Friday, July 21, 2006

On the Gay Marriage Amendment

We're never ones to back down from a challenge here at FITS.

Over the past few days, a particularly incendiary commenter (someone we're praying has been checked for rabies within the last year) has all but dared us to publicize our views on the subject of gay marriage.

In case you're new to FITS, here's how it works. If somebody throws down the proverbial gauntlet, we pick it up.

Like the Outlaw Josey Wales (or the "Outlaw Wallace Scarborough," for that matter), if our presence is requested outside the saloon at High Noon, we'll be there.

So, without futher adieu, let's get down to it ...

Q: Do we support gay marriages? A: No, we do not.

Q: Do we believe the Holy Scriptures specifically forbid gay marriages? A: Yes, we do.

But finally ...

Q: Do we believe a government based on individual liberty has any business telling people who they can and cannot marry? A: HELL no.

Look people, we've been to the Florida Keys. We've seen flamboyantly homosexual couples walking around together in rhinestone-studded "I'm With Him" T-Shirts and purple assless chaps.

Did we like it? No. Did we almost lose our lunches? Absolutely.

But it simply isn't our place - and it certainly isn't the government's place - to judge people because they're different or because they don't look, think or act like we do.

The great thing about America is that a neo-Nazi skinhead, a militant Black Panther, a Free Will Baptist preacher, a long-haired hippie communist, a seer-sucker suit-wearing lobbyist and a Confederate-clad Glenn McConnell can all walk down Main Street together singing "We Shall Overcome" if they want to.

We're a free country - and thousands upon thousands of Americans who subscribed to vastly divergent and often-contradictory beliefs died to keep it that way.

That's why we can wear our Swastikas, our dreadlocks, our nipple rings and our Rebel flags in public if we want to. It's why we can read what actually happened in the morning paper and not what a handful of government censors want us to believe happened. It's why we can receive a fair and speedy trial, bear arms to protect ourselves, own property free from the threat of unlawful seizure, peaceably gather to petition our government for a redress of grievances and do pretty much as we damn well please within the confines of our homes provided we are not infringing on the inalienable rights of our neighbors to get a decent night's sleep.

Simply put, we are heirs to the legacy of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan - not Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini.

But in a world of Kelo, primary seat belt enforcement, knee-jerk anti-Second Amendment laws, domestic wiretapping and yes, anti-gay marriage amendments, in which direction are we really headed as a state and as a nation?

South Carolina has one of the most aggressive anti-gay ballot initiatives in the nation. It would, in effect, deny thousands of South Carolinians certain civil rights based exclusively on their sexual orientation, which we think is wrong. Never mind the fact that there's already a law on the books in South Carolina outlawing gay marriage.

But guess what, the referendum's going to pass.

There's nothing we could write on this blog that's going to change that, and right-wing sycophants like Mitt Romney - obsessed with exploiting ignorance for their own short-term political gain - will continue issuing statements and stroking checks to the Palmetto Family Council in exchange for a stamp of approval from the so-called "moral majority."

We're just curious as to what Mr. Romney will say when the next amendments prohibit Catholic, Jewish or yes, even Mormon marriages in South Carolina?

Now some people would say we've got a bit of a libertarian streak to us. Maybe so. We believe what we believe, but you can damn sure bet that we'll defend to the death your right to keep believing whatever it is that you believe.

To us, limited government is as much about prosperity and putting more money into the economy as it is about individual liberties, but we strongly suspect that without liberty, prosperity inches ever closer to a "here today, gone tomorrow" proposition.

But that's just us crazy libertarian FITS gals for ya. When we asked Sic Willie to give us his thoughts on the subject, all he said was that he'd fight to the death for his right to watch Madonna and Britney Spears kiss each other ... again and again and again ...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lovely Mr Folks. Way to bring it. By the way coming to Columbia next week, hope to see ya.

Upstate Chick

12:34 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

DAMN! Now that pic could just change the hearts and minds of the gay bashers and have a profound and serious positive effect on those suffering from erectile dysfunction…

12:37 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen! I normally don't agree with FITS, but I do on this post!


12:44 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most intelligent thing you have ever written.

12:56 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wilbur you are the banner headline on SC Hotline! Now - what conspiracy do you think Lauren Manning will coem up with to explain this?

1:19 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

May the record now relfect once in for all that WILL FOLKS IS A HOMOSEXUAL!!!! Sodom and Gammorra will fare better on the day judgement than you.

1:23 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Q: Do we believe a government based on individual liberty has any business telling people who they can and cannot marry? A: HELL no.

Please; you can't believe this stupid line of thinking. Every state has 'marriage qualification' rules which stipulate age restrictions, relation stipulations, etc.

No one can marry whomever the want to...it's that simple.

A male who is gay or a male who is straight has exactly the same marriage rights as each other. Period. The rules are the same for both, and the rules are applied to each without regard to 'self proclamations' of orientation and the starting point is biological equipment.

Unfortunately, for proponents of Gay marriage, there is no scientific test for homosexuality. The only test therefore is 'I am queer' or 'watch me screw' proof. That's a pretty broad range to start changing a society by.

Face it, there are only two possible explanations for homosexuality - #1) Biology or #2) Homosexuals are screwed up in the head when it come to sex.

To change the rules of a state or nations marriage tradiation over a premise that has NO basis in science is plain stupid policy.

So, for starters answer a couple of hard questions, if you can;

What gender is a butt-hole? and Has science found an 'annus' attraction gene?

Your time to start thinking of some answers starts....now!

1:32 PM

Anonymous a friend said...

"To us, limited government is as much about prosperity and putting more money into the economy as it is about individual liberties, but we strongly suspect that without liberty, prosperity inches ever closer to a 'here today, gone tomorrow' proposition."

Wow. That is just f-ing brilliant.

What say you J.W. Fagley?

1:33 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

you should change the name of your site to "faith in the bunghole."

1:37 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Put religion aside, okay?
Lets get 'Darwinized' shall we?
If homosexuality is biological it means nature has printed all over homosexual practioners a sign that reads:

P.S. Natural Selection Rule #237:
You can't fertilize a TURD

1:43 PM

Blogger faithinsound said...

Dear Anonymous,

For starters, it's the anti-gay, not the pro-gay forces, who are currently pushing for a law change - and if you believe for one second that their referendum is more about enforcing morality than it is about generating turnout among social conservatives, well please feel free to scroll down to all the "lesser links" on the SC Hotline and read the statements and endorsements flowing in from dozens of prominent SC politicians.

Answering your profound questions, however, we suspect buttholes are gender neutral and that science has not yet developed an "annus" attraction.

Hopefully you'll tell us if one day they do.

Until then, enjoy your service,


1:45 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I won't get into the overpowering ignorance of the above poster. I'll let you handle that if you want, Will. It's "anus," by the way.

I enjoyed your article and I think this latest proposition is a travesty.

1:46 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Answering your profound questions, however, we suspect buttholes are gender neutral and that science has not yet developed an "annus" attraction.

My, you are quick to day! So, let's move on to the next question...try to follow the logic flow:
If a 'butt-hole' is gender neutral then the attraction to a homosexual male is not necessarily directed to the butthole itself (because then he could like sex with a woman)but rather to the surrounding 'terra firma' that suports the butthole...got it?
QUESTION: Based on the above premise; is sexual attraction in the BRAINS or in the BALLS?

Your turn.

1:58 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

and what was that name of paul adams old blog again...that's right QUEER AS FOLKS! Damn, that crazy bastard had old Willard pegged all of the time.

2:01 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think respect for the constitution would be enough to keep this one off the books. That is, we have a very strict and explicit law against it, which mind you isn’t even being challenged in court, yet we want to bog down our state’s constitution with political wedge issues? This is a campaign of fear. There are plenty of laws on the books currently not being challenged in their statutory form that would be much more important to kept from being over turned, but the importance of getting them into the SC constitution is just as useless. I am a heterosexual who is married and I really don’t feel the state of my marriage getting any weaker based on the fact that gays are currently only statutorily disallowed from marriage, but will soon be constitutionally banned from getting married. I have a friend and Mass. Who, according to the amendment supporters down here, must be about to get divorced because he is in a traditional marriage, but now with all the gays trying get married or married up there his traditional marriage will be “ruined!” His brother was about to get engaged to a female, but I am sure he is rethinking pledging his life and devotion to her in the bonds of marriage based on the relationship status of gays in that state – give me a break this is politics of hatred pure and simple. Any of you bible thumpers ready to make pre-marital sex a felony??? It is a sin in the bible (along with smoking and drinking and other forms of indulgence that don’t treat the body like a temple) so lets get rocking on some ‘really important’ laws because “God knows” those things will be happening here in SC a lot more often than gay marriage, even with out the statute or the amendment. To the other long Anon. If for instance ONLY gays could marry you brilliant logic of everyone still having the same marriage rights would still follow, so I find that argument a little off the mark.


2:22 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

on anonymous' comment:

"It is a sin in the bible (along with smoking and drinking and other forms of indulgence that don’t treat the body like a temple"

Last I checked, drinking, smoking, and other forms of indulgence weren't included in the ten commandments.

Jesus turned water into wine, not grape juice.

2:50 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, thirteen-year-olds should be able to get married to whoever they want to?

2:55 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


In response to: If for instance ONLY gays could marry you brilliant logic of everyone still having the same marriage rights would still follow, so I find that argument a little off the mark.

Actually, my comments are right on the mark - all males and females (by biological definition) have precisely the same, equal and identical rights right now. There is no denial of rights to anyone except where defined and codified by law.

Of course, the law is, quite logicaly 'intolerant' of marriage unions outside of what is legal and defined. That is why we have laws....they set boundaries.

Simple. But for some, a difficult concept to grasp. Societies rules must set the boundaries of 'in-tolerance' when it comes to every public policy.

Sorry, J.R. That is the way it is and will always be.

3:26 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

FITS your logic means that all marriage restrictions should be abolished. Bigamy, polygamy, incest, I mean who are we to say who you should and shouldn't marry.

Civilized society has always restricted peoples behavior. All of political science and law is devoted to determining what morals should have general applicability. In a democracy, peoples' morality is reflected in laws. We decide our morality and laws through our democracy. If our democracy wants to say that we will only recognize certain types of relationships, that is a perfectly legitimate moral decision for a civilized society. What you are talking about is also a moral judgment - that civilization and society should have no say in how people order their lives. If you can get a majority to go along with your morals, then you have every right to repeal the amendment that I will vote for. But don't pretend they aren't both moral decisions.

5:36 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those that say that gay marriage does not devastate heterosexual marriage, I ask you to do a little research into the state of marriage in the Netherlands (which has had gay marriage since 1989 and has the steepest decline in marriage rates in the Western world). Sociologists there have stopped defending same-sex marriage on the grounds that it doesn't harm heterosexual marriage because the data is so overwhelming. Rather they have started defending the decline in marriage as inevitable and a societal good. Marriage is being cast as an anachronism that needs stopping out.
Don't believe me, do a little research and you can read it for yourself.

Also, consider that just this year the Roman Catholic church was forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it could not comply with the dictates of the Bible, its faith and Massachusett's gay rights/anti-discrimination laws at the same time (it was being forced to give gays the same preference as heteros bc gays there are "married"). Think gay marriage won't affect all aspects of society. It will.

Don't believe that, two years after Canada passed its same-sex marriage laws, legislation is moving through their parliament concerning whether or not churches in Canada that refuse to perform gay marriages are in violation of anti-discrimation laws.

5:56 PM

Anonymous west_rhino said...

Excuse me, when it comes to consanguinuity or other health issues, it is, within the scope of the Tenth Amendment for a state to deny the issuance of a marriage license.

Beyond that, marriage is a sacrament of the church, if there be a "separation of church and state" as the left demands, thou cans't have it naught both ways, selectively banning bits of what one deems offensive religion and forcing an abomination down the throat of the church.

Implications within the unconstitutional interstate commerce clause could force another state to recognize a gay marriage, but that should also force within the same quid pro quo idea that Massachussetts, DC and New York SHALL honor my concealed carry permit... I don't think that the left is ready for me to have the same privlege as Ted kennedy or Babs Streisand's goons, er bodyguards.

7:21 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are Paul Adams and Wil both out of the closet?

I don wonder that Paul has changed for the white meat, though Kwadjo wasn't talking

7:22 PM

Blogger Tammy said...

Doesn't matter. In time, gays will have full rights. It's only a matter of time because it is the right thing to do. In the meantime, if S.C. doesn't want them to have equal rights then give them their GD taxes back and wait for the federal government to come down here and force us to let the black kids go to school with us...oh, I mean...give gay people their rights. We're so damn stupid down here we always have to be told what to do by the Feds...

Just when I was hoping people had forgotten how stupid the South was over Civil Rights in the 60s...let's waste no time reminding them what brain surgeons we are.

7:56 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just like the picture he used for his article.

8:37 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The undeniable truth is that our society moves toward progress. A setback today or 10 years from now doesn't mean that we're not going to see this continue to resurface in the same way the civil rights movement came a considerable time after Reconstruction. I firmly believe that we will see universal recognition for same-sex unions in the future and I'm glad there are people that will continue to fight the good fight.

9:45 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unemployment - 5%
Gas - $3.00 a gallon
Roads - horrible shape
Gay Marriage - already illegal

Having a Gay marriage ammendment on the ballot to bring out the real nut jobs and use the constitution as a social issue....Priceless

11:53 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tammy -
Between 58% and 69% of American oppose gay marriage depending on which polling you believe. The constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed with 76% of the vote in Georgia, 68% of the vote in Michigan, 63% of the vote in Oregon, 65% of the vote in Ohio. 18 states now have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. 45 states have laws banning gay marriage. But, no, you're right retaining the sanctity of marriage in our laws is only for southerners and nutbags.

Amazing how many people in this country hate democracy. All of our laws are based on morality. Every law is a judgment of right and wrong. A majority of people in this country believe that the best way to order society is to recognize personal property rights. That is a moral judgment. If a majority of people in this country believe that the best way to order society is to only recognize certain types of relationships, that is also a legitimate moral decision and we should be able to right it into our laws.

7:28 AM

Blogger bitingblondewit said...

I'm going to buck the trend and use my actual "name" here...What a great, thought provoking post!

12:53 PM

Anonymous Mr. Furious said...

Seriously, touching article.

We thought we would share our thoughts:


5:17 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoa - Sic Willie even has the cute chicks from Indiana responding to this one. C'mon bitingblondewit and dribble off those Bobby Brook slacks...

8:25 PM

Blogger faithinsound said...

Miss Blondewit,

Please accept our apologies for the natives' lack of table manners. The Republicans down here are all about promoting family values, so long as their indecent anonymous blog comments, multiple mistresses, and special interest shakedowns are exempted from the discussion.

Nonetheless, thanks for stopping by and we hope you'll visit again often.


8:46 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blondewit - yes, please, stop by and visit down here anytime you please. Our sweet tea is excellent and so is our weather. Of course, we don't have Hoosier b-ball, John Cougar our the Brickyard, but we do have Hilton Head Island and Pat Conroy. Come on back anytime! We need more faces like yours!

11:58 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


5:26 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

(another link)


5:31 AM

Blogger Uncle Zoloft said...

As a citzen who will become 2nd class when, and if, this dumb Amendment is passed I would like to say a few words. I want my taxes back! I don't want to support this state's failing school system. I want my Federal taxes back - at least the portion that goes to our military establishment that will not let fellow homosexual and lesbian solders fight and live openly.

No, I don't like having to remember my legal paper work in an emergency situation that involves myself or my partner going to a hospital.

My partner's father is pissed that his son can not have the same benefits under the law that his str8 son has, and therefore as a parent he is hurt by his child's unhappiness.

I don't ware purple spandex. Our home has won Yard of the Month, our neighbors accept and welcome us as neighbors and friends.

This Amendment is like roadkill over kill. You know, like running over a racoon, stopping, then backing up over the thing again and again.

I wish this state would work harder at being on the top of the lists of good things and on the bottom of the bad.

I wish we would stop electing bullies.

I wish my Social Security benefits could go to my partner of 15 years. I wish I didn't have to hear and read slurs against my being on a daily basis. I wish I was equal under the law ~ but I'm not and this upcoming vote will enshrine that.

So, please give me some advice. What would you do if you were in my shoes?

6:44 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Put on high heels. Sex change operation. Closet. Fake it. Move. Stay. Endless list.

4:37 PM

Anonymous west_rhino said...

Tammy, homosexuals have full rights. A special right, redefining marriage, leaves marriage a mockery.

Zoloft, private retirement accounts and living wills/durable powers of attourney would seem to be part of the soulution. The private retirement accounts becoming a need for us breeders too.

9:09 PM

Blogger Tammy said...

Still...don't care...your points go no where...except West Rhino--marriage is already a mockery...are you familiar with STATISTICS?

Unless you're ninety (and I'm guessing you're not if reading blogs) you WILL see full rights for homosexuals in America. If you have convinced yourself your "morals" won't allow you to accept that...recheck it...because in reality...that's called stupidity holding you back. And surprise...your idea of morals and mine differ and I assume, like me, you are an American citizen...so don't think I'll back down.

Quit hating so much and try growing up. Being an adult isn't that hard.

You'll lose this battle because YOU ARE WRONG.

12:55 AM

Blogger Uncle Zoloft said...

"private retirement accounts and living wills/durable powers of attourney would seem to be part of the soulution."

My father-"not"-in-law is a lawyer and has all our paper work in order. We have private retirement accounts, but since we are not recognized as a couple under law all of the savings and property that we will leave one another will be taxed as capital gains (about 50%) whereas if our relationship, of 15 years, were to be recognized under law our tax burden would be that of a surviving spouse and therefore much lower or non-existant.

I don't get it with people who would deny me simple rights as a fellow American. What harm have I done to you? How has my personal relationship effected yours?

I will ask this again: Why should I have to remember to take legal paperwork to the hospital to prove I have medical power of attorney should something happen to my partner? Do heterosexual couples have to bring their Marriage Certificate's?

6:04 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home