Over at Gay Patriot, a conservative blog that I, unfortunately,  sometimes frequent, the following was featured in a post that I took some offense too…

Here’s why–gay advocates want to undermine the traditional understanding of marriage as a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship and change it to include multiple partners, open relationships, and serial monogamy. They are not trying to be included in the tradition–they are trying to warp the tradition because they believe they are victimized by a cruel patriarchy who uses marriage as a tool of oppression. Attempting to justify their inclusion in an established tradition would be contrary to their desire to destroy that tradition. It’s that simple. Now you know why.

The idea that my marriage to my partner  was out of a desire to destroy traditional marriage forced me to respond…

Wow. Thanks for clearing that up. In the wake of marital bliss since the passage of Prop 8 I had forgotten the true motivation behind our marriage: to cheapen, denigrate and ultimately destroy the institution as revenge for years upon years of oppression. And that it had nothing to do with being head-over-heels in love with my partner with whom I’ve enjoyed a faithful 9-year relationship.

I’m sure that the 16 thousand same-sex couples who were married in California last year were similarly motivated, their desire to “warp” the institution of marriage central to their vows of matrimony.

While I encourage and welcome open discourse, featuring Asphenaz’s comment so prominently here, giving it an air of credibility, speaks volumes. And the labeling of those of who dissent as fascist seems de riguer for this site.

Please, don’t generalize and paint with broad strokes my reasons for supporting gay marriage, as I will not generalize that most visitors here are self-hating homosexuals, bent over and enjoying a reach-around by the social conservatives who drive the agenda for their party/movement.

What do you think? Is the gay community’s desire for inclusion in the institution of marriage a want to redefine it  to allow open relationhips with multiple partners? Doesn’t that happen in the straight community as well, and by that argument aren’t they redefining it already?

Marriage equality in Iowa? Folks, maybe it’s time give Iowa a try. I’m reminded of the clip from Music Man below…

I guess they are not so stubborn after all.

From the DesMoines Register…

Today’s decision makes Iowa the first Midwestern state, and the third in the country, to allow same-sex marriages. Lambda Legal, a gay rights group, financed the court battle and represented six couples who challenged Iowa’s 10-year-old ban on gay marriage.

Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady, who wrote the unanimous decision, at one point invoked the court’s first-ever decision, in 1839, which struck down slavery laws 17 years before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a slave owner to treat a person as property.

Iowa’s gay marriage ban “is unconstitutional, because the county has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage,” Cady wrote in the 69-page opinion that seemed to dismiss the concept of civil unions as an option for gay couples.

The ruling also addresses the religious concerns of those against gay marriage…

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them,” the opinion says.

The ruling explicitly does not affect “the freedom of a religious organization to define marriage it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman,” the justices stressed.

It’s a great day to be from I-o-wa!

New Pride 2009 music video celebrates the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots and the birth of gay pride…

Reminds me, in a good way, of this little diddy by Billy Joel.

A Washington Post editorial today comes out in favor of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which would allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign-born partners and provide a legal path to U.S. citizenship.

The strain of the status quo on gay and lesbian binational couples should not be discounted. Because their relationships are not legally recognized by the United States, some couples have resorted to illegal marriages where the foreign nationals marry Americans to get green cards that allow them to stay in the country permanently. In other cases, Americans have exiled themselves to be with their partners. Sixteen countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, South Africa and the United Kingdom, allow residents to sponsor same-sex permanent partners for legal immigration. American gays and lesbians should not have to choose between their country and their partners.

Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy who introduced the bill spoke recently on Vermont Public Radio…

For more on the UAFA…

– Immigration bill to unite gay binational couples with path to citizenship
– Urge judiciary committees to take action on gay immigration bill (UAFA)