jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (106 posts)

The new homosexual agenda?

  1. wilderness profile image97
    wildernessposted 2 years ago

    Madelynn Taylor, of Boise Idaho, recently asked the veterans cemetery there to bury the ashes of her beloved with her in the cemetery when she passes.  She was turned down because they were not married, could never have been married in the tolerant state of Idaho and thus cannot have those ashes interred in her own grave.  Madelynn, 74, is gay.

    Madelynn served our military for some 8 years, from 1958 to 1964.  She has earned our respect and our thanks but apparently not our understanding or caring.  Too bad, Madelynn, your insidious, evil gay agenda came to light when you asked to share a gravesite with your partner.

    How pathetic will we get before we truly exhibit a little love and caring of our fellow man (and woman)?

    Can any of those opposing gay marriage shed any light on this sad episode?  Why?  Why do we figuratively spit on a woman like this?  What is there within us that promotes such hatred and intolerance?  Surely not the dreaded "gay agenda" we see here...

    http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/04/3 … -with.html

    1. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If there is a national cemetery in Idaho---and I am sure there is, then the couple could now be interned together. This might be an option.

      That said, as someone from a military family (my grandfather was a Marine in World War I; my father 82nd Airborne in World War II), I find denying these women the right to be buried together to be utterly disgraceful and a sad commentary on how little respect some people have for those men and women---gay and straight, who serve this country.

    2. GA Anderson profile image87
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      This certainly is a sad clash of circumstances for the women, and it is also an unnecessary one - at least as I see it.

      But rather than being an anti-gay marriage, (or any other anti-gay issue), I see it as being similar to the "Zero- Tolerance" mindset. "Rules is rules, we gotta follow the rules."

      The voting citizens of the state have every right to codify their definition of marriage. Whether you agree or disagree with their choice is on you.

      But... how much common sense does it take to understand that to every rule there is an exception. How much common sense does it take to realize this isn't an instance that has any impact on their state's marriage views - neither financially or morally? How much common sense does it take to see this is an instance where the "letter of the law" does not serve the interest of the law?

      I could go on with more "How much common sense...etc." but my point is that this is just another instance of some yahoo(s) too dumb or irresponsible to apply common sense and do what is right instead of being an automaton. And that includes every military and legislation person that was involved or even approached.

      So there! I understand and agree with your condemnation of this occurrence. I just see a different cause of it.

      GA

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You are asking some clerk somewhere to intentionally violate a law; a violation that, if discovered, will certainly cost them their job and possible a large penalty to "correct" what they did. 

        Not going to happen, not should it.  The only people designated with that kind of power is a legislator, with the power to change the law.  We are a nation of laws, not a nation of rules to be violated at will by anyone with a wish to.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly.

          Clerks---including those running cemeteries, do not function in terms of "common sense" but in terms of rules and regulations. And rules and regulations in a nation of laws not men , must be followed until changed.

          That said, as you note, legislatures make laws and can and do and should change laws to reflect the spirit and letter of the 14th Amendment which acknowledges that we and our marriages are all equal under the law---without reference to sexual orientation.

        2. Paul Wingert profile image80
          Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The way things are going, same sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states within a couple years. Too many state laws were written with a religious book in mind instead of the US Constitution. I believe to make this a great country, instead of a laughing stock as we are seen now, is to do away with the individual states and become one nation. Too many states that resemble Samolia (i.e Georgia with their latest gun bill) and other third world nations.                         .

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I agree.  Except for Idaho - between being as Republican as it is possible to be, and heavily Mormon to boot, I expect it will take much longer than a couple of years.  More like 50.

          2. 84
            Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Great, we can all be like Washington D.C.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The federal government---as the US Constitution and US history make clear, is the only source of mechanisms (legal and legislative) available to protect the rights of Americans in all 50 states.

              Among these mechanisms: Full faith and credit act of the US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Bill of Rights.

              Protecting the rights of ALL Americans throughout ALL 50 states is not being like Washington, DC. It is being essentially American.

              1. 84
                Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "I believe to make this a great country, instead of a laughing stock as we are seen now, is to do away with the individual states and become one nation. "

                This is not protecting state rights.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  So states' right advocacy includes support of the denial of basic civil rights and civil liberties---as guaranteed in the US Constitution, to SOME people?

                  I figured as much.

                  1. 84
                    Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    The sky isn't falling.

                    You're using hyperbole to put words in my mouth. 

                    I said the abolishment of states isn't protecting state rights.

                  2. GA Anderson profile image87
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Is that seat taken?

                    Regarding the thread's topic, what basic civil rights and liberties are you seeing denied?

                    The details so far seem to indicate the state actions are within the the federal laws designed to protect what you are claiming is being denied.

                    Before you jump too far... I agree this is a sad situation that should have an easy common sense solution. I just don't see the tragedy of denied rights, (relative to those in the Constitution that you referred to), or travesty of narrow minds that you, (and others *cough...wilderness...cough...) appear to see. Some might even say the pinched foot is the one being stood on.

                    GA

        3. GA Anderson profile image87
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Nope, not a clerk. someone with the authority to make an exception. Or someone with the authority to take it to someone with the authority to make an exception. Or someone with the pull to get the issue on the proper table.

          Or at least someone with the courage to take the first step up the ladder to a common sense solution.

          Or, if in this particular instance if it takes a little bending - then bend.

          GA

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That's the point - there is no one.

            The cemetery accepts spouses.  That's all - spouses.  And it is against the state constitution to have a same sex spouse. 

            And that means it goes back to the legislators.

    3. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      As noted in this discussion:

      The MAJORITY of Americans support same-sex marriage. And not only does the majority support same-sex marriage, but polling indicates that a majority believes that marriage equality is a constitutional right.

      FACTS:

      Fifty percent say the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while 41 percent say it does not.

      Beyond the constitutional questions, a record-high 59 percent say they support same-sex marriage, while 34 percent are opposed.

      In the 33 states that prohibit same-sex marriage, 53 percent of those polled support allowing it, while 40 percent oppose doing so.

      And this data comes from a poll done by the conservative Washington Post published in March 2014).

      The bottom-line: The majority of Americans---despite claims to the contrary by some or claims that marriage is immutably defined in "Biblical" or traditional terms, support same-sex marriage.

      And by the way: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/arkansas-i … -1.2638710

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        And yet...the FACT is that one of the most populous and liberal states, voted to ban the practice.  The majority of states that have considered the question have come down on the side of "NO!".

        Reality, unfortunately, does not seem to agree with the polls.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I hear you.

          My guess: Activists vote. Especially on ballot issues and in primaries. And so, we are seeing activist voters controlling outcomes.

          We saw this in New York a couple of years ago with the Republican primary for a candidate for governor. One guy running was moderate and would likely have been able to win in NY as we have a long history of electing Republican governors. The other guy was beyond comment. NOBODY In NY though the other guy would win. But, he did. The reason: Turnout in the Republican primary was less than 20% and polling showed that only extremist Tea Party voters voted. The moderate Republican was shocked---really shocked.

          The result: Cuomo was re-elected in a landslide.

          As for popular elections and same-sex marriage: The tide is changing. Remember, same-sex marriage came to Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington State through a popular vote.

          And Maine had voted on this issue before and recently and had voted it down.

          1. 84
            Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Activists do vote, on both sides of the issue.  My guess is that the polls are skewed, that many are afraid to say how they really feel, because they will be persecuted for disagreeing with the PC crowd.  I could be wrong though.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              While I agree with mbuggieh and feel the tide is turning, I also have to agree that the polls are skewed.  That the tide isn't turning nearly as fast as some would have us believe.

              1. 84
                Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Fair point.

                I fear that those who disagree with same-sex marriage will end up being the persecuted.  In the PC crowd's attempt to right a wrong, they've made it difficult for the opposition to speak freely without being branded a bigot.  The message is:  It's wrong to persecute people based on their beliefs, desires, and lifestyle as long as it's the right set of beliefs and desires; those who oppose this set of beliefs, the people who do not believe in same-sex marriage, can be openly persecuted.  Isn't that a bit paradoxical?

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  No.  It is not paradoxical.

                  You see, it isn't a matter of not believing in same sex marriage; it is a matter of not believing AND demanding that everyone else share that belief.

                  You want to believe it is a terrible sin, do it behind closed doors.  You want to take your belief public, requiring everyone else to submit to your beliefs, expect to be persecuted for it.  As you should be.

                  1. 84
                    Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "You want to believe it is a terrible sin."

                    That's your assumption. 

                    Your stance on same-sex marriage is not paradoxical, because you extend the right to marry to just about everybody, even bigamists.  I don't agree with this stance, but your argument that freedom shall not be infringed is solid if you go to these lengths.  Few people would agree with your views.  The PC crowd wants to allow same-sex marriage but not allow other forms of marriage, such as bigamy or polygamy.  So yes, it is paradoxical, for the majority of same-sex marriage supporters, to extend rights to one segment of the population but not another.

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  No one is taking away your right to speak freely in opposition, it's just that the opposition is based on bigotry.



                  It's entirely false, are you being persecuted? Do you know anyone who is? Do you even know the meaning of the word, 'persecution'?

              2. 0
                mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I suspect the polls are skewed by the fact that respondents need to be able to read and write and understand the questions and by the fact that they are national polls and reflect national data rather than regional data.

                Here in New England/New York there is overwhelming support for same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage was passed in New York, for example, in the Republican-controlled state senate. And in Maine, same-sex marriage passed by popular vote.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  And failed in California, perhaps the most liberal state in the country.  Your point again?

                  (note that insinuating anyone disagreeing with gay marriage is illiterate doesn't add to the discussion, either)

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Having spent a lot of time in California, let me say this: There are many Californias.

                    While Los Angeles and San Francisco are liberal, San Diego---a military town, and much of the northern tier of the state are very conservative.

                    Remember, Californians elected Earl Warren, Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson as well as current Republican Congressman Darrell Issa and former Congressman Bob "B-1" Dornan.

                    And a recent Gallup poll shows that there are more self-described conservatives in California than liberals:

                    The percentage of California voters who call themselves conservative equals 30.8 percent, Gallup said, while liberals equal 27.1 percent of the state's voters. Moderates represent a large swing vote with 37.1 percent of the voter base.

            2. 0
              mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              So, when did the US Constitution and 14th Amendment become the stuff of your imagined "PC crowd"?

              And exactly where is the evidence of this "persecution" of those who take exception to same-sex marriage?

              Your use of the term "persecution" is absurd.

              No one is being "persecuted"; no gay rights activists and not their opponents.

              1. 84
                Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I never said anything about the 14th Amendment.  I spoke about the 1st Amendment.  Does the 14th Amendment protect a bigamist's right to marry more than once?  If not, why?

                My use of the word persecuted is absurd?  Persecuted is a strong word, much like absurd.  If you would like to start a vocabulary, etymology, and/or grammar forum, I'll be there.   

                How would one quantitatively prove that a demographic is being persecuted?  Shall I quote somebody, mention a poll, or post a link to a study?  Prove I'm wrong.  Prove that people who speak against same-sex marriage are not being persecuted.  Prove that gay people are not being persecuted.

                Please read this all the way through.  It may seem a bit off topic, but it actually hits the nail on the head.  It really does a fine job of describing what I'm talking about.

                http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/05/12/ … chael-sam/

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Whatever.

                  Demanding that someone prove a counter-factual is an old and tired trick.

                  1. 84
                    Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You never responded to several questions.  That's an old trick.

                2. GA Anderson profile image87
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  This Curmudgeon enjoyed and agrees with your link - thanks.

                  GA

      2. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        ".... the conservative Washington Post..." 

        Have you ever read the Washington Post? Conservative it isn't. It has even been accused of being the official newspaper of the Democratic party.

        GA

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Whatever.

          1. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Is *giggle...giggle* an equally appropriate response?

            GA

      3. 84
        Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        ". . .conservative Washington Post. . ."

        I have never heard anybody call the Washington Post conservative.

        1. 0
          mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          If you read the Washington Post and/or any contemporary analysis of it, you would understand that since the 1970s its editorial stance has been increasing conservative.

          The current owner of the paper---whose additional print media holdings include military- and real estate-based publications, is a self-described libertarian.

          Do you even have a clue as to the identity of this famous owner?

  2. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 2 years ago

    If I were Madalynn, I would say a giant F you to the veterans' cemetary and take her business and her body and her loved one's ashes elsewhere.
    My goodness. Why would you want to be resting for eternity with
    people who don't acknowledge your life and love?

    My father had planned to be buried in a military cemetary.
    But my Mom died first. She wanted to be cremated.
    He decided he would rather have his ashes next to hers.

    I don't know if this VA cemetary does in-ground burials only.
    If Madalynn's beloved is already cremated, Madalynn could get cremated and have a friend or relative put their ashes in the same container and "sneak" them into the cemetary's vault under her name.
    Probably could not get away with it, but sure would solve the problem.
    You know what they say. It's better to ask for forgiveness than permission :-)

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      As I read the article, Madalynn will be cremated as well, and put in an above ground receptacle. 

      I like mixing the ashes - a sympathetic crematorium operator could do wonders and the cemetery need never know.  Of course, a name plate might be a little difficult...

      1. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I recall the crematorium lady giving us all kinds of verification and numbers and stuff on the box.
        I thought to myself, "How would we really know who is in there? It could be a horse's ashes for
        all we would know." Guess you have to trust them.

        Another thought just occurred. The issue is with the Idaho vet cemetary. As pointed out, Idaho
        is deep red and Mormon. It will not be changing the law on gay marriage anytime soon.
        What about if Madalynn gets buried at Arlington, which I believe is NATIONAL? With change
        of posture on gays in the military, that might be a possibility.

        It's just sad all the way around. I cannot imagine how it would feel to have a lifetime partnership with the person I love and be denied legal standing with that person.
        roll

        BTW, thanks for posting this wilderness. Good to see you!
        MM

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          She did comment that she could be buried with her loved one in Arlington, or any other national cemetery.  It is only the wonderful state of Idaho that is so repressive and backwards, so concerned with this terrible gay "agenda", as to deny a final resting place together.

          You are welcome, and good to see you, too.  You haven't been around much lately - hope things are going well for you.

  3. 0
    Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago

    Good grief!  What is the matter with people?!?!?!

    From just a practical standpoint, does it matter even one little bit what someone asks to have buried with them?  Take whatever/whomever you choose.  What difference does it make to anyone?

    From a human standpoint, it's appalling to me think that because two people have lived together, loved each other, known each other better than anyone else, cared for each other, made sacrifices for each other....these acts of selflessness and charity are dismissed, worse, belittled, because those two people were of the same gender. 

    I can't even address this rationally,?because it makes me really angry.  I guess I just wanted to go on record as saying wrong, wrong, wrong!  Shameful!

    1. 0
      mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly!

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I'm the same way - this is just wrong on so many fronts that I have a hard time being rational about it.

  4. mio cid profile image66
    mio cidposted 2 years ago

    I am all for equal rights for everybody,I support gay marriage ,what really annoys me is when they become silly and overreach, like when it is no longer politically correct to say happy mother's day and you're suppose to say something else.like in some schools you can't say mother or father and you should only say parent. those things don't advance the cause of equality they  feed the right wing loons' with rhetorical ammunition.

 
working