posted on March 19, 2004 09:10:44 PM new
This is a letter from Bette Midler to President Bush - I think it is amazing. As I understand it, she handed it out at her concert...one person making a difference...
Dear President Bush,
Today you called upon Congress to move quickly to amend the US Constitution, and set in Federal stone a legal definition of marriage. I would like to know why.
In your speech, you stated that this Amendment would serve to protect marriage in America, which I must confess confuses me. Like you, I believe in the importance of marriage and I feel that we as a society take the institution far too lightly. In my circle of family, friends and acquaintances, the vast majority have married and divorced - some more than once. Still, I believe in marriage. I believe that there is something fundamental about finding another person on this planet with whom you want to build a life and family, and make a positive contribution to society. I believe that we need more positive role models for successful marriage in this country - something to counteract the images we get bombarded with in popular culture. When we are assaulted with images of celebrities of varying genres, be it actors, sports figures, socialites, or even politicians who shrug marriage on and off like the latest fashion, it is vitally important to the face of our nation, for our children and our future, that we have a balance of commitment and fidelity with which to stave off the negativity. I search for these examples to show my own daughter, so that she can see that marriage is more than a disposable whim, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
As a father, I'm sure you have faced these same concerns and difficulties in raising your own daughters. Therefore I can also imagine that you must understand how thrilled I have been over the past few weeks to come home and turn on the news with my family. To finally have concrete examples of true commitment, honest love, and steadfast fidelity was such a relief and a joy. Instead of speaking in the hypothetical, I was finally able to point to these men and women, standing together for hours in the pouring rain, and tell my child that this is what its all about. Forget Britney. Forget Kobe. Forget Strom. Forget about all the people that we know who have taken so frivolously the pure and simple beauty of love and tarnished it so consistently. Look instead at the joy in the beautiful faces of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon - 51 years together! I mean, honestly Mr. President - how many couples do you know who are together for 51 years? I'm sure you agree that this love story provides a wonderful opportunity to teach our children about the true meaning and value of marriage. On the steps of San Francisco City Hall, rose petals and champagne, suits and veils, horns honking and elation in the streets; a celebration of love the likes of which this society has never seen.
This morning, however, my joy turned to sadness, my relief transformed into outrage, and my peace became anger. This morning, I watched you stand before this nation and belittle these women, the thousands who stood with them, and the countless millions who wish to follow them. How could you do that, Mr. President? How could you take something so beautiful - a clear and defining example of the true nature of commitment - and declare it to be anything less? What is it that validates your marriage which somehow doesn't apply to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? By what power, what authority are you so divinely imbued that you can stand before me and this nation and hold their love to a higher standard?
Don't speak to me about homosexuality, Mr. President. Don't tell me that the difference lies in the bedroom. I would never presume to ask you or your wife how it is you choose to physically express your love for one another, and I defy you to stand before Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and ask them to do the same. It is none of my business, as it is none of yours, and it has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage". I'm sure you would agree that marriage is far more than sexual _expression, and its high time we all started focusing on all the other aspects of a relationship which hold it together over the course of a lifetime. Therefore, with the mechanics of sex set aside, I ask you again - what makes a marriage? I firmly believe that whatever definition you derive, there are thousands upon thousands of shining examples for you to embrace.
You want to protect marriage. I admire and support that, Mr. President. Together, as a nation, let us find and celebrate examples of what a marriage should be. Together, let us take couples who embody the principles of commitment, fidelity, sacrifice and love, and hold them up before our children as role models for their own futures. Together, let us reinforce the concept that love is about far more than sex, despite what popular culture would like them to believe.
Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society, for the sake of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the guise of protection, do not support divisiveness. Under the guise of unity, do not endorse discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity, do not devalue commitment. Under the guise of democracy, do not encourage this amendment.
Claim: Bette Midler pens letter chiding President Bush for his stance on gay marriage.
Status: False.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004]
Origins: Open
letters to those in power have been part of the landscape of democracy for many a year. Freedom of speech means the freedom to soapbox, with citizens of every stripe (celebrity and non-celebrity alike) availing themselves of this right. This latest letter to the President fits with a long-established tradition of citizens telling those in charge, via public correspondence. how they'd like to see things done.
We first saw this e-missive attributed to singer and actress Bette Midler in March 2004. Such is the power of celebrity that almost overnight from our first receiving a copy of this e-mail we were bombarded with it — inside of two days, more than forty people had sent it to us. The inclusion of a famous name served to move the letter through cyberspace almost in the blink of an eye.
Yet purported celebrity author to the contrary, the piece was not written by Bette Midler. It is the work of Stephanie Finnegan, who posted it to her blog on 24 February 2004. (A weblog, or "blog," is a chronologically-ordered journal or diary kept online.)
How Bette Midler's name came to be associated with the article is a mystery. It is a telling commentary on how we perceive celebrities in that during the days before the Divine Miss M. was presented as the author of this piece we never saw it in our inbox, but as soon as the piece was attributed to her we were flooded with it. The one clearly elevated the other.
posted on March 19, 2004 11:14:56 PM new
Authorship aside it is an eloquent expression of sentiment and something to take to heart.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 20, 2004 12:17:13 AM new
I don't care if Bette M. wrote this or Adam's Off Ox (as my father-in-law used to say) wrote this! It's still eloquent. And if it's an "open letter," to the president, it's still a letter addressed to the president, isn't it?
51-year commitments are to be applauded, not belittled.
Well, we're fortunate to live when the times, they are a-changin'.
___________________________________
Have you noticed since everyone has a Camcorder these days no one talks
about seeing UFOs like they used to?
posted on March 20, 2004 12:43:09 AM new
I wonder if "Bette Midler" would say it's ok for me to marry 7 wives. Will "she" discriminate against polygamists?
posted on March 20, 2004 01:15:19 AM new
Just out of curiousity how does that dumbass comment jive with the statement made in the letter? It really is a pathetic arguement... will it be Bear ot Twelve thaat show up next with the beastiality implications.
I've yet to see any of you explain how your far from left field"variations" coincide with a monogomous relationships between consenting adults.
Since you have this high brow moral "must protect marriage" belief system I assume that you also consider any coworkers, family, friends etc that have gotten divorces as "unamerican" as you see all others that delve into such liberal anti-family sentiments.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 20, 2004 04:31:52 AM new
I'll oblige you fenix... how does same sex marriages garner anymore respect than you marrying your cat? It shouldn't...
After all it is the "Love" that counts... right... or is that more liberal BS..
Oh and the letter Bull Sh*t... I have to get a real one written to post on here by Michael Reagan... now that is an eloquent letter...
posted on March 20, 2004 08:27:55 AM newI am homophobic because gays are scaring the hell out of me with what they are doing to this nation and what they will be doing to our children who though not born gay will be made to feel guilty unless they try gay sex at least one time.
talk about mierda de toro.....(go ahead vendio, let's see you edit out my swearing in spanish)
___________________________________
[ edited by profe51 on Mar 20, 2004 08:29 AM ]
posted on March 20, 2004 08:39:38 AM new
The argument that people are not born gay but choose to be gay is ridiculous. There have been gay people since early Egyptian time. If over 3000 years of history has chastised and persecuted gays for being immoral then way do people still want that "immoral lifestyle". People will continue believing homosexuality is a wrong because they feel it is a choice.
Impeach Bush
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
posted on March 20, 2004 08:48:17 AM new
If lawmaker's want to preserve the sanctity of marriage perhaps they should look at themselves and their actions first before criticizing others.
REP NEWT GINGRICH (R-Georgia): Gingrich just finished another divorce on charges of adultery and has remarried a former aide in Congress. This is nothing new. Although opposed to President Clinton on most issues, he does agree that "oral sex is not sex." According to Newt campaign worker Anne Manning, in 1977 she gave Newt oral sex while he was still married to his first wife. She told Vanity Fair, "we had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'" In another example of "family values" he presented his first wife (his high school math teacher) with divorce papers in her hospital bed while she recovered from cancer surgery. Despite all of this, The Irish Times reports that the real reason Gingrich resigned from Congress was that Hustler Magazine had credit card receipts showing that he paid for prostitutes.
posted on March 20, 2004 04:19:26 PM newJust out of curiousity how does that dumbass comment jive with the statement made in the letter?
Well fenix, the writer of the letter is telling us not to discriminate against gays. I was just wondering if the writer would discriminate against polygamists and deny legal marriages for polygamists.
A question for you, fenix: Do you think polygamy should be legal?
posted on March 20, 2004 07:58:15 PM new
EAG - No. It is a fiscally, emotionally and pyschologically unsound practice in which one spouse inevitably suffers losses. Western polygamy is nothing more than an way to avoid financial responsibilites associated with getting a divorce or the institutionalized justification of sexual and emotional immaturity associsated with little boys that never learned that they cannot have everything they want.
Same sex marriages is a singular commitment and shares none of those same traits. Religion should not be legislated.
You did not answer my question though. Since you believe same sex marriages to be amoral, how do you view divorce? Isn't it just as much a "degradation" of the moral institute of marriage as same sex marriages. If marriage is not a moral issue then it must be a legal one and if so, you do you justify denial of the legal rights associated with marriage based soley on sexual inclinations?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by Fenix03 on Mar 20, 2004 07:59 PM ]
posted on March 21, 2004 08:20:04 AM new
EAG:A question for you, fenix: Do you think polygamy should be legal?
I want to comment on this if I may.
Polygamy is already is illegal, homosexuality is not. Would I want to make it legal, no. Marriage is the union of two people not a group of people. If an individual wants to be a polygamist behind closed doors that is fine with me. He/she can get married to another individual and get all the legal benefits that come along with it. If that married couple then decides to have other partners join them in their union, that would be fine by me. But could they legally be married to each other, no because they are already married to each other.
I would be perfectly willing to have same-sex marriage be declared illegal as long as divorce is also made illegal. After all divorce is frowned upon in the Catholic church and has been for centuries, but I do not see the Pope or President Bush making a case about divorce.
Impeach Bush
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
posted on March 21, 2004 06:51:27 PM new
Boy...the double standard here simply amazes me.
First fenix - Religion should not be legislated
and then logansdad - Polygamy is already is illegal, homosexuality is not.
First, logansdad - gay marriage is illegal now too. You're wanting change in that area, but refusing to allow other 'unions' you don't agree with. Unions established and accepted many years before in our society.
Then fenix - You think gay marriage is okay...but those with religious beliefs should be denied the same 'legal protections' that gays use as their reasoning for wanting to marry.
To me, it boils down to you have the same prejudices you blame others for having.
posted on March 21, 2004 07:08:54 PM new
Excuse me for being blunt but what the hell are you talking about?
What aspects of religion have I ever said should be legislated. Lets not pussyfoot around here Linda - What prejudices do you believe I have.
I know that you seem to equate non religion and anti religion but they are two completely differwnt things and I have never begrudged people their beliefs I just do not believe that religious beliefs, no matter what religion they are based in should dictate laws.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by Fenix03 on Mar 21, 2004 07:11 PM ]
posted on March 21, 2004 08:11:24 PM new
fenix - EAG - No. It is a fiscally, emotionally and pyschologically unsound practice in which one spouse inevitably suffers losses. On what basis do you form that opinion? By fact or by your personal opinions? And if they themselves choose that way of life, why should the judgement you make [this should not be allowed - here's the reasons why] about their lifestyle hold more weight than the judgements of those who oppose gay marriages?
It's drawing a 'line' in the sand so to speak. Your line is where your comfort level is. What you think is 'fair' and why you feel that way.
But if you support gay marriages for all the reasons most state...legal rights, medical rights, etc. then why are these people singled out as not be acceptable to form a 'marriage'? After all...if it's about equal rights and all, they're entitled to enjoy those same equal rights.
Western polygamy is nothing more than an way to avoid financial responsibilites associated with getting a divorce or the institutionalized justification of sexual and emotional immaturity associsated with little boys that never learned that they cannot have everything they want. But if they wish to all be married so that they too could legally become financially responsible for one another, have the legal rights, tax benefits, then how do you see this differently than the gays saying that's their reasons? I don't see it one bit differently.
Whether it's two or twelve. Why, just because they are a group practicing their religion should only one 'wife' be allowed all the legal rights and have the same responsibilites under the law that any other individual has? Why should this group, or any other, be excluded? That's not allowing them the same 'rights' that those who argue gays should be allowed to marry.
Same sex marriages is a singular commitment and shares none of those same traits. Religion should not be legislated. And up until now...that commitment was only between one man and one woman. Again, I see this no different than putting a restriction on one group of people getting married than two of the same sex.
posted on March 21, 2004 09:36:28 PM new
:n what basis do you form that opinion? By fact or by your personal opinions?::
Personal opinion - isn't what he asked me for? I was asked if I thought that polygamy should me legal and I gave me answer and my reasons. Every example I have seen of polygamy (those that have "gone public) are one woman living in a higher lifestyle with more attenttion and affection than those that came before them - kind of like the old toys in the toy box.
What does that have to do with the legislation of religion?
:: I see this no different than putting a restriction on one group of people getting married than two of the same sex. ::
You convinced me - screw it - Marriage for all. Personally I do not see why anyone would want to. I don't know happlily married friends but plenty of happily living in sin.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 21, 2004 09:39:27 PM new
Just out of curiosity - do you see marriage as a legal institution or civil?
If it is civil -then why is it legislated?
If it is legal - then why is it legal for it to be discriminatory?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on March 21, 2004 10:36:40 PM new
A marriage is a civil and or civil/religious union that has legal ramifications [rights, responsibilities] built into the 'legal contract'.
And I'm saying if the traditional term of "marriage" is to be changed because some argue that their equal 'rights' under the law are being denied, only because of their sexual preferences, then I'm saying one cannot deny those same rights to a group of people who choose a 'different' lifestyle either and who want to be in a committed legal and religious 'marriage'.
posted on March 22, 2004 06:47:40 AM new
Linda:
and then logansdad - Polygamy is already is illegal, homosexuality is not.
First, logansdad - gay marriage is illegal now too. You're wanting change in that area, but refusing to allow other 'unions' you don't agree with. Unions established and accepted many years before in our society.
Polygamy is illegal, but homosexuality is not. That is a true statement. Since when is being gay against the law.
I never said same sex marriages are legal. If you would take the time to read the statemet you would have understood what that point.
Just because I am in favor of same sex marriages doesn't mean I support any type of marriage between any living thing. I do not support polygamy because I believe marriage should be between two people that love each other. Therefore I am against polygamy and marriages between a human and an animal.
You have your definition of what marriage should be and I have mine. They may not agree but I still have my beliefs and I am not trying to change my beliefs to support my views on same sex marriages.
posted on March 22, 2004 08:27:13 AM new
LOL logansdad - I had no problem reading what you said. I added my own comment which is a fact. Gay marriage is illegal.
And it's clear to me from this statment you made:
Polygamy is already is illegal, homosexuality is not. Would I want to make it legal, no. Marriage is the union of two people not a group of people
that you don't want the same 'civil rights' you're asking for to be given to any other individual IF their 'lifestyle' doesn't meet with your approval.
Polygamy is a lifestyle. They choose to have multiple parents. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. People do not choose to be gay. Go ahead and debate this issue if you want.
Polygamists can marry legally and get all the legal rights that come with being married - however they can marry only just one person not multiple people. A homosexual can't legally marry the person they are in love with.
If somebody else wants to take up the cause for allowing polygamists to have legal rights to marry multiple partners, then they have the right to do so. Yes, I do not agree with them. Why should I? My cause is same sex marriages not polygamy. Where did you ever get the notion I supported this?
First, logansdad - gay marriage is illegal now too. You're wanting change in that area, but refusing to allow other 'unions' you don't agree with. Unions established and accepted many years before in our society.
When were multiple marriages ever allowed? If they were not a detriment to society why did they stop?
Let me ask you this Linda. Would you be in favor of outlawing divorce if it meant putting an end to the same sex marriage debate and making it illegal until the end of time? Would the majority of straight people feel the same way?
Impeach Bush
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
posted on March 22, 2004 12:20:25 PM new
I'd like to share a few things I know about polygamy, having lived in Utah for 20 years!
First of all, it's absolutely true that the husbandlegally marries only one woman (the first one, usually--who becomes the old hag lady). All the other "sister wives" are church-sanctioned unions, not legal.
The women coming out of (escaping from) polygamy have very interesting tales to tell. Some are the daughters of the first wife, and they are married to their "father" when they hit puberty--very young. Some polygamists have daughters of their first wives as brides, some as many as 2 to 4 of them. The girls are uneducated, don't go to school, and the children have no access to national or international news; all they know is what's told them in the home and at church.
Here's another "worst" about this disgusting practice: In Utah, as probably in other states, the "sister-wives," who are considered single parents by law, are on welfare--food stamps, monthly $$, the whole shootin' match.
When this fact came out a few years ago in Utah, everything hit the fan. Even Mormons, who decry polygamy out loud but are willing to tolerate it quietly, hated the thought of those litters of babies all on the public dole. That was what precipitated the prosecution of Tom Green and others.
I've been in St. George UT (closest city to the polygamist villages) in a city park and have seen a vanload of children and their child-mothers pile out of the van and play on the swings. The mothers and all the girls wear long hair, usually in a braid or two braids, long dresses, of course no makeup (sinful!), and seem like little Heidi creatures from another world and another century.
What keeps more of them from escaping that life is that they have no resources, no money, no outside contacts, no hope that they could make it on their own, and they'd have to leave their children behind.
THIS is what's wrong with linking polygamy with gay marriage!!! Faulty reasoning.
___________________________________
Have you noticed since everyone has a Camcorder these days no one talks
about seeing UFOs like they used to?
posted on March 22, 2004 12:33:45 PM new
For all those religious fundamentalists that say homosexuality was forbidden in the bible and that if we allow same sex marriages to exist, polygamy will then have to be allowed.
Polygamy was a common practice in the bible:
The Bible, in tolerating polygamy, gives evidence that the practice had long been an accepted social institution when these laws were written down. In the patriarchal age polygamy is regarded as an unquestioned custom. While the Bible gives a reason for the action of Abraham in taking Hagar for an additional wife and, in the case of Jacob, for having Rachel as a wife besides Leah, it only proves that polygamy as well as concubinage, with which it was always associated, was among the mores of the ancient Hebrew people (Gen. 16:1-4; 29:23-28). The same attitude is revealed in the episode of Abimelech and Sarah (Gen. 20:1-l3).
Polygamy was such a well established part of the social system that Mosaic law is not even critical of it. We find only certain regulations with respect to it; as, for example, if a man takes a second wife the economic position of the first wife and of the children she bore must be secure; and, in the case of inheritance, no child of a subsequent marriage is to be preferred over a child from the first wife. Other regulations were that the high priest could have only one wife and that a king in Israel should not have too many wives (Lev. 21:13; Deut. 17:17; Ex. 21:10). The last injunction, however, was of no effect. David had seven wives before he began to reign in Jerusalem, and an extraordinary number of wives and concubines has been attributed to Solomon (II Sam 3:2-5, 14; 5:13). In connection with David, the prophet Nathan did not denounce the king for adding Uriah's wife to those he already had but for the means he employed to secure her (II Sam. 12:7-15).
However, if polygamy was not forbidden it was not directly sanctioned. It was a heritage from the past and it was left undisturbed. As the civilization of the people reached a higher form and, especially under the teaching of the prophets, their moral and religious consciousness developed, the polygamous system gradually declined. This is noticeable in Israel after the return from the Exile. In the Second Commonwealth polygamy is far from general (cf. Tobit and Susanna). Yet it survived far into the Christian era. In the New Testament Jesus neither condemns polygamous unions nor advocates a change in the system. From this noninterference attitude Luther, as late as the 16th cent., arrived at the conclusion that he could not forbid the taking of more than one wife.
So much for the marriage is between one man and one woman tradition.
Impeach Bush
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
posted on March 22, 2004 12:52:56 PM new
logansdad, your quoting Bible on polygamy, and how it was 'done' way back when.
But where in the Bible (since your using it here) does it say that homosexuality was ok, at anytime?
just curious
And I didn't mean to belittle your beginning post about Bette Midler... we all get emails that sound interesting and with what we would agree with, but they are not always true, thats why I do like snopes.com
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
According to the Bible homosexuality is wrong so there will not be a quote approving of it.
I posted the above paragraph for those in favor of keeping the "traditional view of marriage" and that keep claiming same sex marriages will lead to polygamists wanting to legalize "groups marriages".
If polygamy was accepted in the Bible, why isn't it accepted today? Something must have changed over those course of the last 2000 years.
Impeach Bush
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge.
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
posted on March 22, 2004 01:50:17 PM new
You lefties are hypocrites. You complain about gays being discriminated against and then you discriminate against polygamists by refusing their right to marry.
You refuse to let polygamists who are "deeply in love" to marry? Are you going to treat polygamists as "second class citizens?" Are polygamists "less equal" than gays?
Every argument you use in favor of gay marriage can also be used for polygamous marriage.
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Mar 22, 2004 01:50 PM ]
posted on March 22, 2004 02:00:37 PM new
EAG, no one is denying there right to marriage. They can marry, but only one person. That is not discrimination.
Are you know saying polygamy doesn't destroy the "sanctity of marriage"??
[ edited by profe51 on Mar 20, 2004 08:29 AM ]
n what basis do you form that opinion? By fact or by your personal opinions?::