Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are civil unions apart from marriage unacceptable to gay activists?
Because the noisiest of the bunch just want to tear apart what they can't have, even if they can have an equivalent. It is a selfish and disturbing trend that will only get worse as our PC society caves in to their demands.
any legal union between any two people is, by definition, a civil union. The official papers must be signed by a person authorized by the civilian body (the state) to perform such official duties. We call it "marriage" out of habit, and immediate recognition of that word, and no matter who signs the papers; minister, mayor, ship's captain...
I say we call them all "civil unions." if you want something called "marriage," get it in your church.
Of course, the minister/preacher/pastor, etc. Signing your "marriage certificate" will be authorized by your state, making your ceremony a civil union, no matter what you call it.
For all i care, you can get "married" in your church without the civil recognition, if you believe your god will accept it because it was done in your church. But watch out for all those laws you won't be protected by, just like the long-time gay lovers who fight for marriage equality.
The legal uniting of two people who love each other is a state issue, not a church issue.
By the way, i was "married" outside, in a pagan ceremony (handfasting), by a state-recognized minister who also performs ceremonies for gay couples, which are recognized in our church.
F.D. Roosevelt, found in Mussolini's policies part of his inspiration for the semi-socialist "New Deal" and referred to Mussolini in 1933 as "that admirable Italian gentleman". Mussolini was plausible to an amazingly wide range of people -- not the least to the people of Italy.
And Roosevelt and his political allies practiced what they preached. As UPI financial journalist Martin Hutchinson has pointed out, the USA in the 1940s was a place "with price controls, government licensing of transportation, state intervention in the steel and auto industries, interest rates that were set by Treasury fiat and a capital market in which banks were not allowed to operate. Also a "democracy" in which electoral districts were wildly unequal and 15 percent of the population was denied the vote." By modern-day standards the USA of that time had considerable Fascist elements too. American Leftism was Fascist even then.
In 1954, Hofstadter chided those who had worried about "several close parallels" between FDR's N.R.A. and fascist corporatism. There are more than "several" parallels. In 1944, John T. Flynn made the case in As We Go Marching, where he enumerated the stigmata of generic fascism, surveyed the interwar policies of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, and pointed to uncomfortably similar American policies. For Flynn, the hallmarks of fascism were: 1) unrestrained government; 2) an absolute leader responsible to a single party; 3) a planned economy with nominal private ownership of the means of production; 4) bureaucracy and administrative "law"; 5) state control of the financial sector; 6) permanent economic manipulation via deficit spending; 7) militarism, and 8) imperialism (pp. 161-62). He proceeded to show that all these were alive and well under the wartime New Deal administration (pp. 166-258). Pragmatic American liberalism had produced "a genteel fascism" without the ethnic persecutions and full-scale executive dictatorship seen overseas.
There is practically no feature of modern-day Leftism that was not prefigured by Mussolini. It is clear from the many quotations and reports that are available (only a fraction of which are reproduced here) that Mussolini was very much a kindred spirit of modern-day Leftists. It is therefore hilarious that Leftists now use the name of his movement as their routine term of abuse! Ignorance of history does indeed lead to some strange follies.
He started out as such a radical unionist firebrand and Marxist agitator that he was often jailed for his pains. But as he matured he moved towards somewhat more moderate politics which saw him win power by political rather than by revolutionary means. Modern day Leftists seem to be the same. The young go out demonstrating against globalization and the like while older Leftists exert their efforts within the framework of conventional democratic politics -- via the major Leftist political parties.
And no-one was a more ardent advocate of government provision of basic services than Mussolini was -- and he actually put those ideas into practice on a large scale as well. And he also instituted a "welfare state" that was very advanced for the times.
In his "corporate state", Mussolini was the first to create that very modern phenomenon constantly now being advocated by Leftists everywhere -- a system of capitalism under tight government control. And his corporate state was one where the workers had (at least in theory) equal rights with management. He actually put into full-blown practice what is still a great but rather misty ideal for most Leftists.
On May 7, 1933, just two months after the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the New York Times reporter Anne O’Hare McCormick wrote that the atmosphere in Washington was “strangely reminiscent of Rome in the first weeks after the march of the Blackshirts, of Moscow at the beginning of the Five-Year Plan
That article isn’t quoted in Three New Deals, a fascinating study by the German cultural historian Wolfgang Schivelbusch. But it underscores his central argument: that there are surprising similarities between the programs of Roosevelt, Mussolini, and Hitler.
The dream of a planned society infected both right and left. Ernst Jünger, an influential right-wing militarist in Germany, reported his reaction to the Soviet Union: “I told myself: granted, they have no constitution, but they do have a plan. This may be an excellent thing.†As early as 1912, FDR himself praised the Prussian-German model: “They passed beyond the liberty of the individual to do as he pleased with his own property and found it necessary to check this liberty for the benefit of the freedom of the whole people,†he said in an address to the People’s Forum of Troy, New York.
American Progressives studied at German universities, Schivelbusch writes, and “came to appreciate the Hegelian theory of a strong state and Prussian militarism as the most efficient way of organizing modern societies that could no longer be ruled by anarchic liberal principles.†The pragmatist philosopher William James’ influential 1910 essay “The Moral Equivalent of War†stressed the importance of order, discipline, and planning.
In the North American Review in 1934, the progressive writer Roger Shaw described the New Deal as “Fascist means to gain liberal ends.†He wasn’t hallucinating. FDR’s adviser Rexford Tugwell wrote in his diary that Mussolini had done “many of the things which seem to me necessary.†Lorena Hickok, a close confidante of Eleanor Roosevelt who lived in the White House for a spell, wrote approvingly of a local official who had said, “If [President] Roosevelt were actually a dictator, we might get somewhere.†She added that if she were younger, she’d like to lead “the Fascist Movement in the United States.†At the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the cartel-creating agency at the heart of the early New Deal, one report declared forthrightly, “The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.â€
Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable†and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.†The admiration was mutual.
In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.…Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.†The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter, repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies†and “the development toward an authoritarian state†based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.â€
The NRA’s Blue Eagle campaign, in which businesses that complied with the agency’s code were allowed to display a “Blue Eagle†symbol, was a way to rally the masses and call on everyone to display a visible symbol of support. NRA head Hugh Johnson made its purpose clear: “Those who are not with us are against us.â€
One American poster of a sledgehammer bore the slogan “Work to Keep Free,†which D’Arcy found “chillingly close to ‘Arbeit Macht Frei,’ the sign that greeted prisoners at Auschwitz.†Similarly, a reissue of a classic New Deal documentary, The River (1938), prompted Washington Post critic Philip Kennicott to write that “watching it 70 years later on a new Naxos DVD feels a little creepy.…There are moments, especially involving tractors (the great fetish object of 20th-century propagandists), when you are certain that this film could have been produced in one of the political film mills of the totalitarian states of Europe.â€
In 1944, in The Road to Serfdom, the economist F.A. Hayek warned that economic planning could lead to totalitarianism. He cautioned Americans and Britons not to think that there was something uniquely evil about the German soul. National Socialism, he said, drew on collectivist ideas that had permeated the Western world for a generation or more.
In 1973 one of the most distinguished American historians, John A. Garraty of Columbia University, created a stir with his article “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression.†Garraty was an admirer of Roosevelt but couldn’t help noticing, for instance, the parallels between the Civilian Conservation Corps and similar programs in Germany. Both, he wrote, “were essentially designed to keep young men out of the labor market. Roosevelt described work camps as a means for getting youth ‘off the city street corners,’ Hitler as a way of keeping them from ‘rotting helplessly in the streets.’ In both countries much was made of the beneficial social results of mixing thousands of young people from different walks of life in the camps. Furthermore, both were organized on semimilitary lines with the subsidiary purposes of improving the physical fitness of potential soldiers and stimulating public commitment to national service in an emergency.â€
these are the same people that created the fed, the same people that passed the income tax amendment in 1913, the same people that suppored the european socialists and the nasi's, and the fascists, the eugentics program (ie forced sterilization)
progressives sole intent is to 'socialize' the united states, to either "nationalize" the entire country and its corporations (main stream socialist way), or to so over regulate the corporations (the fascist way)
Up until ww2, fascist and progressives were the same thing....But they dropped the term fascist due to public outcry and stuck with the term progressive ever since. Aside from being a complete nut of a dictator, Hitler had extremely liberal political policies and highly regulatory government agencies. He even had unviersal health care.
H.G. Wells was of the greatest influences on the progressive mind in the twentieth century (and, it turns out, the inspiration for Huxley's Brave New World). Wells didn't coin the phrase as an indictment, but as a badge of honor. Progressives must become "liberal fascists" and "enlightened Nazis," he told the Young Liberals at Oxford in a speech in July 1932.
This is why the fake liberals of today call themselves "liberal". They hijacked the word after progressive was tainted with Hitler, Eugenics, population control, economic fascism, etc.
"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." bill clinton
I am very interested in seeing what is on this document, but it is way to small and unclear. Is there any way you can post it so that it is larger, and less fuzzy?
Because the noisiest of the bunch just want to tear apart what they can't have, even if they can have an equivalent. It is a selfish and disturbing trend that will only get worse as our PC society caves in to their demands.
Marriage is a word which indicates normal.
It is the normal relationship upon which the normal family is constructed.
The normal couples who get married engage in normal sex which produces normal kids who complete their normal families.
Gays, regardless of your opinion of homosexuality, are the odd individuals.
They are not considered normal.
They belong to relationships which are not normal.
They engage is sex which is not normal.
Gays hope to become more normal by taking the word marriage and extending its meaning to include their sexual relatutionships.
This will change the definition of marriage for heterosexuals who still define their most important relationship by this word.
So both groups can't have it, and all the boo-hooing about equal rights for gays won't change that.
Even heterosexual people engage in sex that is not "normal," if you're narrowly defining normal sex as only that which can produce children, which it sounds like you are.
Still interested in seeing that small, fuzzy document. Will you re-post it larger and more clearly please? Thank you.
Why are civil unions apart from marriage unacceptable to gay activists?
It is a throwback to seperate but equal, a doctrine that is based on fear, ignorance and discrimination. If all people are not equal before the law, this nation needs to reexamine its purpose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
