Gays worse than terrorists, but hey, no offense intended!
posted at 2:40 pm on March 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
An Oklahoma lawmaker has received an avalanche of criticism, reportedly including a few death threats, for calling homosexuality a greater threat to America than terrorism. Republican state legislator Sally Kern has apparently made the comment in more than one venue, and even now defends her statement while the condemnation rolls in from around the country. Kern has only mellowed it to insist that she meant no gay-bashing:
A YouTube audio clip of a state lawmaker’s screed against homosexuality, which she called a bigger threat than terrorism, has outraged gay activists and brought death threats rolling in.
“The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation, OK, it’s just a fact,” Rep. Sally Kern said recently to a gathering of fellow Republicans outside the Capitol.
“Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted, you know, more than a few decades. So it’s the death knell in this country.
“I honestly think it’s the biggest threat that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat,” she said. …
Kern said she has no regrets for her statements and denies she was gay-bashing. Her Christian faith teachers [sic] her to be loving to individuals, but not their lifestyle, she said.
Gays are a bigger threat than Islamist terrorists? Only if one feels less than confident about their own sexuality. In the real world, gays don’t threaten anyone with their choices. Kern, however, has paranoid notions of gay infiltration of city councils in an effort to drive America to ruin. Oh, the humanity!
But don’t let anyone say that Kern engages in gay-bashing! No, no, no, she hates the sin and loves the sinners. She just doesn’t love it when they conspire to undermine city councils and conduct indoctrination of children into their networks. She doesn’t love gays who sneak gay-themed books into childrens’ libraries, which prompted legislation sponsored by Kern, and which failed to pass in the Oklahoma legislature. But don’t say she bashes gays, for Pete’s sake!
Unfortunately, many take this far too seriously. Republicans at some point have to distance themselves from those whose paranoid impulses lead them to these extremes. In practical terms, they are no better than those who blame Halliburton for conspiring to push the nation to war, or those who believe that the CIA secretly masterminded the 9/11 attacks in order to bolster their budgets.
Worst of all, it takes our eyes off of those who really do want to destroy America — like Osama bin Laden, the Iranian Guardian Council, and other real enemies of our nation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next »
@ JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Explain to me how he “became” a homosexual in your mind? You don’t think the constant preaching against it made it a taboo which he sought to explore? Just like Mark Foley being the Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children was caught trying to bugger teenage boys? Just like Larry Craig who continually voted against gay marraige and gay hate crime law, was found in a bathroom tapping away? Just like Bob Allen signed Gov. Jeb Bush’s friend-of-the-court brief supporting the state’s ban on gays adopting children, but offered 20 dollars to a black gentleman for oral sex in a park. Just like Glenn Murphy Jr. who is the National Chairman of the Young Republicans, was caught giving oral sex to a fellow young republican after getting him drunk at his house.
Those are just some examples, from this past year I believe. What turned all of those people gay all of a sudden?
muyoso on March 16, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Bomb throwers throw bombs. It’s what they do. Cute at 16, indefensible at 40. The silly cow.
JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 9:04 PM
@ misterpeasea on March 16, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Its one of many instances of all people, religious included, doing what is seen as taboo.
muyoso on March 16, 2008 at 9:04 PM
@ JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 9:04 PM
You can never respond to a comment without trying to insult. Shows not only immaturity, but also a lack of intelligence.
muyoso on March 16, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Do you realize the only point you’re making is that people are hypocrites? Geez, people are hypocrites, that’s a new concept.
terryannonline on March 16, 2008 at 9:06 PM
I can’t even read your silly tripe. You commented on one of my comments. I said your response made no sense. And now you are asking me questions again??
I said what I said. It was clear. You wish to blame religion and/or other things for causing people to engage in same sex relations. Go ahead, make up any crap you want. But even jetboy and other gay people here wouldn’t agree with you on that.
Once you accept your bovine nature, you will be on the path to change.
JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 9:07 PM
Just constructive criticism for my silly wittle cow.
JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 9:08 PM
Taboo, schmaboo. I’m talking about rights and laws. I don’t care whether it’s a choice. I don’t care what the Bible says about it.
I care about undermining rule of law and attacking the institutions and traditions and morals and values that have made and continue to make this country great.
misterpeasea on March 16, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Math Mage,
Yes it would be a lie and therefore a sin…remember all sin is a sin against God.
Atheists commit idolatry by creating a non existent version of God. Anything that is not the true God is a false god.
More importantly Math mage…do your parents know that you are flirting with idea of practicing homosexuality?
All sin is equal in God’s eyes, but homosexuality is a particularly dangerous sin because it enables one to embody the sin.
It is a particularily powerful tool of the devil to force the sinner into a vicious cycle of sins… lying,adultery,idolatry,not honoring your parents,not loving God with all your being(by obeying Him).
It is a path to destruction.
The devil is jealous of, and hates humans.
The devil only wants to kill and destroy us.
You may not be aware of this math mage, but there is a spiritual war happening.
The spiritual war is in your mind and in your conscience.
The devil works by trying to get you to sin and trying to keep you away from God. Watch and observe this happening and see for yourself.
The enemy will only lead you to destruction! Destruction now and before God on judgement day.
But Christ is far more powerful than the enemy and has overcome him.
When you accept Christ into your heart you are given power over the enemy.
SaintOlaf on March 16, 2008 at 9:16 PM
Isn’t that the point really with these guys. To them only a Christian nutjob can be hypocritical, the non-social cons don’t pass judgement on anybody.
kongzilla on March 16, 2008 at 9:17 PM
@ JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 9:07 PM
You seriously are insane. Where did I blame religion for gay behavior? Can you point that out? I simply said that the people who are rail against things most fervently usually get caught being hypocrites. There is a reason for that, I believe, and its that humans naturally explore the taboo. If someone is brought up in a ridiculously strict home, its not uncommon for them to lash out.
Can you for once NOT take my comment out of context and completely wrong? Its almost worthless typing words to you, since you refuse to read any but the keywords you are scanning comments for.
muyoso on March 16, 2008 at 9:18 PM
These comments have been a nice example of a point I made in another thread. Neocons, and I define neocon as a democrat in everything except fiscal policy, and national defense, are brow beating social cons on one of their positions, while at the same time screaming at them to get behind a neocon presidental candidate. You can’t have it both ways. You want us to support your issues, then you’re going to have to support ours.
I am not familiar with this woman, or all of the issues she supports, but she seems to lack tact, and is probably out of her depth in this position. She has probably done some damage, but not nearly the damage done by President Bush.
DFCtomm on March 16, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Homosexual activists DO want to destroy America. Or at least, the America that values decency, individualism, and human life. The very America that gives them the freedom to engage in their perversions at no cost.
Are they equal to or worse than Islamists? Of course not. That’s idiocy. Assuming you consider murder a higher crime than brainwashing. Islamists just want to kill off the entirety of the West, including homosexuals. All homosexual activists want to do is indoctrinate your children with propaganda and recruit them into the homosexual movement under the auspice of state-protected diversity.
I live in Massachusetts Ed. The gay lobby has already succeeded in forcing gay marriage down our throats through judicial fiat. Our public school administrators have already ruled parents have no right to control what kind of values their children recieve at public schools, and the homosexual lobby has already started targetting 3rd graders with fractured fairy tales like King and King, a fable not unlike the four suitors, except the Queen’s son wants to cavort with a man to live happily ever after. Tragically, the story does not explain how the happy kingdom soon vanished because it left no heir to maintain the peace, but I suppose that kind of reality would be too shocking to little children, while telling them explicitly that same sex relationships are of equal moral weight as heterosexual ones is fine and dandy.
This dispite the astounding suicide rate of homosexuals, this dispite the astounding HIV infection rate of homosexuals, and this dispite the most vile aspects of gay culture being celebrated as the ultimate happiness for adults, ala the Fulsom Street Fair. The homosexual lifestyle excludes the possibility of life, it is merely a sexual perversion that adults engage in to drown their sorrows.
However, just destroying themselves isn’t enough. They have to corrupt your children too.
BKennedy on March 16, 2008 at 9:20 PM
@ misterpeasea on March 16, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Ok, where do you stop with that though? Its very recent in our history that blacks and women are able to vote, should we take that away because its not part of our history?
muyoso on March 16, 2008 at 9:20 PM
@ Kongzilla,
Reposting as I do not see my response yet. I do not see them as radicals. I was merely trying to offer an insight that Captain Ed and other blue state conservatives may not see in their neck of the woods. I used the word “unfortunately” because I have seen the hate that sometimes follows the “love the sinner, hate the sin” rhetoric.
Pastor Wrights remarks were deeply offensive.
The Opinionator on March 16, 2008 at 9:22 PM
Well, again…I had pretty good relationships with both my parents, I was never molested, what kid DIDN’T take a peek at a Playboy or something like it, and so far as I know there was no wicked culture enticing me to explore sexuality. I grew up in the town that produced Ann Coulter…so much for that argument.
JetBoy on March 16, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Let’s go slowwwwwwwly. You commented on my post, and brought in all this stuff about religion and people who have gay sex. I didn’t mention any of that, so I don’t know why ur commenting to ME about it. Your response had nothing to do, in a logical way at least, with my original post, which was very clear.
I have NOTHING to say about your own beliefs as they are liberal, ludicrous, half-baked, tedious, immature, etc. You are also a Ron Paul nut and a bomb thrower. To repeat, you are no ones sixteen year old daughter, so you are not cute and shall not be indulged, in the hope that you will grow out of it and bear grandchildren some day. You are a silly cow, at best, dangerous at worst. btw, you prob. have heard that bovine flatulence is not green. better watch out.
JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 9:26 PM
On the subject of inane, ignorant remarks: Serial killers exist, therefore, they are “normal.” Rapists exist, therefore, they are “normal.” Marriage and sexual relations with 9-year old girls exists, therefore, it is “normal.”
To be clear, I’m not equating homosexuality with rape, serial killing, or pedophilia. I’m pointing out that the existence of something says nothing about it being “normal.” Sexual perversions exist in multiple varieties, but they are still sexual perversions.
And of course there is a “homosexual agenda,” regardless of whether it’s shared by all homosexuals. An agenda to promote acceptance of homosexuality and a redefinition of marriage to include two men or two women is a “homosexual agenda” by definition.
Obviously, it’s hyperbole to describe homosexuals as a bigger threat than terrorism. Unless, of course, you qualify the statement by specifying what it is a “threat” to. If the topic is national morality, then terrorism is not a threat to our morals at all, so virtually anything that could be considered to deteriorate morals would be a bigger threat.
The problem with terrorists, of course, is that they are a threat to our physical survival. Homosexuals are not.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 16, 2008 at 9:30 PM
I didn’t say anything about being part of our history. I said institutions and traditions and morals and values.
And (yet) again: feel free to try to advance the homosexual agenda. Please do it legitimately. Like womens’ and minorities’ rights. Arguing that gay marriage, or sodomy, are rights guaranteed by the Constitution is not legitimate.
And don’t get hysterical about opposition to the efforts to advance the homosexual agenda. As long as they’re legitimate.
Is it too much to ask that everyone respect rule of law? That’s one of the institutions that has taken a beating since (that fascist thug) FDR threatened to pack the SCt. Speaking of railing against something while engaging in it.
misterpeasea on March 16, 2008 at 9:32 PM
@ JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Wait, I am the bomb thrower? Who is the person who ends every comment with an insult? Nor am I a liberal. I am a conservative libertarian. I dont see any place in government for regulating personal matters like religion, sexual orientation or drug use as long as its not involving others. All you do is insult people, you never answer questions, you never debate. Yet I am the bomb thrower. I am done with you and your drivel. You will not respond legitimately to a post which extrapolates your ridiculous notion out to its extreme to show you its fallacy, and claim you can’t understand it at all. Not worth even wasting time on you, since you are an immature person who is incapable of thought provoking arguments and instead must resort to the lamest of insults. I understand from your post that you are only interested in 16 year old females, which either means you are too young to be taken seriously because of your childish nature, or instead you are a pedophile. Either way, I am finished with you and your nonsense.
muyoso on March 16, 2008 at 9:33 PM
The story could go on to explain how democracy is better than hereditary rule, and how we as a country fought a war against a king, but it’s a simple story for kids.
Is there a concern that legal gay sexual relationships or gay marriage will cause a drop in straight intercourse or reproduction? Given the frequency that straight guys think about attractive women, their interest in straight sex seems unlikely to diminish.
dedalus on March 16, 2008 at 9:34 PM
@ misterpeasea on March 16, 2008 at 9:32 PM
In no way am I advancing the homosexual agenda, whatever the hell that is. I don’t personally like the thought of gay marraige, nor am I a fan at all of the conduct of many gay people. I just can’t see where it is the responsibility of government to get involved in peoples lives and tell them how to live. Ill take exactly what you said and ask you another question then. Blacks and women traditionally were not allowed to vote. It was not consistent with the morals, traditions and values of the country. This lasted for centuries. That changed only recently, so why should other groups who feel they are being denied equal rights under the constitution not be able to fight for those rights? I mean, two gay people who want to “spend their lives together” are not given the same ability to claim deductions on taxes. That is part of their argument from what I can decipher. It seems legitimate doesnt it?
muyoso on March 16, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Don’t ya wish they had one of those little “block” buttons? Your liberal/libertarian agenda is obvious in everything you have ever said, including all the nuttiest portions of your personal messiah, Ron Paul.
I’ve seen you be shut down by AP (or was it Bryan) so fast once it made your head spin. So did others.
As for this topic, I suggested that homosexual attraction is not predetermined before birth. I have no particular comment about religion and homosexuality, nor did I make one. I have no comment about certain politicians who engage in homosexual behavior, nor did I make one. And I have no problem with self-called gay people as long as they don’t want to make sexual attraction some sort of protected civil right, or try to equate it with the norm.
I find you udderly ridiculous.
However, in the slight chance that I am wrong, and you truly are a young person, I sincerely apologize.
JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 9:43 PM
You can give homosexual couples tax deductions with out marriage.
terryannonline on March 16, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Sorry, I mean the government. I used the wrong pronoun.
terryannonline on March 16, 2008 at 9:48 PM
We must crush the gay movement in this country. If homosexuality is ‘accepted’ by the normal people of America, it’ll only be a short time before all red-blooded American males are pounding each other. Just to see how it feels. I know I can’t wait. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Other than the sin. ohmygodiamsoconfused Perhaps we are all part gay after all. Hey big boy, nice nustache.
LimeyGeek on March 16, 2008 at 9:48 PM
“nustache”? “nutstache”? see it’s already starting. stop the gays. now.
LimeyGeek on March 16, 2008 at 9:49 PM
In case you weren’t paying attention, my objection is not and has never been that two men or women were porking each other behind closed doors. Creating a sodomy police is expensive, counterproductive, stupid, and not in the leats bit conservative.
My objection comes when the primary means they seek to legitimize their behavior is by running roughshod over the moral sensibilities of parents via state officials and court orders.
Why do they target children dedalus, and why do they need the state as their wingman?
Even they know they have to get them young, because when their agenda is exposed to the light of day, liek all evils, it evaporates. Why do you think homosexual activists don’t target fully grown sexually developed individuals with their ad campaigns and lobbying initiatives? Because they know its too late for them to sow their seeds. They must get their prey young, before their sense of masculitnity and feminitity, or moral right and moral wrong is fully developed.
They sell porn to adults and “tolerance” to kids. That’s all you need to know.
The homosexual movement is nothing more than another socialist indocrination program that preaches moral relativism while utilizing the hammer of government control.
BKennedy on March 16, 2008 at 9:55 PM
I wonder if Tammy Bruce knows she’s a deviant? Or that most members of the party she routinely defends thinks she’s going straight to hell.
SnarkVader on March 16, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Can’t speak for her of course, but while deviant doesn’t sound nice, her sexual attraction does deviate from the norm. I think another word might be nicer. How about girl, or lady? Also the most members stuff is prob.a stretch. How did you come up with that?
JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 10:00 PM
I disagree. Preventing them from voting was not consistent with the morals, traditions, and values of the country. Which is why they are no longer prevented.
Which rights under the Constitution are they being denied? Marriage is not a constitutional right, by any stretch of the imagination, or the penumbra of the emanation. Similarly, tax deductions are not a constitutional right.
You want special privileges for gay couples? Fine, but be honest about it. And once again, do not try to tell me that you all-the-sudden discovered a right to homosexual marriage or sodomy in a 200+ year old document. Go to the legislature and plead your case there.
So, no, I don’t see the legitimacy of that argument.
Oh, and as far as the libertarian perspective: I know libertarians don’t think gummint should get into legislating morals, private matters, etc. I sympathize with that position. However, the Constitution clearly permits states to do so. States are perfectly within their rights to grant PRIVILEGES (not rights) and provide incentives to heterosexual couples to marry and not do the same for homosexual couples.
There is no constitutional right implicated, as far as I can tell.
misterpeasea on March 16, 2008 at 10:01 PM
After watching a few hours of BBC America I agree with the “stop the gays now” thing. I watched Torchwood the other night and saw Spike from Buffy kissing some guy, but it was obvious he was into girls as well, so I guess it works just like you said.
DFCtomm on March 16, 2008 at 10:03 PM
There are no ‘rights under the Constitution’. Not one.
By simple virtue of our rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness, gays have the freedom to seek a relationship with a partner they wish to betroth themselves to.
Government has no authority to interfer in any manner whatsoever. Read the 9th and 10th amendments until they sink in.
LimeyGeek on March 16, 2008 at 10:04 PM
That’s not what SCOTUS found in Loving v. Virginia, wherein it called marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man”.
Any of our rights can have limitations placed upon them due to a “compelling interest” by the State. Yet this does not mean that in every case such an interest is valid or sustainable over the long run. It certainly wasn’t in the case of interracial marriage.
JohnAGJ on March 16, 2008 at 10:05 PM
What is Bill of Rights? also, what if happiness is two wives and a cow?
JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 10:06 PM
You should be free to do so.
You should be free to do so.
There is a legitimate concern regarding consent here.
I never could find this standard defined in the Constitution, yet I keep hearing it parroted.
LimeyGeek on March 16, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Sure. Probably over the next decade there will probably be state-by-state compromises along those lines.
I’d disagree with the notion though that marriage is something the state gives to the people. Marriage predates this or any other state.
dedalus on March 16, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Go to the evidence. The totality of what we know about John the Baptist is in the Gospels. There is no other historical documentation about him. You don’t even have to read all of the Gospels, since only a small part refers to him.
Look through that, and find anything at all that indicates that John the Baptist was gay.
That Craig Bishop tries to interpet “men who wear soft raiment” as “homosexual” just shows that some people really should avoid trying to translate Greek. Actually, it also shows he has trouble with understanding context, because Jesus clearly describes John the Baptist as NOT one who wore soft raiment.
Frankly, the speculations of people living 1900 years later are completely irrelevant.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 16, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Are you saying that the BoR confers rights? FAIL
Two consenting women? Fine. What business is it of yours, mine, or the governments? You may wish to assert and interest, but your assertion does not confer legitimacy. Your persistent assertion might confirm a fascistic bully mindset, however.
As for the cow, I really don’t see how you could establish consent, but I’m happy to leave you to your own fantasies.
LimeyGeek on March 16, 2008 at 10:14 PM
LOL. I would hardily call someone not wanting a man to marry two wives and a cow fascist.
terryannonline on March 16, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Interesting assertion. Never heard that one before, but I only went to law school for three years. So that whole “Bill of Rights” thing doesn’t carve out individual rights? Who knew?
Taking flowery language and trying to attach meaning to it. Tell me, what behavior or practice would that argument NOT support? A homophobe could argue that his right to liberty and pursuit of happiness demand that homosexual marriage be prohibited.
Uhm.
9th – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
As I said, I only went to law school for three years, so maybe you could elaborate on this. Seems to me like the 9th and 10th Amendments support my argument that the states can legislate as they like in this area. “Not prohibited by it to the States.”
Penumbras and emanations and natural law, oh my! Not sure what “a basic civil right of man” is exactly. I’m not into natural law, especially when it comes to important stuff like rights. I like my rights to be written down, in clearly intelligible language, using non-invisible ink.
misterpeasea on March 16, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Please elaborate on confer, if you don’t mind.
My persistant assertion?? Have I done that? I think the laws against polygamy have done that, and I don’t see the US as having been a fascist country.
Re. cow. Why do you require consent from the animal? Is it not enough that my happiness lies in having carnal knowledge of
her?
JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Not the british style I hear.
JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 10:21 PM
For my part, I will give that Supreme Court decision every bit as much deference as I give the Dred Scott decision.
IOW, none at all.
The Supreme Court sometimes seriously oversteps its limits. Tragically, the far-sighted Founding Fathers failed to anticipate the problem of activist courts. Rather quaintly, they assumed courts would stick to actual laws in their rulings, rather than just make crap up as needed to get the ruling they want.
And finding some right to gay marriage in the Constitution is definitely making crap up. Fortunately, they had practice in Roe v. Wade.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 16, 2008 at 10:23 PM
How is this not contradictory? We have “not one right” and we have “rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness”?
You’re losing me.
misterpeasea on March 16, 2008 at 10:24 PM
I don’t doubt that there are crazies in “the movement” and that indoctrination is their goal. I’d like the government to be half it’s current size so that there was a smaller hammer for all the movements out there to fight over.
Are gay’s evil? The ones I know (at least the ones who aren’t fabulous) can be kinda boring–worried about real estate prices, their job or their next vacation. The ones with kids have most of the same challenges and fears that my wife and I have.
If tolerance means not calling someone “evil” unless they are a criminal or harming another person, then I’m for it. There has been intolerance directed at Catholics and Jews in the past and the country is better off without it.
dedalus on March 16, 2008 at 10:24 PM
And do you have a nice shiny piece of paper that you can wave around, ad verecundiam style, to induce others to blindly accept everything you say?
No sale. Demand a refund.
LimeyGeek on March 16, 2008 at 10:26 PM
I suspect this is not a new experience for you.
LimeyGeek on March 16, 2008 at 10:27 PM
However, we are not told to turn a blind eye and say that what God says is sin is not sin.Then we seem to have a problem of millions of Christians doing exactly that. You are forgetting about usury, something our modern society is built upon. The Bible is quite clear that the lending or borrowing at interest is a grave sin, yet somehow this is overlooked nowadays. Christians for centuries were strongly against usury, including some of the first Protestant leaders. Yet again, somehow this is conveniently forgotten today and is no longer a sin. Why is that?
JohnAGJ on March 16, 2008 at 10:29 PM
I didn’t base any argument on my having attended law school. That was Earth humor. Maybe you could address my arguments, you know, the ones based on the Constitution?
Hm. Ad hominem attacks. Petty personal insults. Avoiding addressing the arguments. You’re starting to bore me.
misterpeasea on March 16, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Loving ended race-based restrictions on marriage. Are you saying that preventing a man and woman of different races from marrying should be OK?
dedalus on March 16, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Guess folks want houses. How do you do it without a mortgage?
JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 10:32 PM
The BoR does not establish the existence of the vew rights it mentions. In other words, it is not a document that brings rights into existence and confer them upon the people. It references existing rights with respect to protecting them from various forms of government interference. The discussions in the Fed Papers are dramatically clear about this. Concern over this kind of confusion is precisely why the 9th was written.
Similar confusion was also a concern with respect to government authority – hence the 10th.
Yet we are now in a situation where the worst fears of the founding fathers have been realised on both counts – namely that people commonly believe that only the rights enumerated are presumed to exist, and that if the government is not forbidden from diong something, then it is legitimate for it to do so.
Horrific.
LimeyGeek on March 16, 2008 at 10:33 PM
My point is that if a nations law institutionalizes sin(gay marriage) then that nation’s law is corrupt and that nation will surely fall soon.
We allow worship of false gods (define how you wish), denial of the existence of God, idolatry, heresy, etc. yet I fail to see you folks out there demanding that Church X be instituted as the One and True Faith Guaranteed To Keep Us In God’s Good Graces. Have you forgotten that each on of these things is very strongly condemned by the Bible? Why then are you not consistent in seeking to use the force of law to impose your beliefs in this area?
JohnAGJ on March 16, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Bear Stearns was just liquidated for $2/share. Given what is happening to our credit markets, I do fear that we are facing God’s wrath and a fiscal plague.
My reading of the Bible leads me to believe that God wasn’t warning us so much about lending in general as No Doc loans and ARMs.
dedalus on March 16, 2008 at 10:38 PM
OK. I have no interest in god nonsense. Roger and out.
LimeyGeek on March 16, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Thanks.
It references existing rights, but only some? Why so few?
Also, maybe you are a libertarian. In theory I like it, but when I look around at my neighbors, I change my mind.
JiangxiDad on March 16, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Oh, good. I guess we’re done, then, since there is absolutely no restriction in place in any state that prevents a homosexual man from marrying a woman. Or that prevents a homosexual women from marrying a man.
I’ll give you points for consistency, since your example of 2 straight sisters living together is certainly not a marriage, just like two homosexual men living together would not be a marriage.
I’m afraid this push for “gay marriage” is going to end very, very badly. You see, homosexuals have every right that non-homosexuals have. The push for “gay marriage” has nothing to do with getting equal rights, and everything to do with demanding full acceptance by society at large. Unfortunately, they can’t demand acceptance from society at large, they can only demand acceptance from the government, which is a very poor substitute.
So if they get what they want, they will not be satisfied with it. They will proceed to demand something else to get that full acceptance. Eventually, the only way to get that full acceptance will be to demand it from the only people left who are not required to give it: those who refuse to accept it on the ground of their religious freedom.
That is, if your religious belief says that homosexuality is a sin, then the government can’t require you to, say, hire a homosexual pastor — or a homosexual organist. As long as religious organizations are allowed to refuse to accept homosexuality, there will be homosexuals who feel discriminated against.
Irresistible force, meet immovable object.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 16, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Homosexuality is all about getting the government to pay for the relationship. No one these days is stopping anybody from doing whatever they do in private. The issue is that they want the government to endorse the lifestyle choice (I don’t accept that it is a biological imperative) and pay for it by tax breaks and requiring insurance coverage.
.
If they are covered, we should cover polygamy also as a lifestyle choice. The distinction between them is arbitrary
.
Additionally, the gays want to force themselves upon me in the workplace and in my place of business. Just as I don’t like to associate with people that are gruff and violent, I should not have to associate with people that choose a lifestyle that leads to AIDS.
.
The whole gay rights issue is purposely distorted into a civil rights issue but it has no grounds for that view.
FactsofLife on March 16, 2008 at 10:42 PM
In her book, The Death Of Right and Wrong, she said it is a dirty little secret in the gay community that the overwhelming majority of gays were molested when young. She says she is comfortable with who she is and does not need any kind of justification.
peacenprosperity on March 16, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Exactly. If it were strictly about rights they would accept civil unions that covered the bases but they don’t. It has to be called marriage.
peacenprosperity on March 16, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Just in case you’re actually asking seriously, I’m referencing your specific statement that marriage is a civil right. The Dred Scott decision is just a counter-example that shows the Supreme Court is often wrong, so it takes more than quoting a Supreme Court decision here and there to prove a point.
Unless, of course, you’re actually arguing a law case where the Supreme Court precedent is binding. This isn’t it.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 16, 2008 at 10:49 PM
I’m not making the case that it is a civil right–though I have said that marriage pre-exists the state. I’m making the case that the OK lawmaker isn’t helpful to the GOP and that, increasingly, this is an issue that the media uses to make the GOP look bad.
Dred Scott was overturned by a Constitutional Amendment, so it isn’t the law of the land. There are some SCOTUS decisions I agree with and others I don’t. All are the law of the land, unless overturned.
Loving is one I agree with, since I don’t think the state has the right to prevent two people of different races to marry. My question was whether you think that individual state governments have the power to prevent interracial marriage.
dedalus on March 16, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Interesting point. Anyone who thinks proponents of the militant gay agenda are GOOD for the country, please stand up and tell us.
Michael Savage is opposed on his talk radion show by BOTH the Islamists and the radical gays. Not sure there is much distinction in the goals of the two entities for this country — in the short run anyway.
In the long run, if they have their way, the Jihadis will execute and oppress the radical gays.
sanantonian on March 16, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Maybe the gays will convert the Jihadis, or at least give them a makeover.
dedalus on March 16, 2008 at 11:04 PM
It doesn’t take lack of confidence in one’s own sexuality to see gay activism as a threat to the country.
When gay activists attempt to bypass the legislatures and persuade the courts to redefine marriage by creative constitutional reinterpretation, they aid in the process of converting the judiciary into tyranny.
When they attempt to apply hate-crime legislation to those who claim that homosexual conduct is sinful and offensive to God, they become a threat to religious liberty.
I’m less worried about terrorists from conservative societies that think Western Civilization in general and America in particular have become a cesspool than I am about sophists who seem intent on proving them right.
Confutus on March 16, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Confutus on March 16, 2008 at 11:05 PM
Well said.
peacenprosperity on March 16, 2008 at 11:13 PM
I just think our society needs to make up its mind:
Is marriage just a piece of paper like we are frequently told?
Or
Is it some civil right that is being denied to a whole group of people?
They can’t both be valid arguments.
terryannonline on March 16, 2008 at 11:18 PM
SaintOlaf:
Gee. I set up a straw man for you…and you COMPLETELY missed it! It’s better to turn over the runaway, huh? After all, lying is a sin…
Wow, there’s a new one. My God doesn’t exist, therefore I’m worshipping a false God! Never mind that I don’t worship a God at all, that would detract from your attempt to paint me black with sin.
So because you can’t refute my logic, you resort to dirty innuendo. Gee, now I HAVE to agree you’re right! I might be *gasp* HOMOSEXUAL if I didn’t!
The rest of your post…it really scares me. But not for the reason you think. Have you ever read The Crucible by Arthur Miller? Or seen it, since it’s a play? The Puritans in Salem used the exact same rhetoric you did, with a few extra touches. You remind me of Reverend Hale and Judge Danforth.
Math_Mage on March 16, 2008 at 11:19 PM
I believe The Crucible is required reading in public high schools. So anyone that has gone to high school should be familiar with it.
terryannonline on March 16, 2008 at 11:25 PM
There is very little difference between the homosexual agenda and the Muslim agenda. Both proclaim that no one else has the right to an opinion about what they believe in, or what they do. Everyone else is an outsider and is the enemy.
OK, so gays don’t go around killing people like Muslims do, but they’ve only had the righteous attitude for about 30 years now.
Give ‘em another 1400.
Jaynie59 on March 16, 2008 at 11:27 PM
There is very little difference between the homosexual
Well said!
sanantonian on March 16, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Meaning what? That if we have read it, we should somehow be more “open-minded” towards the homosexual activist agenda?
sanantonian on March 16, 2008 at 11:39 PM
I am gay. I am a Christian – yes I am – I do not doubt that the Lord loves me and that I am saved. I’m VERY conservative, I am not for “gay marriage.” I understand TOTALLY the Moooooslim threat. I understand the problem with our borders remaining unsecured. I understand that Obama is the greatest threat to this nation if he is to become President. Do not count me out. I live among you and I am one of you. I’m not militant, yet I do get offended from time to time when you all categorize us in one little box. I’m not a militant and most of the women I associate with that are gay are not militants. Not all of us are going after some agenda.
mimi1220 on March 16, 2008 at 11:43 PM
I see. That’s better than what I first thought might be just a rhetorical question.
I don’t agree that marriage is a civil right, per se. However, the Constitution as amended is quite clear that laws cannot be made based on the race they apply to. Race is obviously a far more malleable thing than gender. There are only two genders anywhere in the world, but race can be defined quite narrowly or quite broadly. So if marriage was only allowed for two people of the same race, then that law could restrict a Korean man from marrying a Japanese woman by one interpretation, or by another interpretation allow them to marry as both members of some “Asian” race*. Whereas we all know the law was not meant to restrict such marriages, but to make sure that black men and white women or vice versa did not marry.
* Note that we tend to treat Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese as members of a single race, while the Koreans, for example, would not consider the Japanese to be part of their race.
So obviously the law against interracial marriage conflicted with the Constitutional requirement that black and white stand equal before the law. I would think that would be sufficient grounds to rule the law unconstitutional without deciding that marriage is a “civil right.”
Obviously, if such a law is unconstitutional, then the states do not have the power to make such a law.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 16, 2008 at 11:45 PM
And now we return to the “well, everybody’s got the same rights!” way of thinking. When the poll tax was still in place, everybody could vote – or rather, the same restriction on voting was imposed on everyone. But the ability to meet that restriction differed. Saying that “everyone can marry anyone else, as long as they’re of the opposite sex” is like saying “everyone is free to vote, as long as they have a hundred bucks.” The only difference is that the group being oppressed by not being allowed to marry the partner of their choice is less sympathetic-sounding to the general public than the group being oppressed by not being allowed to vote.
Myself, I’d support gay marriage if a private institution was willing to do it. All the brouhaha about getting the government to officially recognize it is silly. So we think along the same lines there.
Then that just makes it worse, since he knows where his rhetoric leads.
That’s patently absurd. For one thing, Muslims started killing people immediately, so your argument about giving the homosexuals more TIME to DEVELOP their NEGATIVE ATTITUDES bears no comparison with the history of violence in the Muslim world. For another, why should a group of people with a several-thousand-year history of normal interaction with the world suddenly become raving towelhead maniacs?
No, meaning that if SaintOlaf had read it, he might think a little before braying about a “spiritual war” and the secret devil within us all and doom and hellfire and so on.
Math_Mage on March 16, 2008 at 11:45 PM
Hmmmm. Math_Mage says the foregoing. And Isaiah (ca. 700B.C.) wrote the following:
I think I’ll stick with Isaiah. I suspect that Math_Mage will not be widely read 2800 years from now — whereas Isaiah STILL will be —
, or no ;-)
sanantonian on March 16, 2008 at 11:46 PM
There’s your threat, then! If the jihadists were “fabulous”, we might not recognize them for the threat they are!
theregoestheneighborhood on March 16, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Ok, so because the Bible lasted a long time, it must be true? Now THERE’S an argument that I can believe in! [/sarc]
Math_Mage on March 16, 2008 at 11:49 PM
I agree with her. Now, is the “gay agenda” more dangerous to the U.S. (and the West in general) than Muslim Sharia pushers and the rest of the invading third-worlders? No. Is it more dangerous than terrorism? Absolutely.
2Brave2Bscared on March 16, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Hmmm. At first blush, I think I might prefer SaintOlaf’s flavor of kool-aid to yours….
Atheism just seems soooo….. godless! ;-)
sanantonian on March 16, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Great job, Ed. Glad to see you’re en even bigger liberal than Allahpundit. You’ll definitely fit right in here at hot air — the premiere blog for right-liberalism.
2Brave2Bscared on March 16, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Whatever. Go Spurs!
If you think there is a God, and I think there isn’t, so be it.
Math_Mage on March 16, 2008 at 11:54 PM
I will of course, gladly concede that the survival of the Scriptures alone, in and of itself, is not the final argument for the veracity of Scripture, but it is certainly an argument not quite so easily dismissed as you might wish. ;-)
sanantonian on March 16, 2008 at 11:54 PM
;-)
sanantonian on March 16, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Can’t say I disagree with you’re addition. ;)
2Brave2Bscared on March 16, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Good points. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
dedalus on March 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Well said: The radical gays want to get Savage off the air. That is harmful to America: Savage is the best canary in the coalmine this country has.
sanantonian on March 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM
your*
2Brave2Bscared on March 16, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Clever.
aengus on March 17, 2008 at 12:06 AM
No, it’s saying that everyone has the same right to get married. What you’re proposing is the radical idea that marriage must be redefined to appeal equally to homosexuals. Since marriage between a man and a woman doesn’t appeal to two homosexual men, then we must change marriage itself to include two men! That proposal is the very opposite of “conservative.” If marriage is so easily redefined, you can offer no reasonable grounds for not extending it to include a man and multiple wives. In fact, polygamy is far more compatible with the concept of marriage than what you propose.
Frankly, until we restore full polygamy, we have no business debating “gay marriage.” Even in ancient Greece and Rome, no one ever claimed that two men were married, or two women. But they did recognize polygamy, as did the Jews.
The Christian position is clear, though: Polygamy was allowed in the past, but God always intended marriage to be between one man and one woman. Similarly clear is that homosexuality was always considered a sin. This sets up the inevitable conflict between the drive for acceptance of homosexuality, and religious freedom. Eventually, trying to outlaw “discrimination” against gays is going to conflict with the religious freedom to believe it is sinful.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 17, 2008 at 12:07 AM
This is more evidence as to the absolute split in the Republican Party. The conservative Christian element cannot ignore issues like this any longer just to pretend we’re understood and respected by a major American politcal party.
We’ve been hanging onto Republican coattails since the Reagan years and have learned that we’ll never be fully understood or respected by this great party.
I’ve got to tell you guys—I agree with her. The homosexual agenda in America is neferious and very dangerous. I can’t believe you don’t see it. The movement has gone well beyond just fighting against ugly hatred. It is about changing the American family, education and Judeo-Christian ethic.
I expect to be blasted by some of you, but so be it.
My allegience is with Christ, first, last and always. The Bible is crystal-clear on this issue. It’s an abomination against God and His creation.
Adultery is also a bad sin, you may say. Well, you’re right. But adulterers aren’t lobbying Congress to change laws, insisting that adultery be taught in schools as another “lifestyle choice,” nor do they parade around in American cities for a disgusting weekend of vile behavior. I could go on and on.
Homosexual groups are on a rampage against American families intent on redefining sexuality. If they get their way, in 10 years, people will be able declare their own gender. It’s being done even now on a small scale.
Sorry, my Republican friends. I’m Christian first, and whatever that brings, so be it. God has our back. That’s all we need.
Skidd on March 17, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Dude…
I do not expect everyone to be policy wonks. Let me try to explain what the bill does. I guess the article I posted did not do that, my bad…
First I’ll define agenda:
To alter, through politcal means, our culture to promote homosexuality.
Now how does this bill do that? Tom McClintock explains the potential impact here, my own thoughts are below.
Now what are the legal consequences of adding sexual orientation to SB777? Will saying mommy and daddy be discriminatory? Can it be interpreted that way, why yes it can.
And what does this mean? It means the state no longer defines gender biologically (You have to appease the ‘T’ in LBGT). What exactly is the legal impact of this? Think about it. Can Billy go to the girls bathroom whenever he wants, why yes he can! After all if Billy feels like a girl then why can’t he use the girls restroom? But I can hear it already “Your fear mongering!” Yeah… If you think that, you cannot be from California.
So what exactly is instruction that reflects adversely? Do you see how wide a birth it gives the LBGT movement and activist judges to define “reflects adversely”? Do educational materials that do not include instruction on the LBGT lifestyle(s) reflect adversely on them?
What is the purpose of this section? Do you think educational materials are reflecting adversely on LBGT’s? Hmmm? Are California textbooks so laced with anti-LBGT rhetoric? Of course not. So what is the purpose of this section? What does reflects adversely mean? We don’t know yet. That’s the point. It is loosely defined on purpose.
The problem I think is people do not see the step by step methodical approach to influencing our culture to promote their own way of life.
Had someone told smokers to fear the filter in the 60’s, had someone told them one day you won’t be able to smoke in bars, in the car if your kid is with you, while walking down the street, or even in your home! That person would have been laughed off as mad. But we know better now don’t we? Or do we? Judging by your skepticism we may not…
So what does the gay agenda look like? Well you can take the downfall of adoptions by Catholic Charities.
You see judges giving gays “marriage” wasn’t enough for gays in Massachusetts. They set their sights on forcing Catholic Charities to place children in gay households. Did gays have to force the issue? Were there other avenues for gays to adopt? Yes there were but that wasn’t really the point of forcing them into it was it? An organization that was performing a public good just could not exist unless gays were getting their way too.
Once the weight of the law is behind them the LBGT movement will use the state to run down any one not running their gameplan. Doesn’t matter if it is America or the UK.
To those who just can’t see and “agenda” SB777 is just an innocuous legislation that places homosexuals and others in the suspect class. Surely nothing will follow… but I’m willing to bet Archbishop O’Malley would disagree.
Theworldisnotenough on March 17, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Well, to be frank, I believe polygamy should be allowed as well, if there’s an organization willing to withstand the public ridicule and marry one man to multiple women or vice versa. I don’t see why the freedom to “form a civil union”, if you will, between any number of men and any number of women should conflict with the religious freedom to believe that doing so is sinful, as long as religious organizations aren’t required to do or recognize the “forming”.
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Since I’m thinking about it, has anyone here read “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” by Robert Heinlein? I think he’s got something there when it comes to marriage.
Math_Mage on March 17, 2008 at 12:15 AM
This topic sure brought everyone out into the town square, now didn’t it?
Seven Percent Solution on March 17, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Dude, my post didn’t, post…
Theworldisnotenough on March 17, 2008 at 12:19 AM
My point is that if a nations law institutionalizes sin(gay marriage) then that nation’s law is corrupt and that nation will surely fall soon.
Actually that’s my point. This nation will fall and soon…it’s not like we’re just beginning the process now.
“No man can serve two masters”
You pick which one you serve with your actions.
Idolatry (when you create a false god in your mind that justifies your sins)is a very serious sin against God.
SaintOlaf on March 17, 2008 at 12:25 AM
You do not have to wait 10 years…
I give you SB777
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070223_introduced.html
Sex is no longer defined by biology. The ‘T’ in LBGT has to get its due as well right?
Say it with me there is no agenda, there is no agenda…
Theworldisnotenough on March 17, 2008 at 12:28 AM
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
SaintOlaf on March 17, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next »