User Profile: Chuck Anziulewicz

Chuck Anziulewicz

Member Since: May 21, 2012

Comments

  • April 9, 2013 at 5:14pm

    Meanwhile, Glenn Beck (of all people!) now says that marriage equality for Gay couples is simply about FREEDOM:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mn8Mo9dOoo

    Responses (1) +
  • April 9, 2013 at 3:49pm

    Meanwhile, Glenn Beck says that marriage equality for Gay couples is simply about FREEDOM:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mn8Mo9dOoo

    Responses (1) +
  • March 29, 2013 at 12:19pm

    No, churches will not be sued for refusing to marry Gay couples. Suggesting such a thing is just an effort to whip up a lot of anti-Gay hysteria. Muslim and Atheist and Jewish couples are allowed to marry, and churches have never been “forced” to provide services to them. Nothing is going to change when Gay couples are allowed to marry also.

    It’s really a moot point, though, since none of the legal benefits of marriage come from the church, they come from GOVERNMENT.

    It’s also worth noting that Gay people of faith attended churches and synagogues where they are welcomed. There are plenty of churches and synagogues which have provided Gay couples with “holy unions” and “commitment ceremonies” for a long time. In Charleston WV, where I live, there are five churches that are more than willing to provide Gay couples with proper weddings when the time comes.

  • March 29, 2013 at 11:51am

    Is that what you hope will happen?

  • March 29, 2013 at 11:41am

    Social conservatives haven’t “lost” anything. For Straight couples, absolutely nothing is happening to “traditional marriage.” Nothing is being “redefined.” Straight couples will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will be remotely affected whether (or not) Gay couples are allowed to do the same.

    Conversely, allowing Gay couples to marry will have ZERO impact on the number of Straight couples who divorce, have children out of wedlock, or give up unwanted children for adoption.

  • March 27, 2013 at 9:17am

    DEAR RIGHT-RIDER:

    If the government still considers “marriage” to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution. If, as confirmed by its actions, the government believes “marriage” to be a legal contract, it has no business denying that contract to any two people, no matter what their gender might be.

  • March 27, 2013 at 8:35am

    DEAR BAMABELLE:

    So let’s say the Supreme Court ruled that Straight couples could get “married,” Gay couples could get “civil unions,” but other than the different terminology, both arrangements would have exactly the same legal benefit and protections, at all levels of government. And let’s say the Court also said the “Full Faith & Credit Clause” applied to marriages and civil unions equally and were honored in all 50 states. Would you have a problem with that?

  • March 26, 2013 at 11:54am

    I just wish that GOD, in His wisdom and omnipotence, would be just a bit more media-savvy in this day and age. I mean, we’re talking about the same God that allegedly created the Universe (just 6,000 years ago, according to some people), flooded the entire Earth, parted the Red Sea, and whose Earthbound avatar came back to life after having assumed room temperature for the better part of a weekend. Why does He insist on taking such a hands-off approach? We have one Book which has been translated and re-translated, interpreted and re-interpreted, until hardly anyone can agree on what it means. We have dozens of Christian denominations, each with its own unique take on what God expects of us. Wouldn’t God be a little more effective in getting us to behave decently toward one another if He would just put together a website or a television channel or at the very least a 1-800 number? There is a wide variety of contemporary social and economic issues I sure would like to get His opinion on.

    Responses (4) +
  • March 25, 2013 at 11:46am

    DEAR 000100111:

    Most American churches today do not provides wedding services for Gay couples, but many do. If a Gay couple really wanted to have a church wedding, it wouldn’t be too hard to find a church willing to do the honors. In Charleston WV, where I live, there are five churches already providing Gay couples with ceremonies. But even so, none of the legal benefits and protections of marriage come from the church, they come from our secular government. And of course churches have never been nor ever will be forced to provide services to people with whom they disagree theologically.

  • March 25, 2013 at 10:30am

    DEAR CAVALLO:

    True, the word “marriage” does not occur in the Constitution. But the federal government has complicated the whole issue by taking a valid interest in marriage for the purpose of tax law, Social Security, and a huge number of other benefits.

    What do you think should happen to a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa if they have to relocate south to Missouri? Do they become “UN-married” by Missouri government decree? Do they get to keep their federal benefits?

  • March 25, 2013 at 10:27am

    DEAR TEAMMOMMY:

    You might think of marriage as “sacred,” but from a legal point of view it’s irrelevant. Couples do not need a church’s approval to marry. Marriage licenses do not come from the church, they come from government.

    Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire or even the ability to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.

    No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.

    THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing, whether the couple is religious or non-religious, Straight or Gay.

  • March 25, 2013 at 9:59am

    DEAR TEAMMOMMY:

    It is not the purpose of government, nor of the Constitution, to make things “sacred.” Those who believe that marriage is sacred usually choose to be married in a religious ceremony. Gay couples may or may not be making a religious or moral statement; though most Christian denominations do not recognize such commitment, some do. Regardless, Gay couples simply wish to be legally bound to each other by law. We wish to have all the same privileges of any lifelong couple.

    If the government still considers “marriage” to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution. If, as confirmed by its actions, the government believes “marriage” to be a legal contract, it has no business denying that contract to any two people, no matter what their gender might be.

  • March 25, 2013 at 9:45am

    I have read that even Justice Antonin Scalia has suggested that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. After all, the term “marriage” does not even OCCUR in the Constitution. But I’m sure he’s in no rush to make a ruling to that effect.

    Many people have suggested that marriage should be left up to the states to define. But that won’t exactly work, because the federal government has a vested interested in who is legally married for the purpose of tax law, Social Security, and a multitude of other benefits and responsibilities.

    The only way marriage can be a “States Rights” issue is for the federal government to get out of the marriage business completely, and do away with the 1,138 benefits it grants to married couples. Tell me how thrilled most married couples would be with THAT.

    Responses (6) +
  • March 25, 2013 at 9:16am

    “I have no one in my family that is gay, I have no gay friends, and I dont know anyone personally that is gay.”

    My sympathies. I have lots of Gay friends. I also have lots of Straight friends, some married and some single, and if any of the singles finds a compatible person to make a commitment to and ultimately marry, no one will be happier and more supportive than me.

    Most of my closest Gay friends are couples. None of the couples are legally married (this is West Virginia, after all), but some have held commitment ceremonies of one kind of another. Regardless, they live pretty much like any married Straight couple do, though with none of the federal benefits and protections that their tax dollars go to support.

  • March 9, 2013 at 2:09pm

    NEWS FLASH:

    CHICAGO — Under mounting pressure from prominent Republican leaders, the Illinois GOP’s central committee canceled a meeting Saturday in which members were to consider firing party chairman Pat Brady, largely because he spoke out in favor of a bill to end the state ban on gay marriage.

    It was unclear if the committee had enough votes to fire Brady. State Sen. Jim Oberweis, one of the GOP committeemen leading the charge to oust Brady, said it was “certainly a possibility” that the issue could come up again at the party’s meeting in April.

    Oberweis, of North Aurora, said Saturday that members wanted more time and also wanted to be sure Brady, who is out of town, could attend.

    “Some of the members thought it would be better to take a little more time and make sure Pat could be back,” Oberweis told The Associated Press. “I think we’re all interested in figuring out how to help revive the Republican Party in Illinois.”

    After a poor showing at the polls in November, national Republican party leaders vowed to work harder to attract more young, moderate and minority voters — those who may be on board with the party fiscally speaking, but don’t agree with conservative views on social issues, such as immigration and gay rights.

  • February 28, 2013 at 12:30pm

    DEAR CRAZYRIGHTWINGMOM:

    Procreation and parenthood are irrelevant, since (1) couples do not need to marry to make babies, (2) the ability or even desire to make babies is not a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license, and (3) countless Gay individuals and couples are already raising their adopted kids to healthy, well-adjusted adulthood.

  • February 28, 2013 at 10:30am

    As someone who believes very strongly in marriage equality for Gay couples, I need to point out that the federal government has complicated the issue more than anyone. While it is true that the Constitution says nothing about marriage, there are 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities (according to the Government Accountability Office) that the federal government automatically bestows on married couples. Much of this has to do with tax law and Social Security. So it simply wouldn’t do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa to suddenly become UN-married if they move someplace else.

    Straight couples have never had to jump through these kinds of hoops. Thanks to the “Full Faith & Credit” clause, if any Straight couple flies off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and gets married by an Elvis impersonator, that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states. Gay couples, however, are held to a different (and hence unconstitutional) legal standard.

    The only way marriage can be a “States Rights” issue is for the federal government to get out of the marriage business completely, and do away with the 1,138 benefits it grants to married couples. Tell me how thrilled most married couples would be with THAT.

    Responses (4) +
  • February 27, 2013 at 9:41am

    DEAR DSTRIDER (below):

    Allow me to respond to a couple of your posts.

    Your claim that allowing Gay couples to marry “does pick my pocket when my tax dollars will go to give them a marriage deduction or I have to pay for them to have the same benefits as traditional couples.”

    If you are a typical anti-Gay conservative, you probably think that the percentage of the population that’s Gay is vanishingly small, and that the percentage of THOSE people who wish to marry is even smaller, so the financial burden to you would be negligible. But even so: Have you ever wondered how law-abiding, taxpaying Gay Americans feel about having OUR pockets picked? Even if your tax dollars support the benefits of marriage, at least you are ALLOWED to marry. How would YOU feel if you were forced to subsidize benefits that you were not allowed to take advantage of. Maybe the federal government ought to give Gay citizens a hefty tax deduction for this very reason.

    You also ask, “If everyone went gay how long does the human race exist?”

    It’s just a nutty question.Were you under the impression that the marriage equality movement was an effort to make homosexuality compulsory for everyone? Did you think that allowing Gay couples to marry would cause more people to “turn Gay?” Trust me, it doesn’t work that way.

  • February 27, 2013 at 9:29am

    But I thought the whole idea of “Christian Music” WAS to push your views!

  • February 26, 2013 at 4:48pm

    DEAR DSTRIDER:

    Your write, “Homosexuality is wrong, same as stealing or lying or any other sin.”

    What kind of a value judgment is that? It makes no sense in terms of The Golden Rule. We don’t steal from other people because we don’t want other people stealing from us. We don’t lie to other people because we don’t want them lying to us. We don’t betray the trust of our spouses because we won’t want to be similarly betrayed.

    So why is it that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.