Deaf LGBT activists are feeling spanked by the National Association of the Deaf.
Let's review: earlier this year, Governor Dennis Daugaard had an invitation to speak at the NAD's biennial conference in Louisville, Kentucky, in July. Deaf LGBT activists expressed their distaste at the prospect of being lectured by a governor who presides over a yahoo state that bans same-sex marriage. Governor Daugaard withdrew from the conference, claiming schedule conflicts. (On the day he was scheduled to speak to the NAD, July 6, Governor Daugaard spoke at the 927th Engineer Detachment's deployment ceremony in Sioux Falls.) The NAD expressed its concern about making anyone feel marginalized, and deaf LGBT activists celebrated.
However small that victory, last month, the National Association of the Deaf reversed it:
Catching LGBT advocates by surprise, delegates at the following NAD conference moved to extend another invitation to Gov. Daugaard to speak at the next conference. The second surprise: This motion passed unanimously! Any progress made in educating the NAD on LGBT-equality needs amounted only to an elaborate illusion of our own making. The supposed support for gay marriage by the NAD revealed itself to be a ruse to distract us. When it comes to action, the NAD have shown that they're going in a different direction [Courtney O'Donnell, "Prominent Deaf Civil Rights Organization Thumbs Its Nose at LGBT People a Second Time," Huffington Post, August 8, 2012].
I assume this means Governor Daugaard is invited to speak at the 2014 conference in Atlanta, July 1 through July 5. Hmm... election year, July 4th parades... I'm thinking the NAD might be hard-pressed to get Governor Daugaard to give up valuable campaign time to spend the holiday week in Atlanta... unless, of course, Gordon Howie beats him in the June primary.
I'm still uneasy with the idea that deaf LGBT activist would reject a meeting with Governor Daugaard just because he's from a state that practices ignorant, discriminatory politics. Maybe it's easy for progressives of various stripes to write off and isolate South Dakota. But if South Dakota's politics are messed up, we local libs could use a little help fixing them. Don't shun or boycott our leaders when they visit; engage them. Look for opportunities for conversation that could draw those leaders and South Dakota as a whole toward the social progress it needs.
It is posts like this that provide evidence that you promote New Age sex worship.
Geez Sibby, had a psych eval lately?
Another personal attack to avoid the truth by a Kool Aid drinker.
All right, I'm biting this time.
Sibby, in opposing equal marriage rights, you and the South Dakota Constitution as amended in 2006 are worshipping sex, one preferred form of sex. My position on marriage says, "You love each other? Cool. I'll recognize your union." I don't mention sex. I don't care with whom or whether union-seekers are having sex. You're obsessed with sex; I'm all about commitment.
Excellent point, Cory.
So Cory, I love my dog, but don't want to have sex with it...should I be able to marry it too? Even if you remove that argument, how can you say the gay issue is not about sex? It is all about having sex with the same gender.
Cory, explain the Chick-fil-A Kissing Day Protest For Equal Marriage Rights and why CNN put up a warning, if you want to continue the point that this is not about sex:
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-824812
No it's not, Sibby. It's about marrying the person you love. Sex doesn't have anything to do with it, except from your perspective.
Your dog example is indicative of your ignorance on this point. Legally you can't have sex with your dog OR marry it because the dog is incapable of consent.
Equating animals and people is a common reasoning error in your circle. Recall that Mr. Howie once remarked that pregnant cattle were more valuable than those not, a remark for which he was immediatly chastised by his wife.
Sometimes you guys say the most boneheaded stuff.
That is a good point Sibby about the warning going up.
BF, Please explain the Howie cattle context. That is really interesting and if he was going with the story where I think he was it is too funny!
I'll bite your darn dog, too, Sibby.
Excellent point, Bill. Dog ≠ human. Dog can't sign contract.
And I'm not at Chick-Fil-A, Sibby, so that's irelevant. You said I worship sex. If I am the issue, you have to talk about things I'm doing. I do not worship sex. You and South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban do.
I think he meant it as a joke, Mike, yes.
And very few, if any, women thought it was very funny.
Here's a link, Mike:
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politicalblog/?p=1018
Think people should have a choice between a state union and a church union. Both would be recognized by the state.
The state union would require a legally binding document that would cover all the arguements that are normally brought up in a divorce and have a solution established before the union begins. Anybody could form a state union, including two hetrosexuals who wished to establish a household, love not necessary. Would not have to comply with any religious requirements. Would be like incoorperating.
The second would be by church law. Anybody the church wanted to bring together, under church law, in a union they could, but the termination of that union would require compliance with church law, not state law and agreed to prior to the service.
Think anybody who wants to pay the income tax penalty for being "married" should have the opportunity.
Sorry about that. Could have had better sentence structure, but I think you get my drift.
I do get the drift, Joseph. Like me, you get away from the sex question and focus on commitment. Too bad Sibby and Denny worship sex so much. They might not catch as much flak when they get invited to speak at national conferences.
"Legally you can’t have sex with your dog OR marry it because the dog is incapable of consent. "
So how about your parents or your children then Bill?
"You said I worship sex."
No I said, "you promote New Age sex worship."
I promote no such thing. Your position does by the centrality of sex to your argument. And parents and children already have a legally defined relationship that offers complications not found in the perfectly sane, rational, realistic, and common relationships we are talking about.
"Think people should have a choice between a state union and a church union. "
I think Justice of the Peace marriages already fall under the state union.
"I promote no such thing."
Your post most certainly does. So how about cousins then Cory?
Steve continues to demonstrate Cory's point that he (Sibby) is all about sex and perversion. He's infected with a diseased mind and blaming his illness on others.
No Sibby, for the last time you can't marry your identical twin cousin Sobby. How is he/she by the way?
Fleming, how about you...into marrying cousins?
No Mr Sibson, not the same thing. Still a marriage. I am talking about a contract and no I don't care if brother and sister want to enter into an agreement to combine households. The union has nothing to do with sex, merely legally combining households. Incest would still be illegal.
Joseph, what is the purpose of your contract?
Does everyone agree that the current marriage legal status is not a contract?
I'm intrigued with Joseph's idea. Seems to me it becomes a way people can agree to care for one another... a lifelong, legally binding commitment.
Interesting.
Seems like something similar must have been the social bond that held bands, and later tribes of humans together in the early stages of our species evolution. (Anthropological studies of kinship systems bear this out.) Joseph is perhaps simply suggesting that what has been true of us socially for eons should perhaps be reflected in our legal system.
Bravo Mr. Thompson for your willingness to think outside the box.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship#Nuclear_family
I think Steve and Roy Cohn would make a cute couple.
I agree with Joe - and this idea was also floated by C. S. Lewis, by the way - a civil contract, between two people, of commitment, with all the rights and responsibilities therewith; and a religious ceremony under canon law (whichever religious canon).
An (unofficial) precedent is the 19th century "Boston marriage," recognized throughout the New England states and probably further, which was a committed relationship between two women. (NOTE: This did not necessarily include sex. Alice James, sister to Henry and William, was in a Boston marriage for the last years of her life, during most of which she was dying of breast cancer; sex was highly unlikely. Her whole family thoroughly approved of her Boston marriage.)
By the way, proof that marriage does not equal sex lies in the fact that there are and have been many marriages in history between men and women who were not able (for whatever reason) to have sex at all. Thomas and Jane Carlyle leap to mind, and they would have been outraged if you had hinted that theirs was not a real marriage. A marriage is about commitment, not sex.
Finally, no one else's marriage (whether male/female, two men, or two women) in any way interferes with, impugns, or impinges on my commitment in my marriage (33 years and counting). Let the marriages be celebrated!
The purpose of my suggestion was to make everyone happy and everyone unhappy. The religious people can have a religious forever contract(union recognized by the church and state) and those who elect otherwise can have a signed contract(union only recognized by the state)that fits their need. Have to go the the farmers market now or the union boss I have will not permit me to log on here anymore.
Ok; So instead of equal marriange we want contracts except:
1) Regarding anaimals because they can't give consent
2) Family members because they already have a contract
3) has to be perfectly sane, rational, realistic, and common
But Christains cannot include the exception:
Cannot violate God's laws to avoid his judgement on the members of the "social contract".
Why was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? The prophet Ezekiel gives us some reasons:
"49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." (Ezekiel 16:49-50)
According to this passage those cities were proud, gluttonous, lazy, and uncaring towards the poor. The other reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was because of the abomination of their homosexual activity:
"22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants." (Leviticus 18:22-25)
The Book of Jude confirms their sexual immorality by going after "strange flesh":
"7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." (Jude vss.7-8)
In the Leviticus passage God declared that these sins defiled the land the people were living on and thus removed them through His judgment from heaven. Therefore we could say that if a country is committing these types of behavior God will one day judge it.
http://www.evenatthedoors.com/godsjudgment.html
"I’m all about commitment."
It is really sad that people think they can't be committed unless it is put down in writing and legally binding. What ever happened to honor?
First of all, I don't care what the Bible says. That isn't part of our law and Christianity or any other religion is not allowed to be an official religion of our government.
Secondly, why so much focus on the Old Testament? “For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake ... wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.†(Titus 1.10-14).
Why don't you try quoting the incredibly tenuous Romans verses that honest Christians that know the crazy crap in Leviticus et al doesn't apply to them use? Because it is a horrifically bad argument to say that is anti-gay?
Our Governor needs to take care of his duties in South Dakota and not fly off to speak at a national convention on the East Coast.
Justin, I am not asking you to accept the Bible. For those of us who do, and don't want ourselves to be placed under the wrath of God's judgement, why are we not allowed to speak our concerns without being persecuted with a bunch of immoral sex acts done in protest at our place of business...then be told here that this is not about having sex. This is really about forcing Christians to accept sinning as acceptable, and if they don't, shove it down their throats with mockery.
"Why don’t you try quoting the incredibly tenuous Romans verses that honest Christians that know the crazy crap in Leviticus et al doesn’t apply to them use?"
Such as Romans Chapter 1:
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
"This is really about forcing Christians to accept sinning as acceptable, and if they don’t, shove it down their throats with mockery."
No, it isn't, Mr. Sibson. Joe and I and quite a few others have proposed that there be religious marriage, according to the laws of your denomination. And that there also be civil marriage, according to the laws of the state. These are two different things, two different contracts.
You don't get to run the laws of the state - and thus civil marriage - per your Christian denomination, because in the 1st Amendment we have freedom of religion: Christian (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.), Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever. You appear to want to shove your particular take on Christianity down everyone else's throat, otherwise you say you are being "required to accept sinning." According to the First Amendment, you don't get to do that. Freedom of religion means that yes, you have to live with other people's religion or lack of it; and they have to live with yours. BUT you don't have to live by other people's religion or lack of it in your own personal life, and they don't have to live by your religion or lack of it in their own personal life. If you don't want a civil marriage, don't get one.
Sibby, now you're just whining.
You are absolutely allowed to quote the Bible. But when that is the crux of your argument you shouldn't be surprised that many reject it.
Furthermore if you want to take Leviticus literally, I'm guessing you think there are some laws missing from our books that appear mighty strange to most Christians, let alone followers of other religions, agnostics or atheists.
Exactly Eve.
Steve's argument is tantamount to Herman Cain saying that a Mosque is a violation of HIS freedom of religion. I don't even think Scalia could listen to that without laughing.
Mr Sibson,
My argument is not with the Bible. My argument is that a state sanctioned union should not be defined as strictly between a hetrosextual. If want a state sanctioned union, not a church sanctioned union, that should be up to you and the partner you wish to join in a union, as should a church and state sanctioned union, just diferent standards.
If the church says you must be a hetrosexual couple, in love, wishing to make a life long committment, then that's the rule you live with or you can't have a church wedding.
Doesn't matter if its sinful in your eyes and God's eye. God gave us free will, to sin or not sin, Jesus gave us the option to have our sins forgiven, and the Founding Fathers gave us the freedom to live the way we choose.
"And that there also be civil marriage, according to the laws of the state. "
With exceptions. Why do you all get to make exceptions, and Christians can't?
"My argument is that a state sanctioned union should not be defined as strictly between a hetrosextual."
And my argument is that such state sanctioned union would expose all members of the socal contract to the wrath of God, so I oppose the idea. I also oppose a theocracy based on the New Age Theology, which is based on Fleming's theological basis...monistic pantheism. Such a civil union violates the First Amendment's establishment clause.
Amen, Joe.
You don't make exceptions? Really?
Why not push for these to be codified law then:
On Punishing ‘Immorality’
Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
Deuteronomy 22:20-1 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.
Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
On Destroying Other People
Deuteronomy 7:1-2 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
20:10-17 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.
On the Evil of Biblical Law
Ezekiel 20:25-26 I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.
On Slavery & Subjugation of Women
Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
1 Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men.
2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
Leviticus 25:44-45
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
Mr Sibson,
Forget the Bible, let us go straight to your statement that it is a violation of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
If the law says that a union of two consenting adults requires the approval of a Church, then that would be unconstitutional, but requiring only sanction of the state with our without church approval in no way violates the 1st Amendment. Quite the contrary it strengthens in.
"Why do you all get to make exceptions, and Christians can’t?"
Mr. Sibson, you are a Christian, but you are not all Christians. You are a citizen, but you are not all citizens. Nor do you get to decide the rules for all Christians and/or all citizens. Please quit orating as if you speak for all Christians everywhere. You do not. You are speaking only for yourself: And if you believe that you are the only true believer, and that only your interpretation of Scripture is correct, well... you live in a universe of one. I believe in Jesus Christ, and you do not get to speak for me, nor do you get to make canon law for me in my church. And, according to the First Amendment of our Constitution, you don't get to make civil laws based on your interpretation of Christianity for anybody else at all. Nor do I. Nor does anyone get to make civil laws based on their interpretation of their religion. It's really very simple. Freedom of religion is freedom of religion. Period. I'm sorry if you do not want to accept this, but it is the truth, and it is the way our government works.
I hear the short bus honking outside, Sibby.
Time to take a ride in the choo-choo train, buddy.
Joseph G Thompson is in the neighborhood of a good idea.
Working for more equality would mean that marriage and union are separate entities. A Civil Union certificate would be the state requirement for all and all that would be required for law-sanctioned co-habitation commitment. "Marriage contracts" would be optional and part of church sacraments. Couples of whatever sexual orientation would have the option of a religious certificate, but it should not be a requirement under law or for that matter generate any special rights or privileges.
Make a clean distinction between unions and marriages. Any connection to Bible or other religious myth should be optional in the eyes of the state.
More to the point, it seems to me that Daugaard had or has a family member who is deaf. It makes sense that he be invited to speak at a conference without regard to SD's regressive laws and regulations.
"Freedom of religion is freedom of religion. Period. I’m sorry if you do not want to accept this, but it is the truth, and it is the way our government works."
Establishing a New Age Theocracy based on the laws of Satan is not freedom of religion. Promoting sex worship to children of Christians is not freedom of religion. Forcing Christians to accept sin as "sane, rational, realistic, and common" is not freedom of religion.
"If the law says that a union of two consenting adults requires the approval of a Church, then that would be unconstitutional"
No where in the constitution does it say you have a right to marry.
Michael, as Douglas notes, Daugaard's family history, as well as his fluency in sign language, make him a good choice for speaker at this particular conference. I don't have a problem with the Governor making the occasional trip out of state to do things that maybe aren't entirely South Dakota focused. If he were making regular speaking tours à la Palin, then sure, that could get in the way of his doing his job. But I think this trip would be good for him and maybe even for South Dakota, especially if it meant he got the chance to have a face-to-face conversation with the LGBT activists who are so outraged by South Dakota's policies.
Mr. Sibson, once again, you are arguing that everyone must follow your views. We must all agree with you that a New Age Theocracy has been enthroned, that everyone worships sex, and that therefore your views and interpretations must become the laws of the land. That could be either megalomania or nonsense, take your pick. It certainly is unconstitutional.
Eve, it's delusional.
One of these days, Sibby might recognize that he is not preaching to the choir and the cows in the pasture are not singing halleluiah.
Pick your principle: theocracy or liberty.
It is clear you have chosen theocracy and care little for liberty. They are mutually exclusive here.