"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
MANASSAS GAY “MARRIAGE” RALLY
By Greg L | 6 August 2006 | Manassas City, Prince William County | 11 Comments
I had the dubious honor of watching the gay “marriage” rally at the BRUU, which was reported here by the Potomac News. It was a disturbing affair attended by a little more than a hundred people, where the measured criticism of the Marriage Amendment neatly packaged for press consumption clashed with an obvious desire to not only defeat the Marriage Amendment, but bring gay “marriage” to Virginia, by judicial edict if necessary.
From the bleeding heart video of UU Rev. Nancy McDonald, where she spoke of how happy she was to have conducted “marriages” of homosexuals in Virginia already, to the comments of Occoquan Mayor Earnie Porta, where he labeled everyone not opposing the Marriage Amendment as a bigot and segregationist, it was a rare display of the real agenda underneath the hysterical whining about impacts on contractual relationships and employer benefits. Make no mistake about it, the purpose here is to preserve some opportunity to make gay “marriage” happen in Virginia.
The Potomac News article, while prominently showing a picture of Ron Petracca, Brentsville Magisterial District Chairman of the PWC Democratic Committee (and incidentally an LTE author on behalf of Jeanette Rishell despite not living in the 50th District), who was representative of this largely “preaching to the choir” event, reported of Ms. Rishell’s concerns about “checks and balances” being upset by this amendment, and ranted on about a host of concerns she has about increases in domestic violence, battered women and “intimate partner violence”. Jeanette Rishell stated that passage of this amendment would result in more domestic violence, without making any argument as to why this would occur.
But it’s this “upsetting the checks and balances” argument that really gives lie to this entire charade of dubious frightful scenarios used to argue against the Marriage Amendment that these folks raise. Why would this be an argument, if as they say ‘it is unnecessary to amend the constitution because Virginia statutes have prohibited same-sex marriages and civil unions without legal challenge’? Because they hope to raise that legal challenge and sue for legal recognition of the homosexual marriages that Reverend McDonald already performs on a regular basis, perhaps? That’s the only way this all fits together and makes sense. It’s not about preventing domestic violence. It’s about the “Civil Marriage is a Civil Right” platform of the UU Social Justice Committee, which has graced Jeanette Rishell’s car in the form of a bumper sticker for so long.
This is all about the radical left’s burning desire to “make the civil status of marriage legal and available for any two persons regardless of gender”, a statement which was helpfully provided in each pew of the BRUU church. Their true agenda shines through their rhetoric, if you only look.
But my favorite, by far, was this:
“History will judge those who support this amendment, history will judge in particular those who actively espouse support for this amendment, they will be looked at in the same light as the bigots and segregationists of the 20th century.”
– Earnie Porta, Mayor of Occoquan, in support of gay “marriage”, August 5th, 2006
Mayor Porta, you just called a very significant portion of those who recently voted for you nasty names. I hope you’re not counting on their votes in the future.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
11 Comments
Views: 2002
Loading ...
Keep in mind, I am a moderate when I address this point. Marriage is based religious scripture, so I don’t think any church should be forced to marriage two people of the same gender. Since marriage is based in Scripture, I don’t think that anyone but a man and a woman should be allowed to “marry” in the biblical sense. But what about the concept of domestic partnership? I know many gays and lesbians who make the assertion that they want the exact same thing that heterosexual couples have. It isn’t going to happen. But is there room for domestic partnership, where they can live together, inherit property, make joint purchases and medical decisions with each other, and perhaps raise a family together? Is the issue the partnership or the fact that they want to call it marriage?
This report is so typical of pro-Marshall/Newman mouthpieces, with its convenient slippage between opposition to the amendment and support for full marriage equality. Reverend McDonald made it clear that she is in the latter camp, while Mayor Porta and many other speakers gave a myriad of other reasons for opposing the amendment.
Your tag line on the Porta quote, “in support of gay “marriage”” is an example of a very unsophisticated rhetorical trick, which everyone can see through. Thanks for the laugh this morning.
Maybe you did not read the same article. But, it seems to me the liberal MJM down played the wacko left in this article.
Greg,
The rally was a Vote No rally, not a marriage equality rally. The Commonwealth Coalition is very inclusive and welcomes people who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, but disagree with the proposed amendment. Bruce Roemmelt articulated the “heinousness” of this amendment very well. It’s hard to see how the amendment fits with the intent of Madison and Jefferson when they wrote:
For a kung fu tough guy and all that, I have the suspicion that you didn’t mention Bruce’s excellent speech because you’re afraid that he’d kick your sorry little ass.
Roemmelt made no sense at all in his rantings as far as I’m concerned. He said nothing I haven’t heard from other gay “marriage” supporters, and it’s clear that he is a gay “marriage” advocate but lacks the courage to stand up for his convictions and state them in clear terms. It’s far easier to hide behind such nonsequiturs as “writing discrimination into the constitution” and retain some shred of hope that Prince William County voters will be fooled into electing him to office. I’m not buying.
So Bruce Roemmelt is going to “kick my sorry little ass” now? Seems I’ve heard this sort of thing before from cowards such as yourself. How about you be a man and threaten me directly rather than stand Roemmelt up to do your dirty work for you?
“I’m gonna have Bruce Roemmelt beat you up” is one hell of an argument for your side. You might want to fix your lipstick, because this argument is still a pig.
Greg, again I must point out that your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired. You are not permitted to respond to what you wish your adversary had said. Sorry.
What do you expect from a Roemmelt admirer, Greg? They have to rely upon a tough-guy persona, though some like to refer to him as “Dr.” Roemmelt (even though his doctorate is the widely-recognized-as-phony Ed.D).
A yes vote for the marriage admendment doesn’t take anyones rights away! The thing I get so sick of, is having to cater to so many minority groups. This is the perfect way for a law to voted on. Let the PUBLIC decide! Let the majority win! I wish Americans could vote on the illegal alien issue themselves, since some of our politicians can’t seem to remember that we already have laws about the enforcement of illegal’s.
Greg,
I’m not from Prince William and don’t know the personal dynamics between you and the good the locals who support liberty, justice and just plain fairness. You did say you were “disturbed” by the event, and it couldn’t have possibly been because you felt threatened or in fear for your personal safety, not from that loving crowd. If you have time, please elaborate on what “disturbed” you.
I would never threaten you Greg, but if you were thirsty, I’d give you water, and if you were hungry, I’d give you food.
In peace and love,
Jonathan
p.s. - Did you read section 1 of the Bill of Rights?
p.s.s. - I thought that I had posted this early this morning.
\”Loving\” as of late seems all too selective, having seen my family attacked this past week and in this thread seen comments that Roemmelt was going to \”kick my ass\” by these very \”loving\” Democrats. The veneer of \”loving\” is wearing pretty thin these days. If I get much more of this particular brand of love, I\’m going to have to start shopping for bulletproof vests for my preschoolers.
But what was disturbing to me wasn\’t that I felt personally threatened, as I absolutely did not at the BRUU rally. What was disturbing was that I would be characterized as a segregationist simply because I believe that marriage is something that should continue to be between one man and one woman, as it always has been. I find it disturbing that anyone would advocate gay \”marriage\”. It\’s disturbing from a policy and phiolosophical perspective, not in a sense that I am threatened in any way.
I hope that you continue to advocate for these principles of christian charity and forgiveness within your party as I have in mine. Perhaps some day none of us will ever come to fear for the lives of our families because of what we believe and say. I think our political discussion would greatly improve as a result.
How so?
That’s not true, my words were:
It was a question to your motivation for omitting Bruce’s powerful speech and your failure to address the profound constitutional issues. You still have not explained why you omitted the speech. Why did you? I thought that maybe all this kung fu stuff is an overcompensation for something you may be missing in your brick and mortar life, and my intuition seems to be ringing true. ding-a-ling!
p.s. - in a plea for “christian charity”, please drop the scare quotes on the word marriage. Out of respect for the religious liberty of your neighbors at the BRUU, you’re going to have to just get over it. Once your over it, please get the word out to your party.