Abigail Garner
Apr 5th, 2006
Apr 5th, 2006
Bless ‘em.
The hallways at the capitol were lined with supporters for “both sides.” I quickly snapped this shot yesterday, the last image I saw before I stepped into the hearing.
I’m sorry I didn’t have enough time to ask your names. Thank you for making me smile.
That’s awesome. I used to spend summers with my Dad’s boyfirend’s parents. They were traditional central-Missouri gay-rights-supporting cattle farmers. The photo makes me think of them.
The man is Ray Schreurs of Roseville, MN His picture is on the cover of the Star Tribune today. I bet that is his wife.
Very cool!
The phrase “Straight Men for Gay Rights” should appear more often in google than it does. Maybe Ray will start a trend.
UPDATE FOR READERS OF REDDIT et al:
When Marshall wrote the above comment, Google came up with four pages that used the phrase. Since this image was posted on Reddit last week, Google now lists over 1,000 pages using the phrase — in reference to this page (or pages that have stolen the image or hot-linked it).
For the record, the man in the photo did not make the sign. It was handed to him, and he was a bit embarrassed about “marrige” being misspelled. But he thought the message was more important than people thinking he couldn’t spell.
As a result of being seen at the hearing, the bearded one was hired by a PR firm to play Uncle Sam for a print campaign for marriage rights. I don’t know if the campaign ever went public.
Those people rock. They’re such a cute and endearing old couple too. This makes me feel better about the ethical state of our country.
Pareja de Ancianos apoyando los derechos de los Gays…
Manifestación en el congreso de Minessota por los partidarios de las relaciones entre hombres y partidarios del no. Traducción aprox. del cartel del caballero: "Mi matrimonio no ha sido amenazado por un matrimonio gay. Heterosexuales por los de…
Cute but wrong. Marriage should not be redefined just because being gay is new black. We shouldn’t hate, of course, but in not hating we shouldn’t allow one group of people instill their values over the rest of us.
The dominant society always pushes one set of values over the rest of us. You’d be wise not to be so high and mighty while you’re doing exactly what you just condemned
“We shouldn’t hate, of course, but in not hating we shouldn’t allow one group of people instill their values over the rest of us.”
I LOVE THIS LOVELY COUPLE!
Exactly, like heterosexual religious values being imposed on gay people.
they are so awesome!
Next thing you know
We’ll be allowed to marry our cattle
fascism
If Gay people can’t convince America to give them marriage licenses then they should just start to fight for equal taxing rights so they can at least be taxed like married couples.
i think the important message here is that gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with straight couples. Gay marriage doesn’t affect anyone except the two parties involved. What’s ridiculous is straight people trying to impose laws that don’t affect them.
This is a strange country…
Gay marriage OK… polygamy not OK.
A woman can choose what to do with her body when it’s aborting a new life, but not when she wants to make a living with it.
I just don’t understand why hypocrisy is acceptable. It cheapens us all.
This is a strange country.
Gay marriage is not ok… but it’s perfectly acceptable to allow Christians to define a secular institution despite the fact that the Constitution is very clear that this is a secular nation under no religion whatsoever. Plus, we’re not ‘redefining’ marriage. We’re adding another line to the definition.
I just don’t understand why Christian rule is acceptable. It cheapens us all, but more to the point, it proves precisely why Christians shouldn’t be allowed to run a country.
My wife and I both have very close gay friends. We were basically forced into being married by the State of Ohio due to an anti-gay Ohio constitutional amendment that claimed that no-one could approximate marriage. So, if she or I were lying in a hospital after an accident, neither of us had the rights of a married couple (after being together 11 years). We didn’t feel we needed the State of Ohio to sanction our commitment to one another, and neither should anyone else. It is atrocious that people think the marriage should be only between a man and a woman. Church and State, my friends. Should the government dictate that? No way. If you are a true christian, then let god deal with those of us who are ’sinners.’ It isn’t like christians sin: they’re way too above that. So, aside from religion, why is being gay wrong?! Good luck coming up with an answer that isn’t biased in religion.
T: perfect.
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
That’s the definition of marriage. Just wanted to clear up the dispute between redefining marriage and adding a line to it- you would most definitely have to redefine it.
Also, I don’t understand why people think marriage is a Church issue. It’s not. It’s a state issue and it’s always been one. It’s easier to tax two people together than individually, and that’s why marriage was invented- by KINGS- all those years ago. Not by priests.
However, that being said, marriage has always been between a man and a women. I have no ill intent towards homosexuals at all, but I see no reason why a civil union won’t do the trick. Marriage is itself nothing but tradition. To say that members of the same sex should be allowed to be married would be to destroy the foundation of that tradition, and then why bother with it at all? Marriage should be man and woman, and man and man (or woman and woman) should be something seperate, yet with the exact same financial benefits.
“However, that being said, marriage has always been between a man and a women. (sic)”
NOT TRUE!
Traditionally, marriage has been between a man and SEVERAL women.
Quick point I feel I need to raise as an outsider, I’m a UK citizen. I believe that the US Supreme Court Ruled that the policy of seperate but equal was unconstitutional, due to that all men created equal thingy you guys have, if it applys to race and schooling it should apply to single-sex marriages. In addition to that if a homosexual couple would be made happy by a marriage, isn’t it unconstitutional to refuse, again I’m an outsider but I know you guys have something about freedom to pursue happiness.
Right on, Eddie. But the conservative response to the idea of gay marriage is not based on logic or ideas of universal human justice. (By the way, I mean conservative in values, not neoliberal economics–that’s a whole other story.) The conservative point of view is based on an attachment to and respect for traditionalism for its own sake. Although most conservatives aren’t able to articulate it, this respect for tradition can be understood as a legitimate (or at least understandable) way of thinking about the world if thought of in the proper light. The ideal-typical conservative mind can best be characterized as having a profound distrust of the individual faculty of reason. Edmund Burke (Englishman from the 1700s who articulated many conservative ideas) really helped me understand the conservative point of view: Why put so much faith in reason/logic/science, in our own individual abilities to make moral decisions? Shouldn’t we instead trust “the way things have always been done,” since it’s worked so far? Why would we “play God” and start re-defining how things should work? It could be a recipe for disaster, chaos, moral disintegration, who knows! It doesn’t even have to be a religious argument. The point is, we shouldn’t be so arrogant to think we are smart/capable enough to change things according to “whims” and “fashions” of the day–we should just stick to what we know works. Doing anything else is dangerous. Arguing against this position with appeals to logic and justice don’t really address the key issue for conservatives, which is why these debates often feel like butting your head against a wall (for both sides).
And by the way, Burke expressed his ideas in part because he was profoundly disturbed by the French Revolution, and the idea that class hierarchy and monarchy should be done away with. As someone in a same-sex relationship with a foreigner (so we need marriage rights so she can even remain here legally), I can only hope that the system oppressing gay people today will one day meet the same fate as feudalism, and become an unthinkable relic of the past.
I think its wonderful to see older people who have such contemporary opinions. If only more of our fellow humans could follow their example.
Its really cool to see folks from the other side of this issue supporting gay marriage. A sign is held up that says my marriage is not in danger from gay marriages, and I think it makes sense.
thanks from Tony