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?

California Rep. Jackie Speier has been successful in delaying Shirley Tan’s deportation, allowing the family to stay together for a least 2 more weeks. Speier asked immigration officials for the delay as to assemble additional facts about the case.

For more on Tan’s situation vist our previous post.

Thanks, Jackie… I am so glad you represent my district.

As reported earlier this week, Friday may be Shirley Tan’s last day in the United States, leaving behind her partner Jay Mercado and her twin sons as she is deported back to the Philippines, as current immigration law doesn’t allow binational same-sex couples to sponsor their partners.

The offices of state Senators Boxer and Feinstein have been actively working on a private bill, which if passed by Congress, would allow the couple to stay or at least delay the deportation until the family could make proper arrangements to move out of the country. But the odds of such a bill coming together and passing on such short notice is unlikely.

Jackie Speire who represents the couple’s district is also exploring options. As reported in the Bay Area Reporter…

“We’re doing everything we can. [Speier’s] instructed us to see what the remedies are,” said Mike Larsen, Speier’s communications director, who noted they found out about Tan’s case “pretty late in the process.”

“If we can introduce a private bill that will help her, then she’s instructed staff to find out what can we do in time to help her out,” said Larsen.

“Our understanding is that in the Senate when a private bill in an immigration case is introduced, the deportation is stayed immediately, until the end of that term of Congress,” added Larsen, who said in this case that would be early January 2011.

“In the House, the order to stay would not occur until after the private bill made its way through the committee process, so we are currently trying to see … if there’s a way to speed up the committee process or if there’s some other route that we are unaware of,” said Larsen.

He added that based on what they know of Tan’s case, “on the face of that … it appears she should at least get a hearing to determine the viability of her claim, because it does seem to be this previous immigration lawyer, for whatever reasons, didn’t seem to keep her client adequately informed.”

The only other possible option is for Tan’s attorney to request an emergency stay of deportation once Tan is in custody on Friday.

Are hearts go out to them, and this story is further proof that we have a long way to go to achieve equal rights. And how important it is that we get the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) passed now.

Please show your support for their family on Facebook.

As horrible as it sounds, I’ve always taken a small measure of comfort in thinking Anita Bryant, who worked so tirelessly in the 70s to strip gays and lesbians of their human rights and reduce them to second class citizens, was no longer with us. Which is not the same as wishing them dead, not exactly anyway.

I guess I’ve been living under a rock. I was wrong. Terribly wrong.

And it looks like she may be up to her old tricks and more… (via Gossip Boy)

And in case we need to be reminded…