Today's pet peve. Why do we let them call it "Defense of Marriage"???

It is NOT in defense of marriage, it is AGAINST marriage, marriage for gay people. We need to start calling it the: Anti-marriage act, or something along those lines.

Whenever the Regressives use Orwellian Newspeak, it's a sound indication of an issue where there is weakness on their side. The Orwellian language is utilized as cover.

That's what breaks up over 50% of 'em.

we ought to press, press, press for inclusion of NO DIVORCE--to truly "defend marriage."

I've been married for 30 years. I don't need the government "defending" my marriage. I can manage that on my own.

MzPip
:dem:

If it's so bad, why do they want to keep me from it!

They adopt those carefully studied propaganda terms that manipulate
image of policies that are outrageous.

They should just refuse to acknowledge them or use them and call
the bills what they really are.

I like the "anti-marriage" act or the civil liberties constraint act
the corporate giveaway act, the ruination of america's future act

This is how the repukes baffle and confuse, constantly so we end
up with > 50% of the population, even after weeks of major media reports, believing that 9/11 and Iraq are connected.

...when it's everyone's responsibility to pay taxes to run the government.

Why do the two sides call it 'pro-choice' vs. 'pro-abortion'? Or 'pro-life' vs. 'anti-choice'? IT is probably because they have a differing world-view. If they *do* see it as a defense of marriage, trying to relabel it will alienate them, preventing them from hearing any logic to your arguments.

just as they don't "let us" do anything.
They just happen to be better at framing than we are, and obviously they know how valuable that is in close elections.
...O...

It's the American people.

You see, Republicans wrote the legislation. That's because they're in charge and half of America put them there. They decided to title it the "Defense of Marriage Act".

Most Dems do call it the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment... it just doesn't stick because the media is going to call it by its real name.

cuts down trees.

They own the language right now. We need to take it back.

is how I always refer to it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm

... In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Unusually their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved both as a concept and as a ritual. Prof Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings such as blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet aftet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Unfortunately, that's what THEY named it when they passed that travesty of discriminatory legislation.

Like that USA PATRIOT Act -- same deal. And the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.

They know damned well that they can boost their support for odious proposals, simply by using a name that makes it sound like you torture kittens if you oppose it.

In fact, prepare yourself for the "Cute Kitten Torture Prevention Act", coming to a legislature near you! Purpose? Who the hell knows! Probably authorizes the round up and torture of any non-kitten personages suspected of terrorist 'activities.'

they need to take a look at the wedding industry...that is truely disgusting.
The wedding industry sells weddings...so girls can be prissy princesses for a few hours and shell out thousands of dollars doing it.
So many people have their wedding, and then what? They're f***ing clueless.
My husband's ex-wife married him for the wedding...their wedding announcement proves it: its all about the her dress (seriously, i didn't believe it myself until i read it) They were married in june of 98 and divorced by feb. 99... he wanted counseling, she didn't.
Oh well, so much the better for me. And no, we didn't buy into the wedding industry at all.
I am going to write another editorial to my local paper about the so-called sanctity of marriage. I am going to address divorce and the superficial wedding industry as being destroyers of that so-called sanctity and that gay couples may be able to preserve it.