Monday, November 05, 2007

Whose on First???

GLAD, or Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, is in the process of expanding the rights of same-sex "married" couples in Massachusetts. The advocacy group is mainly focusing on pushing for "gay" military veterans to be burried in the Arlington National Cemetery and for giving unpaid medical leave benefits to homosexual "married" couples.

Read full story HERE. (unfortunately you need to register with, but it is FREE to do so. It only takes a minute of your time).
Can anyone please explain to me what Carissa Cunningham meant when she said GLAD is taking aim at the federal Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal recognition of "wedded" same-sex couples and in the process is not trying to expand gay "marriage" beyond traditionally liberal New England?
"We are not interested in forcing any other state to do anything on marriage laws," Cunningham said in an interview. "We're looking at where [the Defense of Marriage Act] most affects married couples and where the law may be vulnerable."
Oh, I see Ms. Cunningham. Your going to fight a FEDERAL provision that denies FEDERAL recognition of "wedded" same-sex couples, but only let those FEDERAL provisions be given to those 10,000 "wedded" same-sex couples of Massachusetts? Your not going to try and expand those provisions to others outside of Massachusetts. Why would I think you would do such a silly thing?
Does Ms. Cunningham think we were ALL born yesterday?
Then GLAD runs advertisements in two "gay" newspapers saying:
"It is time to end FEDERAL discrimination against married couples" in which Cunningham said these ads would "resonate with the public".
Boy, GLAD really likes to shove their sexual lifestyles down other peoples throats don't they?
The only thing I do agree with in GLAD's efforts is their willingness to fight for unpaid medical leave benefits for same-sex "married" couples. This provision should be given to anyone in a time of need regardless of their sexual orientation, so I commend GLAD for their stance on this issue.
As for the burrial of "gay" veterans at the Arlington National Cemetery: that is abhorant and disrespectful to all of the men and women who have died for our country. Our country does not look greatly upon homosexual service men and women to be glorifed in this cemetery, it is that plain and simple. Nevermind the fact that the U.S. military does not look greatly upon homosexual service men and women period.
Correction 11/08/2007:
I must appologize for wrongly suggesting that homosexual service men and women are not given the option to be burried at the Arlington National Cemetery (ANC). It was explained to me by an ANC representative that the eligibility requirements offered to heterosexual service men and women for burial at ANC are also offered to homosexual service men and women. The only exception to the eligibility requirements is that the "spouse" of a homosexual service man or woman can not be burried at ANC because ANC does not recognize same-sex "marriages" on a federal level, as these "marriages" are not federally legal. With this, I do appologize for saying that homosexual service men and women should not be given the option to be burried at ANC. These folks have died for our country and therefore their sexual orientation should not matter. I, on the other hand, do agree with ANC's policy of not giving the "spouse" of a homosexual service man or woman the option of being burried with their partner. This is wrong and it indicates an acceptance of a dangerous relationship.

Scia Ciantee

As I have stated on numerous occasions on this blog, I also agree with what is provided under the Benefits Fairness Act. Click HERE for details. This act benefits ALL those who wish to take part in its provisions and does not therefore destroy the true meaning of the definition of marriage, which is soley between one man and one women.


Anonymous KatieKat said...

Scia said:
"As for the burrial of "gay" veterans at the Arlington National Cemetery: that is abhorant and disrespectful to all of the men and women who have died for our country."
Why would you say such a thing? What, gay veterans don't 'deserve' the same honor as their straight counterparts? They served this country just as fearlessly as any other serviceman/woman, and yet according to you, they shouldn't receive the honor of being buried along with others who sacrificed their time, and sometimes their lives, for this country? Just in case you didn't know, those people fought for YOU, as well as everyone else in the US. It is beyond disturbing that you feel that just because of their sexual orientation they don't have the same rights as anyone else who served this country.

1:05 PM, November 06, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Katie. Even though these gay veterans have chosen to serve their country, you would purposely discriminate against them and separate them out from their straight comrades, only because of their sexual orientation. That's how you think their sacrifice should be honored?--by discriminating against them at the final moment of their "life"? How very compassionate and respectful of you.

I'd ask how you think their families would feel, but I'm confident that you never considered it.


7:56 PM, November 06, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Katie and Gary,

Please read my correction to this post, which is inset after my burrial comments.

Thank you,

8:38 AM, November 08, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Get your Free Guestbook from