MARILYN MUSGRAVE: THE QUEEN BIGOT

Here's a story on the Colorado Congresswoman who initiated the proposed gay marriage ban to the Constitution (which also bans any benefits at all for gay couples) in the New York Times. The article covers her hometown's various opinions regarding this woman's legacy. Here's the snip:

"'She's a vile, wicked, hateful woman,' said Holly de Saillan, an artist who makes ends meet working at Margie's Java Joint near the University of Northern Colorado campus. 'She's made her religious views an agenda for her politics.'

Other Greeley residents said Ms. Musgrave was fighting the good fight. Many said the issue was not at all about homosexuality — Greeley, with a population of 77,000, is not without its cultural diversity, and even has a gay bar, Big Daddy's, on the outskirts of town — but rather was about holding onto something valuable in the world that might otherwise unravel and slip away.

'This is one building block of society that's left,' Tom Torkildson, a mortgage broker getting a haircut at the Coronado, said of traditional heterosexual marriage. 'We've got to take a stand. In our society, everything else is coming apart.'

Others said they supported a ban on same-sex marriage out of a sense that a small minority was gaining too much power in society. Gay men and lesbians should be free to live as they choose, many said, but when they assert a right to full legal marriage, they overreach.

'What the gays want is ridiculous,' said Timothy Eugene Ramsey, a former rock-band bodyguard who now runs a downtown antique store called Collections by Gruff Pup. 'The idea that we should take the fringe of society and call it the norm is insane.'"

* * * *

It's very difficult for me to read ignorant, moronic, back country bullshit like the Tom Torklidson and Timothy Eugene Ramsey opinions. It would be easier to dismiss if these were not the people our President and most of the Republican party, which is in power of all branches of government right now, is pandering to.

How can people say this is not about homosexuality and equate gay marriage with society falling apart? Gays wanting equal rights is "overreaching"...why?

Say it.

Comments

[MD]

Boy, dont ask me how I wandered onto such a backwater site, but I am here.

So now it boils down to namecalling and slandering without making a reason? I think you give the people who fight for your rights a bad name, and should take this off of the web before you give conservatives too much fuel to munch on.

To enligthen you, what he was talking about of the "soceity falling apart" had to do with changing society on a broad scale due to an infentesimal amount of the population. To make his point more clear:

Marriage always has been, and currently is, and hopefully will forever remain, the union between a man and a woman. It appears NOWHERE, that marriage is between two people, but always, ALWAYS, it is between a man and a woman. Gays are asking, no, demanding, that the majority of the country bend to their will, and change their beliefs to include that marriage is now between not only a man and a woman, but also between homosexual couples. THAT is why it is overreaching.

Live together if you want, and please, fight for your rights. That is why it's America, you deserve rights to live. Gays deserve rights as does everybody else, but you cant sacrifice the rights of the majority to make the minority happy.

I ask you this: if gays were given all the rights of heterosexuals, but it was called Union, rather than Marriage, would they be happy? Some might, but others insist that Marriage alone can bring the "stability that is needed in a homosexual relationship." So with this group, the issue of equal rights is no longer the issue, it's just about what they want, and they want it now. Is it clear how they are pushing against society now? Do you understand why society pushes back? You can't expect to get your way simply because you want it. Just because you say it's right, doesn't make it so. (yeah, you've all used that phrase before against the conservatives too, funny isnt it?)

[rock city]

Quote: "Live together if you want, and please, fight for your rights. That is why it's America, you deserve rights to live. Gays deserve rights as does everybody else, but you cant sacrifice the rights of the majority to make the minority happy."

* * * *

How does including gay couples in the institution of marriage remove the rights of straight couples from the institution? You are arguing that the gay "demand" for equal marriage rights actually "sacrifices" the rights of heterosexuals. How? By changing the definition of marriage from being ONLY between a man and woman to INCLUDE same sex couples? It can still be between a man and a woman once gays are included can't it? Where's the sacrifice? Ah, but you will no longer be able to say ONLY between a man and a woman. I therefore argue that the perceived sacrifice for straights will be losing the institution as one of heterosexual privilege - a symptom of bigotry. Just as whites were (and many still are) in fear of losing racial privilege. So the pro-privilege heterosexuals are "pushing back." Okay. But think about why you are pushing so hard. What exactly are you so afraid of? You might not like the answer.

[A Gay Guy]

I'm not sure how I wandered here either but I read this discussion and feel the need as a 21 year old gay to respond to some of the things said here. While I wouldn't go around name-calling like previous posts did I would say that some of the arguments the original poster is trying to make are true. People like Musgrave play into more rural and uneducated people's prejudices. They have done this since the beginning of time. The Catholic church told catholics to burn science books of scientists who said the Earth evolved around the sun... People got burned at the stake in Massachusetts because people were convinced they were witches... Anyways let me respond to some ideas I found troubling here:

"To enligthen you, what he was talking about of the "soceity falling apart" had to do with changing society on a broad scale due to an infentesimal amount of the population. To make his point more clear:"

So, why does it matter that gays are a minority of the population. Any group can be broken down to a minority. We accomodate for people in wheelchairs and left-handed people. Lets remember it was civil rights activists who TRHOUGH THE COURTS struck down laws banning interracial marriage when an overwhelming segment of the population thought such marriages were immoral.

"Marriage always has been, and currently is, and hopefully will forever remain, the union between a man and a woman. It appears NOWHERE, that marriage is between two people, but always, ALWAYS, it is between a man and a woman. Gays are asking, no, demanding, that the majority of the country bend to their will, and change their beliefs to include that marriage is now between not only a man and a woman, but also between homosexual couples. THAT is why it is overreaching."

So what, until 40 years ago marriage had always been between different races in this country. Until 15 years ago we didn't have the internet. You seem to think society is unable to evolve and adapt to expand rights. For most of modern civilization women couldn't vote. Your argument is falacious because by your reasoning just because something is customary it is outrageous for a minority group to demand things be altered even if it is the right thing to do.

"Live together if you want, and please, fight for your rights. That is why it's America, you deserve rights to live. Gays deserve rights as does everybody else, but you cant sacrifice the rights of the majority to make the minority happy."

I don't see how gays getting married sacrifices the rights of the majority. You make it sound like it is a zero-sum game whereby if gays get married it somehow makes your marriage less valuable.

"I ask you this: if gays were given all the rights of heterosexuals, but it was called Union, rather than Marriage, would they be happy?"

I'm gay and yes.

"Some might, but others insist that Marriage alone can bring the "stability that is needed in a homosexual relationship." So with this group, the issue of equal rights is no longer the issue, it's just about what they want, and they want it now."

So what? With civil rights it was about what blacks wanted and they wanted them now. Does that somehow make it wrong?

"Is it clear how they are pushing against society now? Do you understand why society pushes back? You can't expect to get your way simply because you want it. Just because you say it's right, doesn't make it so. (yeah, you've all used that phrase before against the conservatives too, funny isnt it?)"

No, just because someone says something is right doesn't make it right. That goes for the majority AS WELL as the minority. Just because the majority says something is right doesn't make their point of view more right than the minority view. If that was the case then Slavery would have been legal for much longer and blacks probably would have never gotten the right to vote.

This is why we have courts... to protect the minority from the majority. It's a dangerous path you and Musgrave are taking us down, trying to circumvent the court system to restrict rights. It might work for you now when you're in the majority on an issue but you are setting a precedent that might come back to haunt you when you are in the minority - left handed, brown eyed, disabled, whatever. The only place you can take your minority rights to is the court but by then maybe the Republicans will have abolished our legal system and everything will be done by ballot initiatives or something horrible like that. Since by the sound of your post that seems like where you want to take this since you think gays are so in the minority viewpoint here.

[SeeGee]

Interesting argument that "marriage has always been between a man and a woman." John Boswell's extensive research into marriage traditions led to the discovery of an early church marriage ritual between two men that predates heterosexual marriage rituals by 300 years!

Interesting argument that allowing sexual minorities the privilege to marry would send the institution of marriage down the tubes. Current statistics show that the average heterosexual first marriage lasts only 8 years and only 5 years for the second one. 41 percent of all children are born out of wedlock in America. The divorce rate in 1996 was 24% for most Americans and 30% for evangelical Christians. Only 7% of all households represent the Ozzie and Harriet/ Hollywood daddy-brings-home-the-bacon-and-mommy-stays-at-home-baking-cookies fairytale. "The traditional nuclear family in America is dead." (Richard Quebedeaux) Mourn its loss, but don't blame it on the desires of same-gender, committed couples to claim the same blessings, rights, and privileges that come with marriage.

[Q]

Musgrave is a nightmare. She's a single-issue politician - being against marriage.

Bob Faust is challenging her in the GOP Primary:

http://www.faust4congress.com

[Mountainbelle]

I have a question or two for MD and everyone who holds the same oppinion of Gay Marriage- on the topic of the biblical definition marriage. Unlike MD, I am not afraid of what others have to say about my oppinion. I have listed my real email address and I welcome your comments.

So you say that the Bible STATES that a marriage is only between a man and a woman. This may be true. But is it not also true that two of the greatest men in the bible, whom God describes as two of his greatest servants (David and Solomon)had over 100 wives each? The law of this country states that polygamy is illegal and I'm sure most people you talk to will agree that it is immoral. So, what changed? Why was it ok for men of God to take hundreds of wives and even more mistresses and now society views it as wrong and immoral?

Paul clearly stated that women should not speak unless spoken to. Just as clearly as he stated that one should not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. How can you allow, even SUPPORT your wife when she speaks her mind, and not allow gays and lesbians the right to have their relationship recognized and to afford them the same rights you have? Can you not see the discrepancy in that? YOU CANNOT CHOOSE WHICH PARTS OF THE BIBLE YOU WILL ADHERE TO AND OTHERS YOU WILL IGNORE!! Unless you truly believe that God loves everyone, despite our lack of understanding his ways.

God works in strange ways. He loves Jew and Gentile, Black and White, Gay and Straight all the same. For we are all created equal in his eyes. It truly saddens me that christinas will use the bible as a tool of hatred instead of following the perfect example of Jesus and accepting everyone (even those GAYS - like Jesus did with the woman at the well and the eunic)

SeeGee makes a great point as well - If you allow gays to get married how will it make our current 'sanctity of marriage' any worse? When two loving responsible adult people make a decision to get married, how is that worse than when Britney Spears has a drunk/blonde moment and decides to get married for ONE DAY. You mean to tell me that marriage is the only sanctified institution left in this society, I want to know what society (and what planet) you're from.

There is no sense in trying to argue to change your minds. Bigots are the most impossible people to reason with. I can only pray that God will open your eyes and help you to realize that predjudice, especially in the name of God, is wrong.

[rock city]

Quote: "So now it boils down to namecalling and slandering without making a reason?"
* * * *

For the record, I've offered plenty of reasons for the namecalling and "slandering" in a number of posts on this blog analyzing the anti-gay marriage argument, and will offer plenty more. Please refer to the archives.

Anyone who, in the context of today's world problems, puts at the top of their political agenda writing into the Constitution of the United States of America the exclusion of a minority from a basic civil liberty is quite clearly a bigot. It is irrational and based on a severe emotional disdain for the minority. As a member of said minority, my responsibility is to call them out, and I will continue to do so.

[Doyal]

I wandered into this site because I was looking up stuff about the Wicked Witch of the West (Marilyn Musgrave). As far as I'm concerned that argument about gay marriage or gay rights has nothing to do with rights or marrige; it has to do with hate, bigotry and economics. Thought the arguments agains gays is all too often Biblically based, it's all too often couched in Old Testament citations which, when seen in context, make the entire argument hypocrisy--I doubt that many neo-cons avoid mixed weave clothing, I suspect that few fathers can prove their daughters are virgins at their marriage so as to avoid stoning, and farmers would be insane not to rotate crops. I don't know about the rest of the country's diet, but in Oklahoma we would have a hell of a time avoiding eating catfish which is an abomination according to Leviticus. And, the Old Testament doesn't use the word marriage anyway, but wives are considered chattel.

In the New Testament, the basis of christianity, uses the word marriage sparingly, and in the writings of Paul, he makes it clear that a married man cannot fully serve the Lord; Paul argues repeatedly that one should be single to properly serve the Lord. Of course the professed neocon fundamentalists overlook that kind of thing because it doesn't fit into their position.

Oh well, I still haven't found anything useful on Musgrave. Though I do wonder how a member of the Assembly of God Church can dye her hair and wear make up like the whore of Babylon and not be called up on it by her pastor.

[Timothy E. Ramsey]

Your site makes refrence to a conversation I once had with a supposed writer from the New York Times.The item totaly misquoted what I spoke with him about. The quotes were total B.S. I have nothing against gays,in fact I could care less.At the time of our talk I was speaking about what was happening with internal politics in Weld Co. Colo. not society as a whole. The author of the item was was trying to slander rural people and wrote what was convient for his agenda and not what was truly said.It is the great fortune of the U.S. citizenry that that crock of crap rag is going bankrupt because they have made a mockery of true journalists fo years and deserve the fate they have wrought.Anyone who listens to or reads and belives their lies and nonsence desrves to live in ignorance.Bigotry comes in many forms, one of which is P.C.commentary made up to fit what ever spiteful bill of goods the scumbags wish to spew!I woud hope that whoever reads your blog has enough sence to get all of the facts before the belive the nonsence your promelgating.

[celebrity movie archive]

Killer Queen. God save the Queen.