Same-sex marriage double media standard// gay couple wants privacy during their “divorce”

Dallas same-sex divorce case a first for Texas–

These types of antics and double standards are so typical of leftist, liberal, and  GLBT groups. A gay couple who was married in Massashusetts, moved back to Texas and has now filed for divorce. They want anonoymity. . .

But on Wednesday one of the pair, citing “discord or conflict of personalities,” asked a state district court in Dallas to void the union in what is believed to be the first such action in Texas.

A bit of confusion in the court over this one. Some say they can’t really be divorced in a state that doesn’t even recognize their union, others say they have to be “divorced” becaues they are “married,” or so says the state of MA.

The double standard is this:  while all of this drama is brewing over their maybe divorce , they want their privacy protected by the media and they want their names left out of the papers!!! Go figure!

“We’ll see what happens,” said attorney Peter Schulte, representing the man who asked that he and his former partner not be identified.

“Personal things could happen to us that wouldn’t happen to other people,” the man said Thursday. “My company has an extremely low tolerance for publicity.”

Personal things huh? Personal things like what has been happening to individuals on the Prop 8 donor list and H8 google map. Yeah, I guess they should be worried if they don’t want to be harassed, threatened, stalked have their property vandalized. They only appreciate the desire and need for privacy when it applies to them.

The reason I post it here is to call attention to the fact that this gay couple, whose marriage in Massachusetts is a public act, asked for and received confidentiality in the newspaper. Normally we only give confidentiality to rape victims and others in extraordinary circumstances.

But I have to put the question to you readers who thought Prop 8 donors should not expect confidentiality — “What are they ashamed of?” one of you rhetorically asked — in the situation: Why does this gay couple deserve to have their names kept out of the paper? What are they ashamed of? Why is there a double standard for gay married couples? Should there be?

it is very strange to me to have a couple that wants to be married in the eyes of the law and society, but wants to be treated by the media as if they didn’t exist as a couple. What other married couple would expect that kind of privilege?

Always a double standard and unnecessary drama with the pursuit for same-sex unions to be called marriage. The rules apply to everyone else, but never to them. This situation shouldn’t be given all of this media attention in my opinion. The couple is up in arms because if Texas doesn’t grant them a divorce, they will have to go back to MA and establish residency before they can get divorced there. Too bad guys, the law is the law.

“In the State of Texas, marriage is – and has always been – a union between one man and one woman. To prevent other states from imposing their values on this state, Texas voters overwhelmingly approved a Constitutional amendment specifically defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman,” he said in a written statement. “Because the parties’ Massachusetts-issued arrangement is not a marriage under Texas law, they are asking a Texas court to recognize – and dissolve – something that does not legally exist.”

Their attorney argues that the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, forces TX to recognize the marriage from MA and therefore grant the couple a divorce, however,

from another federal perspective, the Defense of Marriage Act recognizes only marriages between a man and woman and allows states to do the same.

The  couple appears to be a tad bitter and says that they shouldn’t have to go back to MA for their divorce, and that they shouldn’t be treated differently than any other married couple. Oh really????

Read more about the homosexual divorce debate here. . .

{ 2009: ‘Gay’ rights over all }

You don’t need a weather man to know which way this wind is blowing. Current political commentary is largely focused on the transition from a market economy to socialism. The transition from civil rights for all to privileged rights for the small but politically powerful homosexual left is just as important a “change you can believe in.”

It looks like Obama plans to be really busy in the coming months and years, working for what you might ask? Primarily the gay agenda and ensuring their “rights” or so it seems. Roger Hedgecock of reports,

If Barack Obama successfully translates his campaign rhetoric into law, 2009 will be the year homosexuality becomes a civil right.

During the campaign, Obama said the issue of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights “is about who we are as Americans”

I guess that’s one way of putting it. If same sex marriage is legalized, if children continue to be taught that homosexuality and the perversion of marriage is ok, if Obama decides that his main job will be ensuring that homosexuals continue to try destroy the moral fiber of this nation, then sadly, he and his cohorts just might force these issues to describe “who we are as Americans.” Although, I can assure you, it will never describe who I am as an American, or who my family is, or who my traditional marriage fighter friends are, and it won’t define everyone else who wants to preserve morality, values, families and marriage in this country. But we can’t let the dissenting voices be louder then ours. The gay agenda and its supporters are the grossest example of the “squeaky wheel gets the grease” saying. They make a bigger mess, they whine louder, they infiltrate anywhere they can, they sneak up on us when we aren’t looking, they shout, riot, protest, march, vandalize and indoctrinate with the best of them. But what they don’t have is the truth.

Apparently Obama is making promises right and left, and we shouldn’t be surprised to whom and what he is promising,

legal protection for “gender identity” and “gender expression”; expansion of “hate crime” statutes and homosexual adoption rights, repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule for military service.

Looks like all of this alleged civil rights business is going to keep him very busy. Check out, under the heading “civil rights,”  for the scoop. Will he have time for the rest of us? What do we really need from him anyway? I expect that nothing productive will get accomplished in the next 4 years, but that’s fine. I hope there are enough of us involved in the marriage and morality fight that we can prevent the further disintegration of society.

Labeling homosexual behavior a civil right apparently trumps majority rule at the ballot box too. A skillful media campaign painted the voting majority bigots and the homosexual campaign to suppress democracy a defense of basic civil rights.

It seems like so many people need to go back to their high school (private school, or home school, since public schools are junk) and re-take some American History, Political Science and civil rights 101 courses. The gay rights camp and their supporters and proponents seem to have had their history facts derailed, and they are now heading towards a land of made-up rights, and equality where only the homosexuals have a say and only the homosexual agenda matters. They don’t seem to realize that there isn’t much of a connection between freeing the slaves and ending segregation and allowing homosexuals to marry.

to link the black civil rights movement to homosexual “rights” floundered,

A legal challenge by homosexual activists to the constitutionality of this constitutional amendment was filed with the California Supreme Court. State Attorney General Jerry Brown at first vowed to defend the right of the voters to define marriage, then reversed himself under pressure from the homosexual activists.

Just what every concerned American wants in their elected officials and those who are supposed to represent and fight for their interests, a spine-less bureaucrat with self-serving interests, and we can’t forget, one who goes back on their word and changes their mind like they change their underwear. The Yes on 8 campaign as far as I know is not in support of recalling Jer-bear at this point, but seriously, why not? Why does he need to stay in office when he so blatantly disrespects the will of the people and the entire democratic process?

The justices have heard the rumblings of a recall movement not seen in California since voters there removed Chief Justice Rose Bird in the ’80s when the court refused to enforce the voters’ desire for a reinstatement of the death penalty.

I think they should be concerned about a potential recall, or not, maybe they don’t care about being judges, who knows. But one of the problems with the government is that it doesn’t operate like a private business, never mind their horrific inefficiencies, that’s for another post, but in the real world, when you do a bad job, you get fired, when you don’t do what the boss says, you get fired. Far to many bureaucrats and judges seem to forget who their boss is. . . that would be us. . . the American people! I think it’s high time they started acting like it too. A little recall always serves as a great reminder.

Labeling homosexuality a “civil right” also seems to trump everyone else’s civil rights.

Just as illegal aliens seem to have more “rights” than citizens do, homosexuals claim their “civil rights” prevail over everyone else’s civil rights.

Oh, and you’re not going to believe this next part,

Take the case of four San Diego firefighters ordered by the lesbian fire chief to participate in a “gay” pride parade in uniform driving a city fire truck.

Fire Captain John Ghiotto recalls that all along the parade route he and the other three firefighters were subject to verbal sexual abuse, with spectators crying out “show me your hose” and “you can put out my fire” and “give me mouth to mouth” all the while “exposing themselves, grabbing their crotch, rubbing their nipples and exhibiting tongue gestures.”

For decades now, such behavior between men and women has been defined as sexual harassment, subject to severe penalties.

However, when the four firefighters alleged a violation of their civil rights in a civil suit against the City of San Diego, they lost. Their right to be protected against homosexual sexual harassment was subordinate to the homosexual parade spectators’ right to ignore city laws against public nudity and harass the firefighters.

This story has discrimination, harassment and typical gay antics written all over it. Would the lesbian fire chief have been so eager to send her uniformed firefighters out to parade around in support of something religious or related to traditional marriage? I am baffled why so many people can’t see the vulgarity and perversion that comes from the GLBT agenda in action.

Thoughts and comments are always welcome. Thanks for reading!

Source: “2009: ‘Gay’ rights over all”