RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Marriage purpose matters



Toolbox

Published: March 7, 2009

While most Vermonters are focused on addressing fiscal troubles, both personally and in state government, those intent on redefining marriage in Vermont are hard at work advancing their agenda. It should be clear that homosexual marriage is not about benefits since those were attained in 2000. This is solely about redefining marriage.

During my 2006 cngressional race I had an odd interview with blogger Philip Baruth that was very telling about the length to which supporters of homosexual marriage will go to get their way. During the interview I presented a question that turned the interview completely around, causing Baruth to struggle defending an idea he clearly had not thought through.

Baruth published our entire conversation on his blog along with some very bizarre editorial comments. The interview, which can be found under news at www.ShepardForCongress.org, demonstrates that even as a leading advocate for homosexual marriage he had not begun to consider its ramifications. Baruth's closing statement and nonsensical editorial remarks further demonstrate that he will accept all sorts of marriage arrangements and slander anyone who thinks differently in the cause of bringing about homosexual marriage.

For those who believe that nothing should stop the enactment of laws codifying homosexual marriage, there is no reason for them to study the consequences. For the rest of us, it is well worth taking the time to understand where expanding marriage will inevitably lead our culture and to discover why traditional marriage and family are foundational to its survival.

The issue at stake is not so much that marriage will expand to all sorts of relationships beyond one man and one woman, but that doing so will sever the connection between marriage and children. Consider the costs to our nation from the breakdown of the family. Those we elect to public office should be actively pursuing ways to strengthen the bonds between the biological mother and father and the raising of the children they together bring into this world, not severing these ties. That is in everyone's best interest. While that ideal is not always possible, and in some cases not best for the child, it is still very important that that remains our goal as a society. Public policy is an expression of our goals.

MARK SHEPARD

Bennington








READER COMMENTS


To be honest,Kevin,I'm not up to date with lesbians and STD'd's.However,I do know back in the late 80's,Don Fedor,a far right crack pot(like me) columunist for the Boston Herald did a page on why homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle.He stated according to a fedral health study lesbians have 8 times greater incidence of STD's than heterosexual women.

The part about unhealthy lifestyle for homosexual men is often attributed to the social stigma gay men face each day,and the reasons why they have a lower life expectancy,higher rates of drug and ETOH addictions,and of course suicide.I guess that's a good point for your side.

When you think of lesbians,you gotta think of two open ended plumbing parts going at it.Women in general are more succeptable to urinary problems/disease than men.When you put lesbian sex into the equation,you double the trouble.Fenmale plumbing makes sense to me why lesbians have higher rates of STD's or UTI's.And yes,UTI's are sometimes introduced thru sex.


Top 5 sexually transmitted diseases in the USA:

1)Chlamydia

2)Gonorrhea

3)Crabs

4)Barnacles

5)Gerbils

As I said before,liberals discredit science to advance science.They don't like it one bit HIV infects gay men more than IV abusers,straights,hemophilliacs,etc.They put millions of lives at risk by disseminating false info or skewed data just to avoid upsetting the ladies.And come on,Kevin,being gay as you are you must know some gay associates/friends who are HIV .Like it or not,it's really a gay disease.Even the CDC is reluctant to admit this fact,but they do.You just have to read between the lines.
-- Posted by Tom Zebo on Tue, Mar 10, 2009, 10:34 pm EST

report this comment



Tom, I'll wager HIV is even more prevalent among drug users.
Certainly more prevalent there than among the 2/3 of couples who will marry who are LESBIANS. The incidence of HIV among lesbians is probably the lowest of any identifiable group.

But until we start banning HIV people from marriage altogether, the whole argument is moot. And that's not likely to happen.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Tue, Mar 10, 2009, 7:46 pm EST

report this comment



Yes Arnie,I couldn't agree more that HIV infections with homosexuals continues to skyrocket each year.However,let us not forget that back in the 80's C Everett Koop stated that HIV would be seen more in Hetetrosexuals as time went on.Well,25 years later that statistic hasn't budged,heterosexuals have the same rate of HIV/Aids transmissions as they did back in the 80's, while AIDS in homosexual men continue to rise.


That is unless you watch 'Dateline.' One of their past headlines back in 2005 read, "AIDS hits small town college! 30 new case!" Wow!!! What they didn't say,28 out of the 30 cases involved men.Folks in high places like fiscal conservative/social liberal/pre-op transsexual,Senator John Campbell create lies like this to cover the fact AIDS discriminates.Liberals love to lie and make rules only for themselves and no one else.
-- Posted by Tom Zebo on Tue, Mar 10, 2009, 12:32 am EST

report this comment



Arnie,you are the best and I sincerely mean that.I couldn't have said it better,words can't describe how I feel about your 'facts' thread.Simply,homosexuality is a very unhealthy lifestyle.It's been said and proven over and over again,but your liberals LIE about it.They lie about the relationship between anal sex and gay/bi men out of fear of hurting their feelings.Nobody wants to talk about it,so they discredit science to advance their Hollywood styled agenda-pathetic!

And the biggest offend is Senator John Campbell,our states's biggest pusher of homosexuality is a social liberal/fiscal conservative,which is kinda like saying he's a post-op transsexual.I'm sure this promoter of gay sex,bio fools and other assorted political projects that waste taxpayer time and money can understand that-maybe he can't,but I want this SOB out of office come next election.What a jerk and blow hard.The trouble is,no one seems to care he's been trying to enact gay marriage for years.

Oh well,it's been a long day and with Campbell in mind:

Crappy days are here again
The skies in Montpelier are drear again
John Campbell sings a song for gays again
Crappy days are here again.

Good night!
-- Posted by Tom Zebo on Mon, Mar 9, 2009, 11:45 pm EST

report this comment



Here is a FACT from Today's Rutland Herald, that really doesn't surprise me, not after reading the threads for Gay Marriage and they such.

VERMONT HAS EARNED THE HONORED TITLE OF THE MOST NON RELIGIOUS STATE.

Now that should not shock anyone, seeing how you have Homosexuals on here, denouncing the word of God and claiming how Normal that they are as they try and justify their invasion of the Sacred Act of Marriage.

Now I understand how the Gays have been able to find their roots in Vermont and plant their immoral lifestyles as being Normal and just Good Ole Folk. ROFLMAO


This NEW Title should be one you all should be very proud of. You traded Morals for NO MORALS and you welcome the most repulsive lifestyles as being OK.

What a sick and sorry state Vermont has become. The Flatlander Invasion has succeeded in wiping out all the good that Vermont use to stand for. Be Proud Vermonters, you all allowed it to happen. Hug a Gay today and just say THANKS. ROFLMAO
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Mon, Mar 9, 2009, 10:37 pm EST

report this comment



FACT: 97% of Arnie's facts are utterly ridiculous.

Dr. Gonzo, please change your user name - Thompson was no fan of your ilk.
-- Posted by Native Wallingfordian on Mon, Mar 9, 2009, 1:30 pm EST

report this comment



While my objections have a lot to do with Arnie's arguments, the heavy dose of outside money by Tim Gill and others, both here in VT and in NH, makes this a necessity for Campbell and the Dems in the legislature. It has to be brought up now because the LGBT activists demand it now. They think they have an edge and can force Gov. Douglas into signing it or letting it become law. Because of California, the left in Montpelier needs a "legislature-based" victory not enacted under pressure from a court in order to show the rest of the country the "courage" the Dems in VT have! This is cynical politics at its best. Why on earth is it so dire to give 1%-2% of the entire population the "red meat" it so desires?

It's the same as the George Soros money and Universal Healthcare. This is the Dems in Montpelier covering their bets with the most important and influential special interest group in their caucus, the LGBT caucus. This is what makes the arguments that are so often used about the Republicans being "held captive" by the religious right such a farce! Talk about a party being held captive by 10% of its coalition.
-- Posted by Kevin Blier on Mon, Mar 9, 2009, 10:34 am EST

report this comment



Congratulations, Arnie, every time you cut and paste the same old "information" from discredited anti-gay propaganda websites, you show the ignorance gay people face each day and help make the case for our side. So, keep it up, I'm sure you can exercise that cut and paste feature on your computer a few more thousand times. (Keeps your hands out of trouble, eh?) Maybe you should print it off and send it to your legislators. I'm sure they'll find it instructive.

Meanwhile, reasonable people are probably paying more attention to yesterday's excellent Rutland Herald editorial and to the fact that the marriage equality bill has wide support in the legislature.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Mon, Mar 9, 2009, 10:17 am EST

report this comment



Talk, talk, its only talk, arguments, agreements, advice, articulate announcements, bicker, bicker, bicker, balderdash, ballyhoo, broohaha. Its only talk.
And the gay agenda is..........(ta da!)
"I know I'm not normal, but I want you to treat me like I am normal".
Now come on, you cant possibly argue with that.
Its what all gays want, to be normal like the rest of us.
We build wheelchair ramps for the physically handicapped, why not let the sexually handicapped marry? Why the heck not? No decrimination here. Just call a spade a spade when it is one.
I'm sorry you didnt come out normal. But its not my fault!

BTW- Why do web content filters filter out "gay and lesbian interest" web sites? Hmmmmmmmm. Now why would that be?
Perhaps the computer knows a spade when it sees it. Just a guess.
Our whole society is one huge messed up crap sandwich.
This whole discussion should never have to have taken place.
Why am I talking about this? Wy are any of you talking about this? Puke.
-- Posted by Dr. Gonzo on Mon, Mar 9, 2009, 9:37 am EST

report this comment



I do NOT hate Gays., I just do not feel we should REWARD them for their perverted choice of a life style.

I select to talk about Gay men more than Lesbians for a couple of reasons.

1. FACT 53% of all NEW HIV AIDs Infections for FY 2006, was GAY men who had Sex with another man. I find this hard for a woman to achieve. A very HIGH percentage for a group that is less than 1% of the U.S. Population. Less than 2% are gay and subtract the Lesbians for the percentage of Gay men. The 53% is also a low number because not all doctors ask if the patient is GAY, this number was taken from the Doctors who asked.

Because of this stat alone, almost $24 BILLION is spent each year on research and considering it is very obvious why Gay men infect themselves with HIV AIDs, it shows that money is being spent when ignorance and immoral choices are being made.

2. FACT All Gay men have Sex and when Gay men have sex they commit SODOMY. Heterosexuals may practice Sodomy, I myself have NEVER practiced SODOMY, but there is NOT a single Gay Man who can claim that.

3.FACT Lesbians insert something in their Love making, where a something is meant to be inserted, Gay men do not.

Call me a Bigot, I am fine with that and in your mind, God was a bigot as well and it is I, who is in good company.

I firmly feel Gays should be Patients and not Parents.

I find two Gay men kissing to be sick and the thought of two gay men engaging in sex, is repulsive. There is NOTHING Normal about these actions and anyone who says they are, needs to be in line at the Doctor's Office for a full mental check up.

Liberals are trying to force us to accept TOLERANCE, even when what we are to accept is absolutely WRONG.

Gay is a Choice and is not inherited and that is nothing but a bunch of B.A. that the Gays can not provide Proof for, but will hide behind and then try to discredit any proof that says on the contrary. Transgenders maybe born with their sexual disorder, but Gays are not, they live it by choice. As in being a Pedophile the choice is very wrong and immoral, unlike a Pedophile the Gays make have their relations with dozens of consenting partners, fine, that is their business, but when they want to Invade a Heterosexual Tradition as an endorsement for their sick choices, I say it is ALL of OUR business and Adoption or raising children is a definite NO.

FACT ALL Major Religions DENY the Gay Lifestyle as being evil and sinful. Some punish by Death or imprisonment.

FACT Sodom and Gomorrah as well a couple of other cities were destroyed as a warning by God. Want Scientific Proof?
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm

FACT " MSM are the only group for which new infections, HIV AIDs have been on the rise in recent years."

FACT "In 2005 US Health officials reported an alarming Eight percent increase in HIV infection in one year alone among homosexual and bisexual men."

FACT " The CDC estimates the cumulative number of deaths if persons with AIDs in the US through 2006 to be 545,805." Is this a normal number for a NORMAL lifestyle?

FACT " Child prostitution EXPERT Dr. Jennifer James reports that the number of boy prostitutes who identify themselves as homosexuals has risen from 10% to 60% in the last FIFTEEN years."

FACT "NAMBLA, a group that openly promotes sex with minor boys and claims that boy lovers respond to the needs of the boys they love." two of the same GENDER is GAY. So NAMBLA is a GAY Organization promoting Pedophilia.

FACT " Family Research Institute founder and psychologist Paul Cameron, reviewing more than NINETEEN different academic reports and peer reviewed studies in a 1985 Psychological Reports article, found that homosexuals account for between 25% and 40% of all Child Molestation. "

Once again a staggering percentage considering they only make up less than 2% of the population. This alone is proof that their motives are immoral and that they need to be patients.

FACT "In 2000 the Archives of Sexual Behavior published an article by SEVEN SEX RESEARCHERS concluding that around 25 to 40% of men attracted to children, prefer boys. Thus the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among Pedophiles."

What is being said here is that GAYS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE AROUND CHILDREN. The percentages are just too extreme for such a small percentage of the population.

FACT "In a [1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R.I. Watson found that Homosexual males are THREE times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 BOYS before being arrested."

I know, it is all just a coincidence that all of these studies come up with very similar results.

FACT "In 1993, the United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate, issued a study that analyzed 102 Court Martial convictions having to do with soldiers involved in homosexual acts over a FOUR year period. The study found that in 47% of the cases, homosexual men victimized a YOUTH."

Another FACTUAL study that reveals further evidence that Gays should not be around children.

FACT "The Family Research Institute conducted a similar study and found that ELEVEN times more GAYS than exclusively heterosexual men reported sex with a man while they were under the age of 13."

I know, I know another coincidence.

FACT "A study by homosexual activists and researchers Jay and Young revealed that 73% of homosexuals surveyed had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger."

FACT "The epidemic in male child molestation occurring simultaneously with the rise of an aggressive homosexual subculture is not coincidental. Due to the AIDS virus, molestation is often a death sentence. Further, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 50% of male AIDS victims reported having sex with an adult male by the age of 16, and 20% had sex with an adult male by the age of 10."

FACT "In fact, a number of studies performed over a period spanning more than half a century, many of which were performed by homosexuals or their sympathizers, have shown that an extremely large percentage of sexually active homosexuals also participate in child sexual molestation.
This is not homophobia or hatred, this is simple scientific fact."

FACT "A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25 to 40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6 to 20 times higher among pedophiles."

FACT "Serial killers are nearly always men, 93%."

FACT "Although the proportion of serial killers who are known to have had homosexual experience is high, over 43%"

FACT "Technically, 69% of the serial killers in this study were homosexuals (i.e., people who were self described homosexuals or people who had engaged in homosexual behavior immediately prior to, during, or after committing their murders). The lower statistic of 43% cited above is the proportion who were homosexual among people who molested or raped and then murdered children."

FACT "Gays are people who do not believe in the other half of humanity.


FACT Heterosexual couples who divorce are more than likely to re unite with another member of the opposite sex. Gays on the other hand, will more than likely move on to another gay person of their gender. To allow these people to raise children in this type of environment will be endorsing the fact that the child will not have the natural upbringing brought on by a member of each gender. Gays have Civil Unions and do not need the Marriage endorsement which will allow them to adopt etc.

The only endorsement for Gays is by Gays.
-- Posted by Arnie Thibault on Mon, Mar 9, 2009, 9:20 am EST

report this comment



Nah Kevin,I don't remember the names or what orgs.,assns,etal they were back in the 90's,but they certainly put a lot $'s toward passing the CU bill.This I know.I think there was the Green Mt Club who kicked in the most and then,of course, there was Ben&Jerry's.All I do know,more gay money in Vermont in proportion to fruit money in California.If I remember-and believe you me my memory is slowly deteriorating-Gay pols/pacs raised about 80-100 grand more than the 'Take Back Vermont.' The rest is Hx.Just ask Dick sears of Bennington.Now there's another pol.who puts me on red alert.

And why pick on the Mormons or even the Catholics?You guys on the left conveniently forget it was not just the white conservatives who protected the Constitution,it was also the Black and Hispanic vote.Blacks and Hispanics voted 70 percent against gay marriage,yet to be politically correct in your approach to shove it down our throats you go after anything blond and blue eyed to just to prove your lefthood.

Funny though,in California,L.A. Mayor Garaigos(?) and Gov. candidate who openly favors gay marriage and has in the past performed his own brand of private gay wedding ceremonies,is now pushing for legalization of marijuanna(not decriminalizing)) to help with their budget deficit.Even a failing brain like myself doesn't need much figuring to know if you can't pass gay marriage in California,you certainly aren't going to get marijuanna across the board.

Now if you'll excuse me,I have to go beat up a folk singer and taunt a hurricane victim.
-- Posted by Tom Zebo on Sun, Mar 8, 2009, 11:48 pm EST

report this comment



Not much money involved in Vermont Freedom to Marry, sorry to burst your bubble, Tom.

It's mostly volunteers among Vermont's gay and gay-supportive population.
The big bucks, when they come, are all on the other side, I'm afraid. It's the American Family Association / Focus on the Family / Knights of Columbus / Mormon folks who spend in other states to push their agenda down our throats.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Sun, Mar 8, 2009, 11:03 pm EST

report this comment



Shap Smith for Governor!!!
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Mar 8, 2009, 11:00 pm EST

report this comment



No Vermont politician would say passing the gay marriage bill is more important than the economic problems facing most Vermonters?

Maybe,but not entirely true.Try asking Senator John Campbell of Windsor County,our Senate Majority leader.The ruddy faced roue seems so obessed with getting it passed and the laws/rules that govern it,most gay couples would most likely have a scant 3 months to decide what wedding music or silverware pattern to choose from.

This Campbell bigot would put anyone opposed to gay marriage on red alert to possible kick backs from out of state GLBT organizations that funnel money into getting homosexuals legally married.I would not be surprised in the least if Campbell's getting his pockets lined just like"fetus wisperer",John Edwards had his by way of dirty,filthy,corrupt tactics used to suck money off the misery of others.Only in this case,John Campbell will make most Vermonters miserable while he laughs his way to an offshore account set up in a fictitious name by some Hollywood styled gay org.

Just like the days of Civil Unions,gays practically bought their way to Civil Unions.It's the only way they'll get gay marriage enacted,and that's by throwing money.

Vermonters should take heed what Nebraska did after we got slammed with CU's back in the 90's.They simply raised more money than the gays and their patsies and got their gay marriage bill permanently booted.And this was after Nebraska voted 75/25 against!

Yens,rials,euros,krugerands,it doesn't matter to Campbell what international gay political org is footing the costs. As long as he's promoting their cause,he'll take the loot.

Now that I think of it,they're all getting bribed.Sears,Shumlin,Dewy,Cheatum and Howe(I know,old joke).
Anyway,never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.By that time,he's a mile away and you're in his shoes.John Campbell's going to be miles away and we'll be holding his bag of sh#t.
-- Posted by Tom Zebo on Sun, Mar 8, 2009, 10:06 pm EST

report this comment



Come on, David, no VT legislator would say that passing the marriage bill is MORE important than dealing with VT's economic issues. Everyone knows that the economy is the number one priority, including gay people. Do you think that gay VTers aren't equally affected by the dismal economy? Do you think that they aren't worried about job loss and having to uproot their families? My brother-in-law works for the State and has no idea whether his job will be cut by Gov. Douglas. Yet he still believes that I and the other gay people he knows deserve the same right to marry that he has.

I hope you don't lose your job, and I wish you and your family the best. But you should understand that gay families face the same hardships and pay the same taxes, while having none of the federal protections that straight people take for granted. No spousal social security benefits, extra cost to get health insurance through a partner, if they can get spousal health insurance at all. No gay person wants to take anything away from you, yet you feel threatened that the state of Vermont, to the fullest extent possible, may allow gay people the same rights you've had all along. I understand why you're angry about the economy--everyone is--but I truly don't understand why you're channeling that anger towards gay people. We're not stealing your job or causing you any other harm, really we're not.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Sun, Mar 8, 2009, 7:58 pm EST

report this comment



David Randall: Interesting tactic. Lob grenades, wait for the explosion, then run away from your original statement by calling it a "guess." If you don't have facts and all you do have are opinions then why the hell can't you bring yourself to stay out of other people's lives? It is my guess and my opinion that you are a tool, but that won't cause me any concern about your marital choice.
-- Posted by SC Boy on Sun, Mar 8, 2009, 6:29 pm EST

report this comment



Ernest, Kevin, and dumbass..I mean SC Boy..

I didn't say ALL and I believe I did say it was a "guess"....I believe that the "progression" that Vermont has made in the last 30 years..(which is all I've been around for)..is largely the result of a migration of liberal thinkers from our neighbors to the south. Reminds me of the Pilgrims crossing the pond except the morals and values are a$$-backwards. Again, this is only an opinion, I don't have stats or webpages to verify these statements, but I do know that over half of our legislature are not native Vermonters...I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, they are still elected.

The fact that our economy is in the dumper and my job is in jeopardy, makes me very angry that our government believes that gay marriage and global warming(due to nuclear power plants) are more important than trying to mitigate job loss and promote business growth. When I lose my job this so-called progression will make it much easier to pull up stakes and move my family elsewhere.
-- Posted by David Randall on Sun, Mar 8, 2009, 6:03 pm EST

report this comment



David Randall: Jeezum crow. Wutt the hayeck diffince do it make wer sumun is frum? Wedder you fum heeyah or theyah we all gods chillun. I frum heeyah and I disgree on you mosin alla time.
-- Posted by SC Boy on Sun, Mar 8, 2009, 5:05 pm EST

report this comment



"Just a guess, but I bet that the majority of homosexuals in Vermont and supporting posters on these forums, are not native Vermonters either."

I don't believe in discriminating against "flatlanders." Seems to me that anyone who is living in VT deserves equal civil rights, whether they were born here or moved here because it's a great place to live. After all, we can't all be native VTers. Though, for the record, this homosexual and supporting poster was born and raised in VT, and my entire immediate family lives here and has for over a century. Believe it or not, we're VTers just like you.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Sun, Mar 8, 2009, 4:14 pm EST

report this comment



Everyone at Freedom to Marry lives in Vermont.

Stan Baker, for whom the Baker decision was named, was from a family that went back many generations in Vermont. My partner's grandparents were born in Vermont.

But none of this really matters, as anyone who is a resident of Vermont has the right to vote and has the same rights as someone who can trace his ancestry back to the Abenaki.

The idea that gay people are all outsiders is just wrong: Vermont produces just as many gay and lesbian children as any other state. And they all deserve the same rights.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Sun, Mar 8, 2009, 4:10 pm EST

report this comment



Mark Still signs his letters as if he is still living in Bennington. Marks current Vt home is on the market and i believe he is now living with his great family near Syarcuse, NY. I find nothing wrong with Mark's writing. But he should not continue to imply he is still a Vermonter.
-- Posted by Rob McWaters on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 11:37 pm EST

But it's completely fine that over 50% of our legislature is out-of-state transplants? Just a guess, but I bet that the majority of homosexuals in Vermont and supporting posters on these forums, are not native Vermonters either. His location is completely irrelavent, unless you want to bring up what I just mentioned.
-- Posted by David Randall on Sun, Mar 8, 2009, 2:49 pm EST

report this comment



I remember seeing Mark speak at one of the 'Take Back Vermont' sessions back in the 90's when CU was being hotly debated.He did such a fantastic job in explaining how gay marriage is wrong and homosexuality a curse/disease.Well,maybe not in those exact words,but he opened my eyes to why gay marriage is just a conduit to immorality and further deterioration of our society in general.

What I can't understand fully is,why are the people against gay marriage going about it from a different slant from the Civil Union debate.I realize and comprehend the part re; one man,one woman in response to the sanctity of marriage.That I fully agree with,but why not take some of the points laid out during the 'Take Back Vermont' movement?

I can think of many,but the few that stand out most is the fact that a lot of your gay male couples come here to get medical bennies for one or the other or both for HIV medication(s).It cost big bucks to keep someone with HIV alive and I'm not too crazy about supporting gay and married transplants who specifically come here to raid our health system.


Cruel? I think NOT!! It's just the facts of life and I don't like it one bit that these gay couples use that ruse of love,commitment and respect,when it's just one big homosexual ponzi scheme under the guise of dignity and integrety for all.BS!!

Hey!! look at me I'm doing paragraphs!! Gee,I don't wanna look like I'm writing that good(or is it well,none none) for some of your more prissy forum people.I'm with stupid.
-- Posted by Tom Zebo on Sun, Mar 8, 2009, 2:40 pm EST

report this comment



As long as were just making people happy lets just put all your money into my chenking acct. so that I can afford to move away from you off the chart lefties. Good for you Mark if you are indeed moving away especially if its because of the taxes. I also don't care what you do to excercise your colon, its not marriage. Dems. are not Rep. and yet they are both political parties. Being that they have all the rights as normal people, whats wrong with having their own name for what they do, like perverts.
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Mar 8, 2009, 11:02 am EST

report this comment



Mark Still signs his letters as if he is still living in Bennington. Marks current Vt home is on the market and i believe he is now living with his great family near Syarcuse, NY. I find nothing wrong with Mark's writing. But he should not continue to imply he is still a Vermonter.
-- Posted by Rob McWaters on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 11:37 pm EST

report this comment



I'm not sure why Mark Shepard thinks allowing gay people to marry will redefine marriage. Presumably, once two women are married or two men are married, his heterosexual marriage will remain entirely unchanged. In Canada, where gay couples now have full civil marriage equality, marriage seems no different than it did 5 years ago, except now the loving commitment of more couples and families is protected by law.

I also don't understand how protecting gay families severs any ties within heterosexual families. Divorce does this. Unwanted children does this. Child abuse does this. But none of these things have been caused by gay people. By valuing all families, we strengthen not sever family ties. Gay couples are raising children, wanted children and foster children given up by their (primarily) heterosexual families. These children deserve the same protection as the children of straight parents. It's in the best interest of children to be in happy and secure families, whether those families are gay or straight.

As for Fredrocket's wondering why this can't be put on the back burner for a while: It's been on the back burner for the past 8 years. CUs were a compromise, one that gay VTers have lived with long enough. The legislature hasn't been devoting much time to this bill because it's simple: one easy, good thing they can accomplish in a difficult year. It hasn't distracted their attention from any other issues, and it won't cost anything. The votes are there for its passage, so the legislature needn't dilly dally over it or divert their attention from other bills. Civil rights needn't be put on hold during tough economic times. That's when they are all the more important.

I agree with Shepard that public policy is an expression of our goals, but I believe that our goal should be to show each VT citizen equal respect and to include rather than exclude. If his goal is to strengthen families, this bill will help do that.
-- Posted by Ernest McLeod on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 8:19 pm EST

report this comment



Fred, if you'd read the comments of the legislators, you'll see that they're doing this because a) it's easy and b) it's a win-win situation: it costs the state nothing and makes people happy because it's about fairness.

They're doing all the other things, which are much less pleasant.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 8:15 pm EST

report this comment



Does this have to be done NOW??? Really people, I don't think we should waste our time on something like this when so many other things need attention. Can't we focus on things like healthcare, our failing bridges and roads, and job loss? Am I missing something, or can't this just be put on the back burner for a while? Really.
-- Posted by Fredrocket on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 7:28 pm EST

report this comment



Mr. Moderate: First two sentences of Shepard's last paragraph seem paranoid to me. If not paranoid, awful darn silly.
-- Posted by SC Boy on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 4:41 pm EST

report this comment



"All things being equal, a loving heterosexual relationship is a better environment for raising children than a loving homosexual relationship" is one of those assertions that opponents of marriage equality make without any objective backup.
Moreover "all things being equal" is an enormous proviso. Let's have a list of all the things that must be equal to justify such a sweeping statement.
But more importantly, questions of child-rearing, like questions of religion, are irrelevant to civil marriage equality. Opponents also like to manufacture "purposes" of marriage, including religious sacraments and procreation. But these are not referred to anywhere in secular marriage law. The state has no stated purpose in issuing marriage licenses and recognizing marriage--certainly none that would justify it in restricting this civil right to heterosexual couples.
And for those who want to talk about procreation and child-rearing anyway, the inescapable fact is that times have changed. Many couples marry with no wish or intention to have children. And many couples have children with no wish or intention to marry. Likewise single people have and adopt children. All these children are equal in the eyes of the law.
-- Posted by Judy Olinick on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 2:16 pm EST

report this comment



Just because you don't agree with him doesn't make it a paranoid rant. I'm not saying I agree with Mark, but a paranoid rant it is not.

I do disagree with Bandit None, however. All things being equal, a loving heterosexual relationship is a better environment for raising children than a loving homosexual relationship.
-- Posted by Mr. Moderate on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 12:11 pm EST

report this comment



Interesting paranoid rant. He really is close to Mr. "Man on dog" Rick Santorum, as Baruth commented. Thank heavens these arguments aren't taken seriously!

Shepard writes about "severing the connection between marriage and children," yet he's the one who wants to sever that connection by depriving children of gay parents having their parents married.

But the courts have already ruled that the "purpose of marriage is procreation" argument holds no water, or we wouldn't allow old or barren people to marry.

And as to studying consequences, it's the anti-marriage folks who ignore every peer-reviewed scientific study, all of which show that gay couples raise kids just fine.
-- Posted by Kevin Moss on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 10:46 am EST

report this comment



How bizarre. This conspiracy theory sounds like a reference to the much-feared "gay agenda," which I have yet to find evidence of among LGBT people who just want equal rights, benefits, and protections. A friend on Facebook posts her "gay agenda" every day -- it includes feeding the cat and shopping for groceries. But then I'm hetero so they're probably keeping the really sinister parts from me.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 7:23 am EST

report this comment



Mark Shepard: Thanks for clueing us in. I, for one, am quite afraid. You left out some consequences though. Also sure to come if gays get married will be floods, droughts, windstorms, locusts, frogs falling from the skies, death of firstborn sons, and the end of days. What would humanity do without protectors like you?
-- Posted by SC Boy on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 5:38 am EST

report this comment



Gay couples can adopt and provide a stable home invironment just as much as any straight couple. Sheesh.
-- Posted by Bandit None on Sat, Mar 7, 2009, 4:18 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout