God Hates Civil Unions
Yesterday’s News Journal readers were treated to an editorial by The Rev. Rita Mishoe Paige and The Rev. Christopher A. Bullock in opposition to civil unions in Delaware. Why don’t we take a look to see if Rev. Paige and Rev. Bullock have found some convincing arguments. (Can I get a The in my title? From now on I’m The Unstable Isotope)
1. S.B. 30 is morally wrong and biblically incorrect. We believe in the original or traditional family structure of a husband, wife and children. This bill destroys the sanctity of marriage. In our opinion, God’s design for marriage is between one man and one woman only.
I believe they are called civil unions for a reason. Why should Rev. Paige’s and Bullock’s religion determine other people’s lives? Paige and Bullock are free to not marry same sex couples. Why do they think their religion should control what is recognized by the state?
OK, that didn’t go so well. What else do they have?
2. We are sending the wrong message to our young people. We are saying to them that it’s OK for two people of the same sex to fall in love with each other. However, these two people cannot biologically produce children together. Have you considered the negative impact on children whose parents enter into a civil union?
Have I considered the impact on the children that civil unions can’t produce supposedly? No, I can’t say that I have. Basically it’s a combination of marriage is for babieeesss and what about the children? arguments. YAWN.
We’re getting the same old arguments – tradition, Bible, babies. That’s all that’s left for the opponents of same sex marriage.
Tags: Civil Unions, Marriage Equality, Same Sex Marriage, SB30
I’m beginning to think that the only thing holding conservatives back from marrying a gay person is this law.
And the marriage is for procreation argument is something they truly believe, and will try to legislate further down the road. Wanna get married? Then you have to have babies. No babies = no marriage.
But I get why they’re so worried. They know that many people aren’t “married” in a church. Technically these are civil unions, but no one ever says they were civil unioned, or this is our 10th civil unioned anniversary. In everyday language civil unions are called marriages – even by conservatives. This is where the procreation fluff comes into play.
Social conservatives don’t want it legal. They like it on the down low. Forbidden fruit and all that.
I assume that true to their words, both Rev. Paige and Rev. Bullock will hereby swear (on their Bibles) to never conduct a wedding for a couple where the woman has gone through menopause, since it will clearly violate their perfect understanding of the word of God.
This is pretty rich, coming from these two pastors. With congregations filled with single parent families that they’ve certainly not demonized for not being a part of a “traditional family structure”.
Arent you glad ole Bullock didnt get elected. He is now anti abortion too. What a sad piece of crap Bullock is. Bullock is a right winger who doesnt abide by the word of God in his private life.
Just got a robo call from “Family Services council”…urging me to contact my state representatives to vote against same sex marriage. They said, “do you want your tax dollars going to teach young children its okay to be homosexual”. Do you believe our public schools should be teaching how to use a condom? Do you believe civil unions will lead to same sex marriage. The zealots are out in force today.
Hey, I got the same call! Smell the panic!
anon, i did too
I now support children AS YOUNG AS KINDERGARTEN being taught that they dont have a mommy and daddy, but “parent a” and “parent b”
The teabags are steepin today.
ben, why do you call yourself a socialist, I assume your being sarcastic with that handle.
Socialistic. … im kind-of a socialist. If I work harder at a more challenging job than someone else, I feel I deserve to make more money and do what I please with it….. after I donate my fair share to keeping my country and countrymen healthy and protected.
why dya ask? do i not pass muster with the Reds?
With that earlier comment i was referencing the wording of the question and mocking the homophobes who called me in the middle of the day when my minutes arent free.
As somebody who was an early supporter of Rev. Bullock I must chime in and say halleluja that he did not pursue the Democratic nomination to run against Mike Castle in 2008. Once he got outside his comfort zone, where he is loved and respected, he didn’t have the heart for it. Too bad, because the potential to be a wonderful civic leader is there. But he is much more comfortable in the religious leader role and thus he will, and should, remain there.
As such he is being consistent with his beliefs.
I agree with anon – conservatives want their manlove on the DL – but not because they are ashamed – it’s so they can get caught, cry in public, ask SkyDaddy for absolution, hate themselves even more (if that’s possible), and increase their pew-cred.
Sorta like when a hip-hop guy from the burbs gets busted for possessing a glock. It’s becoming a right of passage.
If had been elected in November, I would have voted for this bill. Unfortunately, the 5th Senatorial District did not have a voice in Dover when this bill came up for a vote last week. Someday, I hope to see full marriage equality become the law in Delaware.
I met Bullock at a Stonewall Dems event in 2008. Guess he was cruising on the DL. He seemed to be all for equality back then. Maybe Ted Haggard spurned him and now he’s out for revenge.
Chris,
Next year is coming and so is Senator Counihan! Ms. Cloutier is a lovely and charming person but she’s just not up to the job.