Guest post.
Dear Friends
July 15, 2009
If you thought living in Indiana didn’t mean being on the front line of the culture war, think again. Although the East and West Coasts are where we see much of the battle going on over the legal validity, social acceptability, and cultural plausibility of same-sex marriage, that battle has once again come to the Midwest. On Sunday, July 12, the Elkhart Truth newspaper published in its announcements and engagements section the notice that a same-sex couple with ties to the Elkhart area recently got engaged, and will soon be married in Iowa.
Click the link below to continue reading
This development is something that is almost unheard of for Indiana newspapers. Indiana does not allow same-sex couples to marry, and we do not recognize the “marriages” of same-sex couples in other states. Our law holds that only one man and one woman can be married and, conversely, this means that any other type of so-called “marriage” is invalid and non-existent. What the Truth published was an announcement of something that is not recognized in Indiana law or accepted in Indiana culture.
As an attempt to justify their actions, some of the leadership of the Truth has pointed out that the New York Times publishes notices of same-sex engagements and marriages. Additionally, they have argued that it is not their job to agree with the news, but only report the news. This thinking hardly makes what took place appropriate. What Greg Halling, [email: ghalling@etruth.com] the managing editor of the Truth, must know is that Indiana is not New York, and what was published was not “news” because it was not something that can take place in, or be accepted in, Indiana.
Marriage in Indiana has been under assault before, and this is only the latest attempt to undermine our state’s position that traditional marriage is the only kind of marriage that is acceptable or right. Please take action today and call the Elkhart Truth’s parent company, Federated Media, and urge them to stop the Truth from publishing the engagement and wedding announcements of same-sex couples. Indiana does not recognize such unions because they can never be equal with true marriage.
You can reach John Dille III, CEO of Federated Media, by calling 574-295-2500 or email jdille@federatedmedia.com. Your polite but firm message to him, and his company, regarding this matter will make a difference. If we fail to speak out about this first incident, there will be another incident, and then another, until it becomes a regular and accepted practice. You and I must stand up for the traditional values that we believe in; the values that form the foundation for the greatness of our country.
Sincerely,
Brian Sikma
Reclaim Our Heritage
www.reclaimourheritage.us
Note: Federated Media’s local properties:
WFWI-FM 92.3 – Classic Rock
WBYR-FM 98.9 – Active Rock
WOWO-AM 1190 – NewsTalk
WKJG-AM 1380 – ESPN SportsRadio
WMEE-FM 97.3 – Hot Adult Contemporary
WQHK-FM 105.1 – Country
WFGA-FM 106.7 – Adult Contemporary
WAWC – Willie 103.5 Country
Other contacts:
Tony Richards E-Mail: trichards@federatedmedia.com
Chief Operating Officer (574) 295-2500
Mark Osborn Email: mosborn@federatedmedia.com
Director of Sales (260) 471-5100
Jim Allgeier E-Mail: jallgeier@federatedmedia.com
General Manager, Fort Wayne North (260) 447-5511
Mark DePrez E-Mail: mdeprez@federatedmedia.com
General Manager, Fort Wayne South (260) 447-5511
No related posts.
Tags: Federated Media, John Dille III, Tony Richards, WOWO
Entries (RSS)
Hope they enjoy living in Iowa.
Oh no! Some people you may not approve of might get married, and… what exactly? Will churches explode if people who have no effect on them are allowed to have their own marriages and beliefs? Why should any one particular brand of lunacy be favored by the state? Will marriage mean less if certain people can’t be kept out of the special club?
I’m so glad those two boys are getting hitched. I’m so glad SOMEONE (the newspaper) is celebrating it. I’m also amused thinking of this blogger getting all red in the face over a newspaper announcement.
Its disgusting to me that there is still this level of ignorance in the world. Its almost 2010 and were still worried about protecting the “sanctity” of marriage. Really? I think the sanctity was destroyed long ago when divorce became so easy to buy that there might as well be a corner store selling package deals at discount prices. By god don’t let two men who are in love get married because when a man and a woman gets married its pure and clean and true. Two men getting married would mar the reputable union that marriage has today.
The fact that you think this simple little posting is an “assault” on “traditional marriage” and that you claim that this posting is “undermining” the states position on marriage is ludicrous to me. Get in line with the rest of the warmongering hypocrites. God forbid one man love another when there is so much hate in this world. God knows what this world needs is more love.
Leave it to you, Brian Sikma to throw about your hypocrisy in the face of love. Its people like you that keep this state from the progression it deserves. The more you continue to segregate Humanity by these hateful, hypocritical claims, the more you push people apart. How exactly does it effect you if one woman chooses to love another woman? Are you even married?
I also saw on your wonderful little blog posting where you spoke out against the hate crime legislation. I assumed as much would come from you. Just know, that I do not hate you, but I pity you because you have confined yourself to this tiny little conservative, christian viewpoint that will never allow you to see the true wonders that this world has to offer.
Keep preaching your hypocrisy, because what you don’t realize is that even publicity against gay marriage is still publicity.
Sincerely,
A born and raised citizen of the state of Indiana.
For a group of people who claim they are so open minded, these gays sure get their panties in a bind about something posted on a blog.
If marriage is worthless and not worth defending because of devorce, why fight so hard to be able to do it.
Not sure that comment from “Me” is even worth replying to… but “Me”‘s whole response screams ignorance and I just can’t resist.
“These gays sure get their panties in a bind” – the word “gays” itself is insulting, and probably meant to be so
Oh and by the way, what the hell is “devorce”?
Now that I’ve satisfied myself by attacking your ignorance I will respond:
Yes, my “panties” are in a bind. This blog is a direct attack at the entire GLBT community, who are no more or less human than you ignorant sir.
Secondly, I did not call marriage worthless, that came straight out of your mouth (persay). I just do not see how people can use its so called “sanctity” to deny any human being the equal rights that the union legally entitles.
Well said, Ryan
So the gay is an insult, then why in the hell do the GAY’s have the word GAY in the organization called GLBT.
If you want to claim i am ignorant, study history. Then tell me an openly gay society is good for its citizens.
I’ll give you a hint where to start looking: The Roman Empire
Saying “Gays” would be the same as anyone saying “you Straights”. Its insulting. But your too ignorant to see that.
And yes, it was homosexuality that brought down the entire Roman Empire. It had nothing to do with the economy falling apart or the raids that pinpricked the empire until it bled to death.
Hey, I have an idea. How about we dispute this in person. That way when you run out of ignorant comments you can always resort to straight-up violence.
I will not be responding anymore because I am obviously wasting my time.
Thanks for the talk though! I learned so much and enjoyed it while it lasted!
I did do some reading about the Roman Empire. And the British Empire. And the Soviet Union, a regime that had a very harsh attitude towards gays throughout it’s 74 year history. Superpowers have a finite lifespan, just like everything else.
The newspapers have a right to print this, and you have a right to complain about it. How do you feel about horoscopes in the newspaper?
Well, this captcha thing seems semi-defective, let’s try again:
Heh.
End of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
“Following the adoption of Christianity, same-sex relations continued to be taboo and in 390, laws were re-enacted, making such relations punishable by death.
“The circumstances surrounding the massacre of Thessaloniki at the end of the 4th century post offers a clue that even in the Christian era homosexuality itself was still accepted in large parts of the population, while officially prosecuted. A popular charioteer was accused of having sexually harassed an army-commander or servant of the emperor. The charioteer was arrested, but pointed out there was unrest, as the people of the town were calling for his release. The charioteer also enjoyed great popularity despite his homosexuality.”
http://www.adam-carr.net/014.html
“Which brings me back to Mr Psalti and the mythical decline of the decadent Romans. This peculiar view of history derives, though Mr Psalti may not know it, from Edward Gibbon’s 18th century classic Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the first systematic history of the later Empire. Now Gibbon was a superlative writer and, given his limited sources, a brilliant historian, but he had, like many of his contemporaries, a bit of a bee under his bonnet about homosexuality. Also, not being a marxist, nor having much understanding of economic history, he found it difficult to explain why the awesome edifice of the Roman Empire should have crumbled as it did. So he cast about for some superficial explanation that fitted the world-view of his class and his generation, and came up with this line about homosexuality and decadence, which then became a stock line of 19th century moralistic cant.
“In fact, of course, the truth of the matter is quite the reverse of Mr Psalti’s view, though not nearly so much fun. The Roman Empire fell, as empires do, for straightforward economic reasons; not because of anything to do with sex at all.
“By the third century AD the once-vigorous Roman state was ruled by a parasitic horde of soldiers and bureaucrats, who lived off the productive efforts of a dwindling class of farmers and artisans. Most of what would now be wage-labour was performed by slaves. This endless supply of free labour meant that there was no incentive for technical development or economic expansion. The slave system meant that neither a bourgeoisie nor a proletariat in the modern sense could evolve, that there could be no accumulation of capital, and that there was no real economic, social or political development. Only the rich could consume, and they consumed mainly imported luxuries. The wealth of the Empire, built up by conquest not production, thus drained away to the East or was wasted in military expenditure. Once the Empire stopped expanding territorially, it was living off its fat. Its economy first ceased to grow, then stagnated, then began to decline. Put simply, the Roman Empire went br!
oke.
“Not having discovered economics, Roman governments had little understanding of what was going on. They tried to cover their deficits by simply increasing taxation, which of course further weakened what remained of the productive economy and eventually destroyed it altogether. When the barbarian challenge came in the fifth century AD, the State could not raise, feed, equip or train the necessary troops to defend its enormous territories, and like the Spanish, British and American Empires after it, it collapsed under the weight of its own economic contradictions.
“Finally, I can’t resist pointing out one other major change in the later Empire. Late in the fourth century the Emperor Constantine, searching for some political underpinning for his autocratic regime, scrapped the old Greco-Roman state religion with its dozens of quarrelsome gods, and replaced it with a new monotheistic cult from the East, Christianity. The new religion, with its strict hierarchy both celestial and earthly and its admirable stress on social discipline, respect for authority and rendering unto Caesar suited Constantine’s purposes nicely. The Christian Church, in return for propping up the regime, obtained vast power over education, morals, the family and social policy generally. One consequence of this was the imposition of the Judaeo-Christian sexual ethic on the Empire in place of the pagan-Hellenic one we have already looked at. This was bad news for homosexuality, and for everything not conforming to the new orthodoxy. By the time the Roman state collap!
sed in the fifth century the Empire, far from succumbing to homosexuality and decadence as Mr Psalti would have us believe, was already declining into the pious Christian barbarism of the feudal era, whose ideological descendent Mr Psalti is.”
…
Actually looking at history, hilarity ensues. One could posit that aside from the slave economy and attacks on the empire, having Christianity as the state religion wasn’t actually helping things at the end.
This is only a test of the new captcha. It’s inline and visible from the first page, so that should help it not set off security things.
Ryan, The word gay’s is as much of an insult as blacks, whites or any other group. Your a bit over sensitive.
As for the point of this whole disscussion. You have a veiw point and i have a veiw point. You are the one trying to change the morals this country was founded on but don’t feel i have the right to defend it. A nation without morals will end like every other nation without morals has. If someone defends the downfall of the roman empire because it has a finite lifespan its because of the moral decay that it ended.
We as a nation are heading down that same path with the welfare programs, the entitlement mentality, the lack of defence of the unborn and the lack of defence of the morals we were founded on all are contributing to the end of this great nation.
@me
You’re assuming it’s some sort of given that this country was founded on christian morals. It’s not, and even if it was, it’s not too late to correct that mistake.
Of course, under those founding morals you claim to exist, slavery was OK and women didn’t have the right to vote. Both since corrected.
If you insist on repeating the moral decay theory of the fall of the Roman Empire, it looks like you can’t even read much less interpret what’s been pointed out in this thread.
Wow, your first link says nothing other then homosexuality was still accepted for the most part. Your second link is a joke. Its from Gay Community News, October 1980. There\’s no agenda there. Nice try.
I did not say christian morals, I said morals. so nice try again.
@Me
Apparently you didn’t get the point of the first link.
Ha. OK. You make a claim that an openly gay society is bad for its citizens and make some vague hint at the fall of the Roman Empire with no backup at all.
The link is hosted by the people you hate so much, but refutes your insinuation with verifiable facts and logic to back it up… but *they* have an agenda, so it\’s a joke.
Not that *you* have one at all.
You\’re the joke here, I think.
Alright, fine. ANY morals at all then. Why is it any more immoral for a gay couple to be wed in the faith of their choice that supports it and have that recognized by the state?
Why is that immoral (WITHOUT relying on a religious reason) and what is the actual harm to anyone?
And did you notice that the Roman Empire was the strongest in history while homosexually was going on. It was not until the Church came in and started creating trouble that there was a problem with being gay. Thats when all the shit hit the fan and things went south.
Hate??????? I just said they should not get married in the same way as a man and woman. Hate would be to want to put them on an island and blow it up. Big differance.
Now last time i checked, men and women have differance parts. So either its immoral, against the laws of nature or whatever you want to call it, its not the way GOD or evolution intended it. To say that something is aginst the laws of nature does not mean i hate.
As for the roman empire stuff. If it wasn’t a somewhat accepted theroy, it would not have a paper from 1980 form some gay organitation trying to dispute it. There are also may places i can go to give you information about how the moon landing was fake but that does not make it true
@Me
Denying a group of people basic human rights is pretty hateful, I’m afraid. Deny it if you wish.
As I thought. You couldn’t do it without bringing religion into it.
(BTW, there is no god. Just because you believe in fairy tales doesn’t mean the rest of us must be forced to.)
And clearly you don’t understand what evolution is if you think it “intends” anything.
But then, you make it pretty clear that if you don’t agree with something you’ll just ignore or dismiss it outright. The convoluted “logic” of your last paragraph makes that clear.
Basic human rights are food, freedom, safty, not marriage. There are plenty of laws that prohibit people from getting married, not just gays.
I did not bring religion into this. I brought simple biology into this.
As far as the evolution comment, I guess i may have used the wrong word. But since your looking to win an arguement by glossing over facts, i’ll be more plunt. The body parts are intended to be used with other body parts. When you go aginst that it would be against the way nature intends.
@Me
Hahaha. So are we going to start verifying that people actually possess genitals and that they’re the right type and function correctly before the state recognizes their marriage?
To put it BLUNTly, nature doesn’t intend anything. You’re anthropomorphizing. And you mentioned God, sorry, you brought religion into it. And what hold does nature have over an inherently social contract/union, church-blessed or otherwise?
Just because there are other laws in regard to marriage doesn’t make this one right or just. Also, you might want to look up that “pursuit of happiness” bit.
It’s really amusing to watch you fail to justify this over and over. But we’d better hurry up and fix it I guess, before those awful gay people destroy the morality of society even more than they have!
More right-wingnut straight white guys might have to kill abortion doctors and blow up federal buildings while Republican politicians cheat on their wives and take wide stances in airport bathrooms if we don’t!
Michael,
You were doing pretty good until the last paragraph. Then you got totally stupid. Yes, stupid, not ignorant.
@Amy Lyn
Hey, Me wants to go on about moral decay. At least I provided real-world examples… Not that they have anything to do with anyone else but the conservative types that tend to talk the worst about gays.
I wouldn’t say stupid so much as “ironically amusing.”
So now i’m a right wing republican who cheats on my wife.
Atleast we know who was name calling first.
OK, let’s talk about biology then. Should postmenepausal women be allowed to get married, considering that they are incapable of bearing children?
Indiana state law allows first cousins to be married if they are both over the age of 65. If suitability for reproduction is the criteria for official recognition of a marriage, should this law be changed?
@Me
As usual, you don’t get it. It’s not all about you, though you might think it.
I was pointing out that gay people are much less of a threat to society than the people who most often claim they are.
Ok your right, what was i thinking. Its perfecly natural to have gay sex. We can’t have any law or oppinion that is not politicly correct. We can’t use the wrong word around someone who perceives themself as a minority yet they can stereotype everyone else. The person who consideres themself disenfranchised has the right to have an agenda and attempt to rewrite history but calls on others to prove something they can not disprove. You have the right to be vocal and blunt, but others don’t have the right to post something on a blog that they own.
I forgot its 2009 and the majority has no rights. You win.
@Me
Oh, poor you. Not allowed to pass judgment on people and condemn them as you see fit.
Nobody’s re-written history, just corrected your willful misinterpretation.
And people can post whatever they’d like on their blogs. That doesn’t mean they’re not going to get called out if it’s dumb. I respect their right to say things, but I don’t have to respect the things they say.
And if you’re really so hung up on this “natural” intent thing, boy are you going to have issues with H+ and Transhumanism.
This entire issue is built upon a ridiculously flawed premise, which is that state support or castigation of one’s lifestly will have any influence on people. People involved in a failing marriage may sometimes give it another try because of the children, because of economics, or because of how it will affect them in the particular social circles they place themselves in. I really doubt though if anyone on the verge of divorvce has ever uttered the phrase “But wait dear, what about the state?”
There are only two specific issues here that merit consideration. Should two consenting adults be allowed to merge their finances into a single entity, and should a consenting adult be able to appoint whomever he/she wishes to have access to and/or be given authority to act upon their medical condition. I think that under current law, both of these issues are available with a joint power of attorney document, albeit at a considerable cost I suppose. And I don’t believe that the lawyer will even ask who you are f*****g when the document is drawn up.
The question of sexual relations needs to be seperated from the legal aspects of this issue. Let anyone who wants to join in such a union do so with a standard legal document which should be easily accesible to anyone at little to no cost, rather than having to hire a lawyer. Let the families, friends, church, etc. of the individuals deal with the ceremonial aspect and the question of who is f*****g who.
If not this, then to be fair I suppose we should outlaw the use of condems, oral sex, and a host of other sexual activities that are clearly a sin because they do not lead to procreation.
@Phil Marx
HUZZAH! Thank you sir.
State sanction of marriage has always been about exclusion, anyway. Shouldn’t even be involved in the first place.
Here’s a thought from a while ago:
http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2007/11/why-license-marriage.html