create a rift between two democratic blocks. there are other ways for gays and blacks to discuss the issue. they have way more in common than they have in differences. without the support of the lds church, prop 8 wouldn’t have passed either. i’d say that protesting the lds church is a good start. maybe the homophobic mormons there can take the time to get to know some of the protesters.

Um…it appears that ar was way too optimistic concerning the intelligence of the gay community, here’s what blacks experienced at the protest rally at the Mormon temple:

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU N*, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a F*, I will call you a n*. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the n* better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.
[…]
Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, “Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!” A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were “very disappointed with black people” and “how could we” after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn’t matter because “most black people hated gays” and he was “wrong” to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.
[…]
“I have received several phone calls from Blacks, both gay and straight, who were caught up in Westwood around the time of that march. From being called ‘niggers’ to being accosted in their cars and told that it was because of ‘you people gays don’t have equal rights and you better watch your back,’ these gays have lost their d* minds.”

(I edited it to take out the offensive language)
(via)
I still don’t think they’ll protest black churches but they aren’t exactly happy with blacks either singling them out for bigotry. Pretty telling, huh? But apparently it’s not the fault of the black voters but the evil religious right who lead them astray:

The Religious Right has invested in systematic outreach to the most conservative elements of the Black Church, creating and promoting national spokespeople like Bishop Harry Jackson, and spreading the big lie that gays are out to destroy religious freedom and prevent pastors from preaching about homosexuality from the pulpit.
In addition, Religious Right leaders have exploited the discomfort among many African Americans with white gays who seem more ready to embrace the language and symbols of the civil rights movement than to be strong allies in the continuing battle for equal opportunity. At a series of Religious Right events, demagogic African American pastors have accused the gay rights movement of “hijacking” and “raping” the civil rights movement.

I don’t think this is anything new, I’ve heard this for years. What the gays experience is piddling compared to what the blacks went through and the blacks know it. Who would want their movement co-opted by those who haven’t endured the same struggle?
And then there’s this from Andrew Sullivan:

And we need patience and relentlessness in explaining our lives. And how human they are. It’s not fair; we should have it all already. But we don’t. And in a democracy, that means persuasion, not fiat.

He should have added judicial fiat.
Listen, you guys on the left may not like it but the government has the right to set the terms for marriage. In California that’s done through a ballot initiative. It doesn’t matter that you think it’s wrong, it’s been this way throughout history. Appealing to the founding fathers is ludicrous (as some on the left have done) because if they knew that this was going to be an issue, they would have been explicit in stating that marriage was between a man and woman. They would never have thought otherwise.
I don’t usually state my opinion on this issue, I just note the reactions of others. I came the closest when I said that most people would agree with civil unions. I’m torn on this issue because I wish the church wasn’t seen as attacking any particular group, I’m saddened that we’re seen as unloving to gays because many of us don’t think it’s our business (it’s between them and God) but on the other hand, I can understand that Christian and Mormon voters want to maintain the traditional view of marriage. And legally they have every right to do so. We are still governed by the will of the people and they have spoken on this issue. That doesn’t make the Californian religious establishment “homophobic,” it just makes them want to maintain what’s been the norm throughout history.
And btw, this is nothing new in the history of our nation. The Mormons experienced their own persecution because of their view on polygamy. Pretty ironic, huh?
But I do agree with ar that maybe the Mormons should get to know the protesters, though I wonder if the gays would be open to the idea or would the Mormons have to worry about their safety when the gays are so angry that they’re turning on their own community.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(60)
post a comment
Michael

posted November 8, 2008 at 9:25 am


“In California that’s done through a ballot initiative.”
Not really. Ballot initiative is one crude way to make law. Most lawmaking on marriage is actually done through the legislature, which twice approved same-sex marriage only to be vetoed by the governor who said to wait for the courts.
Of course, the courts have a role in deciding whether the actions of the voters or legislature abide by the state’s constitution. The voters, in a fit of anger, can’t amend the state’s constitution to approve taxation of churches or approve mixed-race marriages with us expecting the courts to step in.
“That doesn’t make the Californian religious establishment “homophobic,” it just makes them want to maintain what’s been the norm throughout history.”
But the norm throughout history has been homophobic, as it has been sexist and racist. If we relied on “norms,” your marriage likely wouldn’t exist either because the idea of a romance-based marriage of relative equals was not a norm throughout history and not reflected in the Scriptures.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted November 8, 2008 at 9:27 am


“In California that’s done through a ballot initiative.”
Not really. Ballot initiative is one crude way to make law. Most lawmaking on marriage is actually done through the legislature, which twice approved same-sex marriage only to be vetoed by the governor who said to wait for the courts.
Of course, the courts have a role in deciding whether the actions of the voters or legislature abide by the state’s constitution. The voters, in a fit of anger, can’t amend the state’s constitution to approve taxation of churches or approve mixed-race marriages with us expecting the courts to step in.
“That doesn’t make the Californian religious establishment “homophobic,” it just makes them want to maintain what’s been the norm throughout history.”
But the norm throughout history has been homophobic, as it has been sexist and racist. If we relied on “norms,” your marriage likely wouldn’t exist either because the idea of a romance-based marriage of relative equals was not a norm throughout history and not reflected in the Scriptures.



report abuse
 

ajarizona

posted November 8, 2008 at 9:51 am


In 48 of these United States Gay marriage is illegal, period.
For the gays to act as if they are the norm and the Mormons and blacks and everyone else fighting for traditional marriage are the ones out of step, is just funny, Get a clue, their “everybody’s out of step but johnnie”, is just laughable.
Go ahead a boycott Utah, all the more powder for the locals and our National parks, stay outta there as well. We just could not care less.
Howver, I suspect many more people will frequent Utah because of the Mormons stand, than not. WE are proud to take a stand for something so worthy.
Gays need to realize, they don’t have the whole nation behind their cause.
Live and let live to be sure, but when they try to upset 5,000 years of naormalcy, they are the ones with the new paradyme, 48 States are merely fighting to protect the status quo.
Like petulant 4 year olds, we’ve all seen these tantrums before, and the Mormons and everone else will stand by until you bump your head or run out of tears. Big Babies.
wa wa wa!
ajarizona



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted November 8, 2008 at 9:54 am


If a person believes that the legislature is elected to do whatever they think is best, that’s fine.
If a person believes that the legislature is elected to represent the will of the people, but the legislature ignores the will of the people, we get what we have now.
But the norm throughout history has been homophobic
But the law (largely) has not been.
If we relied on “norms,” your marriage likely wouldn’t exist either because the idea of a romance-based marriage of relative equals was not a norm throughout history and not reflected in the Scriptures.

Romance based? Maybe not, yet in history we find that (at least in the Jewish culture) both parties of an arranged marriage could “opt out”. And most marriages were between “relative equals” because those arranging the marriage had not only the best in mind for the parties of the marriage, but also the best for the families. (Read David Instone-Brewer).
We live in a selfish culture and one selfishness builds on another.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 8, 2008 at 10:00 am


There is just so much B.S. in this articel it makes me want to puke. Let’s dissect the many inanities …
“the government has the right to set the terms for marriage. In California that’s done through a ballot initiative.”
So very, very wrong. It is (and WAS – TWICE!) ‘set’ by the Legislature.
This Proposition is just as UN-Constitutional as the old one the State Supreme Court struck down. Tell us, Michele, should Ballot Initiatives also be able to take away the rights of inter-racial couples to marry?
“It doesn’t matter that you think it’s wrong, it’s been this way throughout history.”
It isn’t a matter of “thinking” it’s wrong – it IS wrong. Just ask Mildred Loving. When ‘the people’ got a chance to vote on her right to marry her husband, it, too, was wrong. Separate drinking fountains and washrooms were wrong, even though ‘the [bigotted] people’ preferred them that way and the Courts had to correct the injustice.
“Appealing to the founding fathers is ludicrous”
Not if you beleive what the Constitution promises to ALL Americans it isn’t.
“I don’t usually state my opinion on this issue”
The heck you don’t.
“I came the closest when I said that most people would agree with civil unions.”
And “most people” ‘agreed’ with “separate but equal” – but that was UN-Constitutional too.
“I’m torn on this issue because I wish the church wasn’t seen as attacking any particular group”
The only way to be seen as NOT attacking a particular group is for “the church” to stop attacking a particular group. DUH!
And you forget (ignore, can’t handle the fact) that “the church” is by no means of one accord on this isue. Face it, it’s certain churches making these heinous, hateful impositions.
“I’m saddened that we’re seen as unloving to gays because many of us don’t think it’s our business (it’s between them and God)”
It would have been nice if you had bothered to say so prior to having a vote on some people’s rights.
“but on the other hand, I can understand that Christian and Mormon voters want to maintain the traditional view of marriage.”
Once again, not all “Christian voters” want this, Michele.
“And legally they have every right to do so.”
Not according to either the Constitution OR the CA legislature OR the CA State Supreme Court they don’t. Besides, those “Christian” (joke) churches” that want to only marry heterosexuals were still perfectly free to do so, thus maintaining their “traditional view of marriage”. That was not taken away from them.
“We are still governed by the will of the people”
Which was expressed – TWICE – by the CA Legislature.
“and they have spoken on this issue.”
Since when are “the people” free to strip rights away from some citizens?
“That doesn’t make the Californian religious establishment “homophobic,”
Actually, Michele, it does.
“it just makes them want to maintain what’s been the norm throughout history.”
As stated above, they were/are perfectly free to “maintain” whatever rules they want – within their own faith – but they are not and never were free to impose their religious views on OTHER faiths. Catholics are still free to refuse to marry divorced people, no?
“The Mormons experienced their own persecution because of their view on polygamy. Pretty ironic, huh? ”
No, not “ironic”; ‘pathetic’ is the word you needed. Besides, this issue is not about multiple spouses. WE are discussing making an actual commitment to another person, not havinng multiple partners.
“But I do agree with ar that maybe the Mormons should get to know the protesters”
Actually, all of America should get to know gay people, not merely the false stereotypes promulgated by radical religious rightwing nutjobs.
“though I wonder if the gays would be open to the idea”
My life has been an open book. I’ve been with my husband for almost 24 years, and legally married for almost 5 of them. America cannot get to “know us” because of the lies spread about us by the likes of you and your anti-gay, bigotted cohorts. Your side just can’t handle the truth. You’d rather see us as nothing more than a “threat” to traditional marriage, when we are not.
I saw on the Tampa news last night that blacks have been “taught” by their church that merely being gay was “sinful”. No one ever bothers to address why equal government recognition of our relationships is dependent on the ‘sanctifiability’ of one’s relationships. Perhaps YOU, Michele, could explain to us just why that should be.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to answer (you never have so far) – maybe it’s because you can’t because there is no ‘reason’ other than blind hatred for gays, aided and abetted by (some) churches.
Speak to us of the “freedom of religion” that is denied to those faiths that do (or at least WOULD) marry us.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 8, 2008 at 10:05 am


ajarizona,
Just re-type your post and substitute the word “gays” with “inter-racial couples” and you may understand just how bigotted and empty your ‘argument’ is.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted November 8, 2008 at 10:09 am


“And most marriages were between “relative equals” because those arranging the marriage had not only the best in mind for the parties of the marriage, but also the best for the families.”
And the best for the families was marrying off the daughter to obtain a dowry and so that the woman–who had no financial power or legal voice–would have someone to take care of her. Because women couldn’t even inherit property, women needed to be married off to a man so property could be passed on. Of course, the woman–the unequal–would never have access to the property.
Up until about the 18th Century, marriage was primarily a business deal meant to take care of women, who were largely the property of their families and then husbands.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted November 8, 2008 at 10:16 am


Your Name, I can easily point to inter-racial couples in Scripture, will you please point to a gay couple in Scripture (or history) that is called “marriage”?
Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman. In many cultures, inter-racial marriage has been very much accepted.
“gay marriage” has never (historically) been accepted or recognized.
Mildred Loving married a man (which falls into the historical definition and understanding of “marriage”).
Moses married outside of his race. Boaz (a Jew) married Ruth (a Moabite) and became ancestors of Christ.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted November 8, 2008 at 10:28 am


Michael, you should read David Instone-Brewer.



report abuse
 

RJohnson

posted November 8, 2008 at 10:28 am


“Your Name, I can easily point to inter-racial couples in Scripture, will you please point to a gay couple in Scripture (or history) that is called “marriage”?”
Yes, MzEllen, but that did not stop many of our state governments from making interracial marriages illegal. In fact, if the Lovings in Virginia had followed Michele’s recommendation and waited for the people to decide that interracial marriages were OK, they might yet be waiting to marry. For years Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian school, based their policy against interracial dating on what they saw as a Scriptural mandate for separation of the races.
And if we wish to use Scriptural accounts as models for marriage, what of polygamy? David had a number of wives prior to becoming king, and once he became king he inherited all of Saul’s wives and continued collecting more. Likewise Solomon inherited the wives of his father, David, and continued to add to that group. And in both cases there were concubines almost as numerous as the wives.
So when you and others appeal to Scripture for the model of a Godly marriage, which model are you choosing?



report abuse
 

Pride

posted November 8, 2008 at 11:12 am


For millenia, the Bible has been used as a weapon against women, blacks, and gays, and we need to realize that we’re all in this together. We have all been persecuted, tortured, burned, and killed, all because of justifications found in the bible. And by the way, Michele, I would remind you of 1 Timothy 2:13–as a woman, you should remain silent. Your bible commands that of you.



report abuse
 

Diana

posted November 8, 2008 at 11:33 am


Wow! This just gets more frustrating. Marriage, if you really think about it, is fundamentally about the creation of new life. Just look at the way our bodies are made! We’ve gotten so far off base as to what marriage ultimately is for.



report abuse
 

Glo

posted November 8, 2008 at 12:01 pm


Some of you seem to be arguing that the people voting twice (prop. 22 & prop.8) in favor of Marriage between a man and a woman is not the will of the people. How do you figure that? It seems to me that it’s more direct than having some lawmaker or judge over rule my vote twice which is exactly what happened.
And please note that when the over ruling happened we christians didn’t take to the streets in protest, screaming ugly hate and spiting on the opposition. We quietly went about the business of taking the next legal step in the process.
Someone stated that the Church wasn’t going to be threatened and wouldn’t be required to marry a gay couple. That would only last until the first law suit came along. History tells us that we were headed down a slippery slope there. Gays aren’t happy with any type of exclusion and somebody has to pay when they are excluded.
And then there’s the argument that homosexuality won’t be taught to kindergartners. Well ask the parents in Mass. about that fact. Ask the father who was hauled off to jail because he wanted to be notified when the subject was going to be taught. He had no right to know that information.



report abuse
 

Stephen

posted November 8, 2008 at 12:05 pm


Please continue to do what God would have you do: Gain Wisdom and Understanding of what relationships are meant to be in regards to a man and a woman. We continue to allow others to discuss and agrue over God’s intent relationships between men and women.
God gave each person free will. He allows each of us to make choices each day however we are responsible for each choice. I wish those who are Gay quit blaming others for their choice of lifesytle. And be responsible and live their lives as a Gay person understanding that their choice is not accepted among the society inwhich they live. Why is it so hard to acceptable responsiblity for our choices?



report abuse
 

My Name

posted November 8, 2008 at 12:18 pm


Why do homosexuals need society to “legitimize” their unions? they CHOSE their “Alternative” lifestyle, it should not be called by a “traditional” name called marriage. Why deny nature?
Even the basic elements of life support differences. If you take one Proton and one Electron you get Hydrogen. If you put two protons together (first, they’ll be unstable) but, if it were possible, you would have helium. Or, if you put to electrons together, you’d just have a few loose radicals. From the animal kingdom…two of those really big cats might both be felines, but one is a Lion and one is Tiger.
Celebrate your difference. Putting two men together or two women together does not, and should not constitute “marriage,” which by tradition mandates a female component and a male component. Any other “alternative” deserves an “alternative” title.
Quit ramming down our throats, your liberal agendist propaganda that somehow your civil rights are being trampled on because they are not. You have every right to do what you want. The voters FOR prop 8 simply defined what marriage is, if you want specific type of social contractual union between you and your partner, start a new tradition, don’t steal ours! Live within the law!



report abuse
 

Popsiclestand

posted November 8, 2008 at 12:28 pm


“Appealing to the founding fathers is ludicrous (as some on the left have done) because if they knew that this was going to be an issue, they would have been explicit in stating that marriage was between a man and woman. They would never have thought otherwise.”
Wow, you can read the minds of dead people? That’s pretty awesome. You’re really in the wrong business.



report abuse
 

RJohnson

posted November 8, 2008 at 12:30 pm


“Wow! This just gets more frustrating. Marriage, if you really think about it, is fundamentally about the creation of new life.”
Actually, Diana, the first marriage was about much more than that. God states as much in Genesis 2:18 {Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is like him.”}
God recognized that marriage is fundamentally about companionship. Mere breeding could be accomplished as with any other animal of the field. God could well have made us so that women went into season periodically, and whatever man was close to her at the time would be the father of the child. Yet he chose to create in us a desire for companionship, partnership and love that goes FAR beyond the desire to reproduce.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted November 8, 2008 at 12:52 pm


Actually R, God made a helper who was suitable for Adam, not “like him”. He didn’t make another man, He made “woman”.
what of polygamy?
I have personally known a (meat space) plural marriage. If it is done without selfishness, I don’t have a problem with it.



report abuse
 

Dan

posted November 8, 2008 at 12:59 pm


That’s because this issue fundamentally does NOT affect their lives – their only interest in it, is in keeping gay people as second class citizens, but in the end they still have the same rights and benefits no matter what happens to gays.
Even if you extend Christian arguments to how their church organizations would have to provide services to gays, it still boils down to Christians wanting to live in a completely gay-free bubble.
It is gay people whose relationships are being voted on by the majority – whose relationships to their own children are being called into question, and whose rights are being denied by the majority. Christians and gays do not have an equal share in the outcome of these races – it impacts gays tremendously – it is merely inconsiderate, or meanspirited that Christians should be involved in this issue at all, as it honestly has no direct impact on their lives – except of course that they would have to live in a world where gay people exist. Well, we do exist and will continue to exist no matter what laws you pass. And when you pass laws that disrespect and harm the most important relationship in our lives we will march and march loudly – and work to pass laws any way we can, in the courts, at the ballot, through the legislature to protect our civil rights.



report abuse
 

tarmac

posted November 8, 2008 at 1:00 pm


“What the gays experience is piddling compared to what the blacks went through and the blacks know it. Who would want their movement co-opted by those who haven’t endured the same struggle?”
I don’t understand this line of argument. “We blacks suffered more than you gays, so discrimination against you is okay.” There’s a threshold of suffering now that must be reached before a group is given equal rights? What an absurd point.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted November 8, 2008 at 1:06 pm


“Um…it appears that ar was way too optimistic …”
well, yes. i was way too optimistic. that’s my weakness. i guess we have a couple of years to work through these issues. like i said before, freedom doesn’t come fast and it doesn’t come easy. so it is with gays having the freedom to marry.



report abuse
 

Glo

posted November 8, 2008 at 1:10 pm


RJohnson states
“Actually, Diana, the first marriage was about much more than that. God states as much in Genesis 2:18 {Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is like him.”}”
Well RJohnson, God formed a woman from Adam’s rib and Adam named HER woman. He didn’t name her man.
“Yet he chose to create in us a desire for companionship, partnership and love that goes FAR beyond the desire to reproduce.” All of the things you listed are a bonus that comes with procreation. How does this world continue to be if your list was God’s main purpose for creating us? God made our bodies for the purpose of procreating.



report abuse
 

Anon281

posted November 8, 2008 at 2:29 pm


As a mormon, married to a wonderful man who decided to turn away from a gay life, I feel very deeply about this issue, and face it intimately all the time. I admire my husband thoroughly, as he has chosen a traditional arrangement, and gives it his all everyday of his life. We know full well this isn’t what many would want; but for us, he brings so much to our family’s life because of everything he is and was and will be. There isn’t anything about him I would change, because we’ve come to believe that attached to any same-sex attraction dna (or whatever), are some great gifts and challenges that are worth the struggle. Please know, that plenty of us mormons feel only love and admiration for our gay brothers and sisters–we know they are our equals in God’s eyes; we know they contribute greatly to the beauty and vitality and wonder of this world–but we treasure deeply the traditional marriage. I do not know a Mormon (and I know 1000s) that feels hate towards a particular group, LGBT included. There are misunderstandings, yes! But with time and wisdom and mutual respect, those will be overcome. Meanwhile, my prayers go out for both sides.



report abuse
 

Steve

posted November 8, 2008 at 2:29 pm


Prop 8 did NOT pass because Christians want to take away gay people’s rights! It passed because Christians want to protect their own rights to practice and preach their religious beliefs. And gays did not vote against prop 8 to take away religious rights either, they did so to protect their own rights and self interests. The problems is that either way, it WILL affect the rights of the other side.



report abuse
 

Anon281

posted November 8, 2008 at 2:33 pm


As a mormon, married to a wonderful man who decided to turn away from a gay life, I feel very deeply about this issue, and face it intimately all the time. I admire my husband thoroughly, as he has chosen a traditional arrangement, and gives it his all everyday of his life. We know full well this isn’t what many would want; but for us, he brings so much to our family’s life because of everything he is and was and will be. There isn’t anything about him I would change, because we’ve come to believe that attached to any same-sex attraction dna (or whatever), are some great gifts and challenges that are worth the struggle. Please know, that plenty of us mormons feel only love and admiration for our gay brothers and sisters–we know they are our equals in God’s eyes; we know they contribute greatly to the beauty and vitality and wonder of this world–but we treasure deeply the traditional marriage. I do not know a Mormon (and I know 1000s) that feels hate towards a particular group, LGBT included. There are misunderstandings, yes! But with time and wisdom and mutual respect, those will be overcome. Meanwhile, my prayers go out for both sides.



report abuse
 

Rathje

posted November 8, 2008 at 2:47 pm


I’ve been reading various gay blogger reactions to the passage of Prop 8 and I have to say that any delusions I had of gays being – on the whole – more civil and open-minded than “red America” have been ruthlessly toppled.
Really, I sometimes feel like I’m listening in on a neo-Nazi forum.
One gay blogger declared that it should be “open-season on Mormons” and boasted that the next pair of Mormon missionaries who showed up on his door would be physically assaulted. Another talked about wanting to beat up a Mormon. Others have called for harassment of local Mormons and vandalism of Mormon churches. Then of course the widespread calls to revoke the LDS Church’s tax exempt status. I’ve seen a lot of this on the internet.
Honestly, I was opposed to Prop 8 and sympathetic to gay rights in general. But this has certainly put a damper on my warm feelings.



report abuse
 

John

posted November 8, 2008 at 3:03 pm


I’m not in favor of protesting any church and I’m really against calling people derogatory names that are based upon who or what they are.
However, I strongly disagree with a system where fundamental rights are decided by a majority of the voting public. How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot and gays were voting on whether your “traditional marriage” was legal or not and the majority voted that it wasn’t? Wouldn’t you being the least bit angry and asking “What gives them the right to make a judgement on me and my relationships and whether it’s legitimate or not?!” This isn’t a tax issue or a public works project you’re talking about here. Your messing around with people’s lives! You might keep that in mind the next time your asked to vote on an issue like this.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted November 8, 2008 at 3:16 pm


John, there is no Consitutional right to marry.
This is not a matter of gays being able to legally marry since the beginning of history and suddenly being told they cannot. What they are asking for is not “acceptance”, it’s “normalcy”. And what they are asking to be made “normal” is an inherently unhealthy lifestyle.
it is merely inconsiderate, or meanspirited that Christians should be involved in this issue at all, as it honestly has no direct impact on their lives
Wrong. There is a great deal of potential impact (no, make that either probable or certain impact). The GLTI community has no interest in protecting anybody else on their journey toward “normalcy”.
Christians will be targetted if they choose not to help celebrate the gay lifestyle – that is already happening.
I know a man who works for a company that is working on a policy that would require all employees to sign an agreement that they will be “open and affirming toward all lifestle choices” – on or off the job. If he chooses not to attend a gay wedding but has attended a straight wedding in the past, the homosexual may file a complaint to HR and the way it generally works, the employee complained about gets fired, rather than have the company risk a lawsuit.
A Christian photographer has been successfully sued for declining to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony.
Christian fertility doctors have been sued for helping a lesbian couple find a different doctor who would artificially inseminate one of them.
A first grade class went on a field trip to watch their lesbian teacher get married.
Does this sound like “it honestly has no direct impact on their lives”?
No, and the gay community will plan to have more “direct impact”.



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted November 8, 2008 at 4:04 pm


The only true hope conservatives have is to keep the liberal factions separate and fighting. Once these factions recognize and own that what is good for one is good for the other, there will always be opposition to both. When minorities begin to accept their mutual need, and start to grow in respect for each other, then the liberal dream, hope, and wish would be realized that our rights under the Constitution would be for everyone, blindly and without reservation, qualification, or equivocation. But the ancient ploy of divide and, well maybe not conquer, but at least confuse and obscure will continue to hold sway.



report abuse
 

A few points:

posted November 8, 2008 at 4:31 pm


Violence of any kind–or the threat of it–is despicable. Just like all heterosexuals can’t be tossed into the bunch with those who would physically attack or threaten gay people, please don’t put all gay-supportive folks in the bunch with those threatening to assault Mormons (or blacks, or anyone, for that matter). The verbal slurs have gotten way out of hand–I’ve gone head-to head with quite a few people who have been way out of line. The majority of gay people don’t agree with those who would say such things, but unfortunately, there’s too much idiocy floating around the web these days for us to call all of these folks out and shut them down. Protesting is one thing. Name-calling and threatening is not acceptable.
As far as government being able to set limits on marriage goes: Google “Loving v. Virginia” and read up on it. “Whites and blacks may be able to marry in other states, but they sure won’t be doing it here!” Sound familiar? That’s how the Virginian government set limits on marriage in order to “protect traditional marriage.” It took the “activist judges” in the Supreme Court to assure that if you happened to fall in love with someone of another race, you could legally marry.
A vote by the majority should never determine the civil rights of a minority. If that were the case, interracial marriage would have remained illegal some 40 years ago. If it had been put to a majority vote, it would never have passed. It’s also worth mentioning that at the time, many people used religion to support their views against interracial marriage, as well. (And I’m sure the same arguments were put forward by anti-marriage folks back then, too… “If a black man can marry a white woman, then what next? I can marry my dog? A man can marry three women?” Now, as then, the discussion wasn’t even about marrying animals or multiple people. It’s still about the ability to marry the one person you love.)
As far as all of the “Good Christians will be forced to celebrate the gay lifestyle” nonsense goes… Legally, good Christians won’t be forced to “celebrate” anything any more than people who don’t care for racial minorities are now legally forced to “celebrate” fellow black, Hispanic, Asian (etc.) Americans. Laws were put in place to protect racial minorities, just like laws are currently being put into place to protect sexual minorities. You can teach your children whatever you like about gays. I’ve come across lots of people who do exactly that in regards to racial minorities. While I don’t agree with their views, it is their right. In the end, what you, like them, will be required to do, legally, is be respectful and tolerant.



report abuse
 

John

posted November 8, 2008 at 4:37 pm


Sorry MzEllen, but whether it’s a constitutional right or not, it’s still demeaning to have an your personal life voted on by strangers.
Also, as far as “And what they are asking to be made “normal” is an inherently unhealthy lifestyle.”
I would suggest you read more medical journals and less propoganda put out by Religious Right organizations and their discredited “researchers”.
Lastly, gays and their families are “directly impacted” by the “heterosexual lifestyle” everyday through the media, workplace, classroom, etc. So, that argument carries little weight with us.
***Sorry for the multi-posted comments. Having computer problems.***



report abuse
 

More like website problems...

posted November 8, 2008 at 4:45 pm


Whenever I post, I get an “internal error message” from the web site—then it posts multiple times.



report abuse
 

Glo

posted November 8, 2008 at 4:54 pm


“While I don’t agree with their views, it is their right. In the end, what you, like them, will be required to do, legally, is be respectful and tolerant.” I believe I am respectful and tolerant of the gay lifestyle. I love the sinner but hate the sin. I know gay people and I have always treated them with love and respect as that’s how they’ve treated me.
But I don’t want their gay lifestyle being pushed on my 5 yr. old granddaughter in school. I certainly wouldn’t want that teaching left up to some teacher who doesn’t have my granddaughter’s best interest at heart.
I agree with the poster above. What the other side wants is not acceptance. They want their lifestyle to be viewed as normal.



report abuse
 

Ben

posted November 8, 2008 at 5:01 pm


“A vote by the majority should never determine the civil rights of a minority.”
That is crazy talk.
Democracy come from “Greek and means ‘rule by the people’. Since the people are rarely unanimous, democracy as a descriptive term is synonymous with majority rule.”
You can look it up in the dictionary. Democracy is majority rule.
Rule by the minority is more along the lines of a tyranny.
Democracy by this true definition is not perfect, but is necessary for it to function. I’m sure that the Founding Fathers figured that the voice of the people would, for the most part, be that which is right and true.
When we vote and the majority wins (which it always should), by virtue of having accepted to be citizens of the United States and by virtue of the Constitution, we agree to accept and SUSTAIN that as the law of the land, irregardless of what our personal opinion of the matter is. That doesn’t mean we can’t use peaceful means to have our voice heard. But it MUST be peaceful means. Anything else will lead to tyranny or anarchy.
Rule by the minority is destructive. This is what we are letting happen and it will be the downfall of our nation.



report abuse
 

John

posted November 8, 2008 at 5:02 pm


To Glo – “What the other side wants is not acceptance. They want their lifestyle to be viewed as normal.”
Isn’t being viewed as “normal” part of acceptance? Being different doesn’t mean you’re abnormal. Catholics are different from Budhists, but neither are abnormal. Please think about that for a minute.



report abuse
 

Robert Little

posted November 8, 2008 at 5:21 pm


C’mon, people! We gays are angry… and we have a RIGHT to be! Give us some space to vent our feelings– after all, if your right to be married were taken away, how would YOU feel? Remember, we were provocated–this anger was generated by bigoted groups who vilified us. Walk even a few steps in our shoes and attempt to understand!
Ask ANY gay person–when they have calmed down–and they will readily agree that not ALL blacks were against them, nor even all mormons. We recoginize this, since our own gay community is made up of all KINDS of people.
I’ve been quoted in the Associated Press and also on NPR about how my mormon family donated $30,000 to Yes on 8, and also how my father helped build the Los Angeles mormon temple.
Yes, I’m extremely angry with them. But I, and easily 99% of gays, recognize the great diversity that voted for–and against–Proposition 8. We’re just angry as hell… let us vent. We’re STILL VERY grateful to all our straight allies!



report abuse
 

And forty years from now...

posted November 8, 2008 at 6:04 pm


“Rule by the minority is destructive. This is what we are letting happen and it will be the downfall of our nation.”
“…I don’t want their […] lifestyle being pushed on my 5 yr. old granddaughter in school.”
I’m sure that’s what the people in Virginia who supported laws against interracial marriage thought, too. “It will be the downfall of our society.” “I don’t want my child thinking this abnormal behavior is ok…”
We see how history looks back on them now–as uninformed, as ignorant, and at worst–as bigots. Think about how people will see this issue, years down the road.
Unfortunately, history repeats itself. But fortunately for those of us who support equal rights for all people–history repeats itself.



report abuse
 

Glo

posted November 8, 2008 at 6:32 pm


I’m sorry but I view interracial marriage differently than gay marriage. I know you don’t but I do. You have the right to vent and you even have the right to protest, call people names, etc. But you also have to pay the consequences for what comes from those actions.



report abuse
 

Larry Parker

posted November 8, 2008 at 8:03 pm


Ben:
Did you take the Sarah Palin course in civics?
Athenian democracy descended into mob rule because it included no protection for minorities.
The Bill of Rights makes the U.S. a REPUBLIC — rule by majority but with specific protections for minorities. (And mechanisms to put more in, thankfully, given that blacks and women were excluded in the original Constitution.)
Ironic that Democrats support the small “r” republican view and Republicans support the small “d” democratic view on Prop 8.



report abuse
 

RJohnson

posted November 8, 2008 at 8:23 pm


Glo: “I’m sorry but I view interracial marriage differently than gay marriage. I know you don’t but I do.”
Could you elaborate on this? What differences do you see (other than the obvious)? I take it from your post that you agree with the Loving decision that overturned state laws barring interracial marriages. If so, why do you feel differently concerning same-sex marriage?



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted November 8, 2008 at 9:45 pm


I would suggest you read more medical journals and less propoganda put out by Religious Right organizations and their discredited “researchers”.
Yes…because the New England Journal of Medicine and the CDC (writing the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report) Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, and Archives of Sexual Behavior are so right wing and biased.
Go ahead and discredit the CDC and New England Journal of Medicine and their “discredited” researchers.



report abuse
 

Glo

posted November 8, 2008 at 10:01 pm


R.
I am a christian and believe God created us to procreate and bring more followers to Him. Interracial marriage will still allow for procreation, same sex unions do not.
Gays are sinners created by God just as I’m a sinner created by God. He loves us all regardless of our sins and we are called to love all of God’s creations. Don’t get me wrong. I believe gays should be able to have civil unions and all the rights that come with said unions. But I don’t view marriage as a civil right, I view it as a sacred right that has been blessed by God.



report abuse
 

John

posted November 8, 2008 at 11:33 pm


Actually MzEllen, I was referring to Paul Cameron, whose “junk science and research” has been discredited by every major medical, psychological, and sociological organization. The Religious Right loves to quote him, because his “facts” support their viewpoints. Another good one for “cherry picking” statistics is James Dobson. There are several researchers whose research he’s quoted that have demanded he stop using their findings in his propaganda because he’s skewered their work to suit his biases.
However, if you’d like to cite the links to the CDC and New England Journal of Medicine articles you mentioned I’d be glad to read them.



report abuse
 

RJohnson

posted November 9, 2008 at 12:21 am


Glo: “Don’t get me wrong. I believe gays should be able to have civil unions and all the rights that come with said unions.”
Then our positions may be closer than I originally thought. I support this concept for ALL couples, at least with respect to the government. Civil unions should be what government offers to either heterosexual or homosexual couples. This civil union would confer on the couple all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that are now conferred by marriage to heterosexual couples. However, as the term “marriage” carries a strong religious connotation these unions would be called just that, civil unions.
Those couples wishing to have their civil unions blessed by their religious leaders could get such blessing as they wish. This would be called marriage, partnering, or whatever the couple wished to call it. For those Christians who believe that their marriage must be blessed by God, they could do their traditional marriage ceremony, sign their civil union certificate at the courthouse, and go on with their lives just as their parents, grandparents and great grandparents have done.
And yes, this means that there would indeed be some who chose to have the religious ceremony (marriage) without the government recognition (civil union). These couples, just like same sex couples now, would have to find other ways to obtain the legal protection offered by civil unions (although why they would do this in this scenario makes no sense to me).
So…civil unions for all, marriage for those religions who wish to grant it. Simple solution. Those churches who did not wish to grant marriage to same sex couples would not need to do so as it carried no legal weight.
Simple…no?



report abuse
 

Moonshadow

posted November 9, 2008 at 12:31 am


From a comment on this blog post:
“I watched the adoption unit of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts be shut down by this law, because homosexual couples wanted to force Catholic Charities to place children with them as adoptive families.
“Massachusetts lost its most productive, successful adoption agency. Catholic Charities was the first adoption agency in Mass. and ran with great success for over 100 years, and now it is gone, because of a redefinition of marriage. Prop 8 was to protect religious liberty and families, not to take away homosexuals’ rights, which are already protected.”
Is this what’s going on?



report abuse
 

Scott R.

posted November 9, 2008 at 12:52 am


Gays are sinners created by God just as I’m a sinner created by God.
I’m not a sinner, I’m a person.
I’m also not gay – but that doesn’t mean I don’t support same-sex marriage 100%
For 1,500 years, the church legally abused, tortured and murdered Jews because they believed their scriptures said it was OK. They turned their back on the Jews, or actively abetted , the Holocaust.
Why would anyone look to the church to define morality for anyone or anything?



report abuse
 

C

posted November 9, 2008 at 8:27 am


I am a person and sinner saved by the blood of Christ. I am a married-heterosexual african american women. Our society now has been tolerate to sexual immorality of all sorts. Being fruitfull and multiplying does not just mean the Gospel but also w/childbearing. It amazes me how people try to compare being “african amercian” to being gay. I have to say it’s more of an insult that needs to stop. If two gay people want to be together so be it. But when marriage is brought up, I think the line has to be drawn somewhere and where is that line? God loves the person but hates the sin. Civilization will continue to be diluted because of what one feels is right. However, with this being said we are to love one another regardless of what we think. We are all sinners and just as Jesus did. I will not give an opinion unless asked. The name calling and the hatred has to stop. I’m a beautiful african american educated woman, mother, wife, daughter, sister, and friend. And I would hate to be called a name because of a people as a whole. This has nothing to do with Obama so it should not be blamed on him. It has to do w/this non civilized world in which we live in w/no guidelines to the choice of “free will” that we have. If you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything. Our children, children’s children etc. have absolutely nothing to look forward to. Because of what the world’s view- what’s wrong is right and what’s right is wrong.



report abuse
 

Glo

posted November 9, 2008 at 11:18 am


R.,
I guess civil unions for all would be an interesting approach to solving the problem. However I really don’t think that’s what the gays are looking for in their heart of hearts. I think they want me to admit that their lifestyle is as normal as mine. 2% of the population is not the norm.
Scott,
“I’m not a sinner, I’m a person.” Unless your name is Jesus Christ and you’re the son of God, you’re a sinner. We have all sinned.
“that doesn’t mean I don’t support same-sex marriage 100%” Great but I don’t.
“Why would anyone look to the church to define morality for anyone or anything?” And they were sinners too. I don’t look to the church, I look to the Bible to define morality.



report abuse
 

Dave

posted November 9, 2008 at 12:08 pm


I think it’s perfectly legitimate for gays and their allies to boycott/protest any organization or person who had a role in passing proposition 8. It’s hate distilled into law. And, like it or not, the Black community is one of those groups. It’s actually offensive to hear African-Americans talk about how the election of Obama turned a page on the hateful divisions of the past when they — as a group — voted 70% for this proposition.



report abuse
 

Scott R.

posted November 9, 2008 at 12:44 pm


“I’m not a sinner, I’m a person.” Unless your name is Jesus Christ and you’re the son of God, you’re a sinner. We have all sinned.
Great. That’s nice. I’m a Jew and YOUR religion’s tenets don’t apply to me. You can not make it so by saying differently, either. I may have sinned, but that does not define me as a person. If you want to live that way, go ahead.
“that doesn’t mean I don’t support same-sex marriage 100%” Great but I don’t.
Then don’t marry someone of the same sex. Isn’t that simple?
“Why would anyone look to the church to define morality for anyone or anything?” And they were sinners too. I don’t look to the church, I look to the Bible to define morality.
Unfortunately the church is supposed to be the representative of your god on this earth. Perhaps if it had done something differently 70 years ago tonight (look it up), I would have a different interpretation of its morality.
We can always rest assured that when a social issue comes up, the church will be decades behind in dealing with it.



report abuse
 

Glo

posted November 9, 2008 at 3:37 pm


Scott,
The church on earth is there to worship God. Thats why it’s called a “place of Worship”. The church is full of human beings that are not perfect but strive to be by the time we see God. One thing my pastor preaches is forgiveness (just as God has forgiven us) towards people who have wronged us in the past. Until we do that, we will not find true happiness. Why are you continuing to carry so much hate for “the church” because one man and his crazy followers claimed to be christians. Hitler didn’t represent “the church”. He was a person full of hate and I don’t condone what he did. Why am I and other christians having to carry the burden for his sins?



report abuse
 

tarmac

posted November 9, 2008 at 6:45 pm


Ben, that is ridiculous.
The reason equal rights for African-Americans and women took so long is because the voting majority was dictating the rights of a minority. It has absolutely never worked to leave civil rights up to a voting majority — of course the majority is going to put itself before the minority!
Being in the majority is not the same as being right.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 9, 2008 at 6:47 pm


Glo said: “I am a christian and believe God created us to procreate and bring more followers to Him. Interracial marriage will still allow for procreation, same sex unions do not.”
If that’s what’s required for a true “marriage,” that would invalidate a heck of a lot of heterosexual marriages involving people who–for medical or other reasons–cannot or chose not to have children.
What’s the time limit we should put on heterosexual partners that they shall have had children or have their marriage anulled? A year? Nine months? Better get to cracking, folks–and if you’re infertile, hope you enjoy being single, ‘cuz no marriage license for you! God obviously made you unfit to be wed–just like the gays!
There is so much energy put into various myths and arguments about why all people shouldn’t be given basic protections for the relationship with the person they choose to spend their lives with. Basic, simple protections:
If I drop dead tomorrow, I’d like my posessions to go to my spouse without having to pay tons of money in legal fees in order to draw up a will.
I’d like my savings to go to my spouse without them having to pay taxes on them–again–when I have already paid taxes on them.
If I end up in the hospital, I’d like my spouse to be allowed in to see me, and vice versa. We’d like to avoid paying tons of money in legal fees to draw up a document stating that.
If I die, I’d like to know that my spouse can adopt and be the legal guardian of our kids. In states such as Florida and Arkansas, this is no longer possible.
I’d love to be able to be on my spouse’s health insurance policy. As it is, I am a writer and have no health insurance, while all of my partner’s co-workers enjoy coverage for their spouses (whether they plan to procreate or not, by the way). She’s been with her company for over ten years, and we’ve been together for almost as long, but that doesn’t make a difference since we’re not “married” in the eyes of the law.
Again, basic, simple protections that everyone would want for their relationships. I, for one, don’t care if it’s called a civil union, a marriage, a domestic partnership, or a supercalifragilisticexpialidocious… It’s just really unnerving, if you can’t afford the legal fees, to not be able to protect your family. I think everyone can understand that basic desire.



report abuse
 

Scott R.

posted November 9, 2008 at 7:05 pm


Why are you continuing to carry so much hate for “the church” because one man and his crazy followers claimed to be christians.
I don’t know – maybe because my family is still dead?
And “claimed”? They were Christians. They went to church and worship and confessed their belief in JC. And then…see below
Why am I and other christians having to carry the burden for his sins?
Why did we have to carry the guilt for having killed your god for so long? Why do some of you still hold us responsible?
My point is that, if gay people are going to look to the church for help in obtaining their civil liberties, they’re going to be waiting for a long, long time.



report abuse
 

Glo

posted November 9, 2008 at 10:20 pm


“My point is that, if gay people are going to look to the church for help in obtaining their civil liberties, they’re going to be waiting for a long, long time.” I don’t see where the church is responsible for gays obtaining their civil liberties. There are other ways to obtain liberties that don’t include marriage, no?
“I don’t know – maybe because my family is still dead?” But I didn’t kill them and nobody I know killed them. I’m sorry for what Hitler did and I guess you’ll continue to hate all christians because of him. I’l pray that you find peace somehow in your lifetime but that’s all I can do for you.



report abuse
 

Ben

posted November 10, 2008 at 2:13 am


“A vote by the majority should never determine the civil rights of a minority.”
That is crazy talk.
Democracy come from “Greek and means ‘rule by the people’. Since the people are rarely unanimous, democracy as a descriptive term is synonymous with majority rule
You can look it up in the dictionary. Democracy is majority rule.
Rule by the minority is more along the lines of a tyranny.
Democracy by this true definition is not perfect, but is necessary for it to function. I’m sure that the Founding Fathers figured that the voice of the people would, for the most part, be that which is right and true.
When we vote and the majority wins (which it always should), by virtue of having accepted to be citizens of the United States and by virtue of the Constitution, we agree to accept and SUSTAIN that as the law of the land, irregardless of what our personal opinion of the matter is. That doesn’t mean we can’t use peaceful means to have our voice heard. But it MUST be peaceful means. Anything else will lead to tyranny or anarchy.
Rule by the minority is destructive. This is what we are letting happen and it will be the downfall of our nation.



report abuse
 

Back then, it took the National Guard to put the "majority" in their place

posted November 10, 2008 at 10:22 am


Hey Ben,
“I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
Your tyranny, the majority has the right to keep minorities in their place talk sounds eerily familiar. George Wallace, anyone?



report abuse
 

Echoes of past discrimination...

posted November 11, 2008 at 9:14 am


Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger:
“They had a very, very strong campaign, the pro-Proposition 8 people, and I think that the people that tried to defeat it did not have, maybe, as good a campaign or had as much money behind it, whatever. I think it is unfortunate, obviously, but it’s not the end, because I think this will go back into the courts, this will go back to the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court very clearly in California has declared this unconstitutional.
It’s the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category. So, I think that we will again, you know, maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area. …
Because of the big turnout amongst African-Americans and Latinos, that had an effect also, which they did not expect, so there’s all kinds of other things there. And I think the religious groups have done a really big campaign, a lot of them, to support Proposition 8, and so on, and so it’s a very, very difficult thing. …
(Y)ou should never ever give up. … They (gays) should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done.”



report abuse
 

A SF BAY AREA Californian Black Transman

posted November 16, 2008 at 1:52 am


Have Gay People lost their GoTTDamned minds? The notion that black people, the smallest minority group in the U.S. caused proposition 8 to pass is ridiculous! I can tell you this, show up at a Black church talking that “crazy talk” and even the church mother’s will beat you down! If the majority of Black voters in California voted in favor of Proposition 8 so be it. There were even more White voters who voted for it. Are Gays trying to say that Black people have no right to vote? Instead of bashing the Black Man in a fight you will never win, it’s best to kiss some Black Booty and see what we can do to help you. Even as a minority, Black people out number Gay people. I can legally marry so I am all good. But if it comes to standing with my Black folks against hateful Gay people who are also “supposed to be apart of my community”… I stand with my Black brothers and will beat down anybody who wants to get crazy. You have Domestic Partnership anyway. Heterosexuals don’t qualify unless one is 65 or older. So relax and re-group and approach it another way. Or kiss my Able to marry a woman Tranny Black Arse!



report abuse
 

marcus74

posted November 17, 2008 at 5:01 pm


First off let me state I am a straight Black man. This whole issue is ludacris, gays should not compare themselves the struggle they have to blacks you can not compare 400 plus years of mental, physical and economic oppression to a choice of sexuality. Gentrification within California’s coastal citys is done by gays they are pushing blacks and hispanics out can you blame them for not voting to accept you? There is a cultural difference in the black community it is not sociably acceptable to be gay. Whites are fine with it apparently? I am saying that to say the choice you make in the bedroom is your own personal choice and you have the freedom to disclose or keep it to yourself. I wear the torture my ancestors and forefathers recieved everyday since I entered this world I cant hide my color, and its so odd the moment gays cant get thier way we are a bunch of Niggers cmon and most gay men act like black women!!! When gays start hanging from trees and being shipped by the millions in boats to a foriegn land and pulled away from thier familes and they lose all sense of hope and culture then we can be empathetic to the cause they have. But personaly what you do in your bedroom is between you and the person you make love to, I dont need to know about it nor do i care to.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Reformed Chicks Babbling. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Inspiration Report Happy Reading!!!

posted 3:05:14pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

One Final Word
My dear friend Michele slipped into eternity on Wednesday, February 1.   She was a remarkable woman who left a legacy of faith, determination, and love. For three years she courageously battled the ovarian cancer that eventually robbed her of her life.  A few days before she died, one of her docto

posted 8:43:41pm Feb. 10, 2012 | read full post »

The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated
My husband told me that there are rumors that I've died. I'm happy to report that I'm still very much alive. My cancer has gone to stage four but we are controlling it with chemo, the cancer numbers are currently in the normal range. I've stopped blogging to concentrate on my daughters and writing a

posted 7:07:55pm Aug. 23, 2010 | read full post »

An update and a prayer request
Several people have asked about Michele's condition, and have promised to pray for her. On her behalf, I thank you for that. I spoke with her a little while ago, and she asked that I come here and tell you what's going on, and to ask you to pray for her. She isn't able to post here herself right

posted 4:55:36pm Apr. 06, 2010 | read full post »

Rest in peace, Internet Monk.
A man known in the cyber world as The Internet Monk, has died. Michael Spencer lost his battle with cancer tonight. My prayers go out for his family and for all those who loved and will miss him. :(

posted 11:52:00pm Apr. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.