Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
posted at 2:05 pm on October 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
A done deal, and given Connecticut’s deep blue electorate, one not likely to be overridden by amendment.
Probably good for McCain, though.
The Supreme Court released its historic ruling at 11:30 a.m. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory and that the state’s “understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection.”…
In a statement released minutes after the decision was announced, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with it, but uphold it. She said she was proud to sign the state’s civil unions law in 2005, the first in the nation enacted without a court mandate, and thought it was “equitable and just.”
“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling.”…
The opposition will now turn its sights to the November election, when voters will be asked whether the state should convene a constitutional convention. “Connecticut voters will have one opportunity on Nov. 4 to reassert their right to self government. We must vote yes.”
Here’s the opinion. Skip ahead to page 21 for the crux of it, declaring gays a “quasi-suspect class” for purposes of the state’s equal protection jurisprudence. What “class” you are pretty much determines as a rule whether you can be discriminated against by law; if you belong to a class that’s “suspect,” i.e. historically powerless and persecuted, then the legislature has virtually no leeway against you. The Connecticut Supremes decided they couldn’t call gays a fully “suspect” class because the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t declared them that (yet), so they opted for “quasi-suspect” based on four factors: (1) historic discrimination, (2) whether sexual orientation is related to one’s ability to contribute to society (this is here to give the state extra power to regulate the disabled), (3) immutability of sexual orientation, i.e. is it a choice or is it inborn and thus unchangeable, and (4) whether gays lack political power, which starts on page 28 and is the most interesting section of the four.
All in all, the analysis is similar to the California Supreme Court’s, which also used an equal protection argument to strike down their state’s marriage statute. The fatal blow for gay marriage opponents is the fact that the state already allows civil unions for gay couples; I think laypeople look at that and assume that that means the state, having acted in good faith, will be given the benefit of the doubt when gays inevitably sue for full marriage rights, but as I’ve tried to explain before, it doesn’t work that way. To discriminate by law, you need a good reason. Admitting that gays should be entitled to all the same rights as married couples but not the label of “marriage” itself forces the court to conclude that the distinction is purely semantic, and semantics simply ain’t good enough as a “good reason.” From page 62:
Although we acknowledge that many legislators and many of their constituents hold strong personal convictions with respect to preserving the traditional concept of marriage as a heterosexual institution, such beliefs, no matter how deeply held, do not constitute the exceedingly persuasive justification required to sustain a statute that discriminates on the basis of a quasi-suspect classification. ‘‘That civil marriage has traditionally excluded same-sex couples—i.e., that the ‘historic
and cultural understanding of marriage’ has been between a man and a woman—cannot in itself provide a [sufficient] basis for the challenged exclusion. To say that the discrimination is ‘traditional’ is to say only that the discrimination has existed for a long time. A classification, however, cannot be maintained merely ‘for its own sake’ [Romer v. Evans, supra, 517 U.S. 635]. Instead, the classification ([that is], the exclusion of gay [persons] from civil marriage) must advance a state interest that is separate from the classification itself [see id., 633, 635]. Because the ‘tradition’ of excluding gay [persons] from civil marriage is no different from the classification itself, the exclusion cannot be justified on the basis of ‘history.’ Indeed, the justification of ‘tradition’ does not explain the classification; it merely repeats it. Simply put, a history or tradition of discrimination—no matter how entrenched—does not make the discrimination constitutional . . . .’’ (Citation omitted.) Hernandez v. Robles, supra, 7 N.Y.3d 395 (Kaye, C. J., dissenting)…It is only because the state has not advanced a sufficiently persuasive justification for denying same sex couples the right to marry that the traditional definition of marriage necessarily must be expanded to include such couples. If the defendants were able to demonstrate sufficient cause to deny same sex couples the right to marry, then we would reject the plaintiffs’ claim and honor the state’s desire to preserve the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In the absence of such a showing, however, we cannot refuse to follow settled equal protection jurisprudence merely because doing so will result in a change in the definition of marriage.
Exit question: Time to start talking about Obama’s judicial appointments?
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 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 17 Next »
Do you have a comprehension problem? Timothy is a letter that was written before the New Testament was completed. Obviously Paul meant the Old Testament, which was the only scripture available at the time.
You’re a bigot against homosexuals, not against white women (though, I don’t know, maybe you hate white women too). You’re the one being attacked on this site. You’re the minority here, not me.
You really over inflate your opinion of yourself here.
Esthier on October 11, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Really. There were no politics involved?
Look, I’m not arguing that the New Testament isn’t the word of God. I just understand the arguments that say it isn’t.
And when it comes down to it, I believe that God speaks to all Christians and that Christians can also sin. When Christians sin, God speaks to them through the Holy Spirit.
Christians know when they are sinning.
Esthier on October 11, 2008 at 11:59 PM
really? so Paul, the man who had been to the third heaven, and seen things no one else had seen, and was given a thorn in his flesh to keep from exalting himself…he wouldn’t have a clue he was writing scripture huh? please.
you’re a liar, plain and simple. the homosexuals are the bigots, who are intolerant to any other opinion other than their own. you sound like a typical lib, impugning others, while unable to argue or elucidate your points.
so you accuse me of being a bigot, and you admit that I am being attacked…by a bunch of bigoted, hateful people.
I’m glad to be the minority. true christians are always the minority…the way is narrow…broad is the road to destruction…..
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:00 AM
this from the woman who decides what is and is not the word of God in the bible….laughable.
are you for real?
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:05 AM
This an aggressive statement. You’re the minority here, so shut up if you know whats good for you.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Pay attention for once. I said that Paul himself admitted at times that he was speaking for himself and not for God.
And no, I don’t think he considered his letters to be scripture. They were letters.
You claimed all homosexuals are stupid. That’s about as bigoted as it gets.
Half the people attacking you are also Christians. There’s no bigotry involved in our attacks on you.
Only God knows our hearts. It isn’t for you to decide who is and who is not a true Christian.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 12:08 AM
How is it aggressive? I’m not telling him to shut up. I’m only admitting the obvious, which is that most people here do not share his views and have attacked repeatedly for his views.
This is the truth, and I’d said already in this specific thread that I don’t want him to shut up. He’s the biggest argument against his own arguments.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 12:11 AM
oh please, what he said was still inspired by God, it was just not a command of the Lord…the Lord gives people leeway sometimes…reading is fundamental.
newsflash: you’re not a christian.
oh yes, the good ‘gay loving’ ‘christians’ who approve of gay marriage..the ‘tolerant’ ones…
the deceived ones.
when someone doesn’t believe Paul’s writings are the Word of God, guess what I can make that judgement. we are required to judge those who would try to deceive us. and cast them out of the fellowship….Paul judged several people and handed them over to Satan…but who was Paul, right? He just had the power to back up what he said.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:12 AM
REPOST:
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Please watch this, especially if you are a homosexual:
The Way of the Master – How to Witness to Gays – Episode 20
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 12:15 AM
<blockquotewhich is that most people here do not share his views and have attacked repeatedly for his views
truth is not a popularity contest….didn’t the life of Jesus teach you anything? the truth is always unpopular.
yes most of the people here are hate-filled bigots, unable to argue their position rationally, so they have to attack me personally. but then, I know whose they are….
you know I feel sorry for you. let me guess, you’re an episcopal, or perhaps someone who goes to the united church of christ, or perhaps a unitarian…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:16 AM
If that’s true, then why did Paul specifically state that it was his opinion and not God’s?
Newsflash: I don’t care what you think of me. I would have preferred talking to the Pharisees, as they had more integrity.
As I said, I understand people who disagree with gay marriage. I don’t understand people who hate gays as you so obviously do.
Paul said this of his own writings. Are you calling him a liar? Try opening a Bible for once instead of hitting people with it.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 12:17 AM
First Assembly’s of God, then Southern Baptist.
I guess God isn’t talking to you about me. Maybe you could try talking to Him.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 12:19 AM
I tried to explain it to you, but you refuse to get it.
thats fine, but its not my opinion that counts. I’ll stick with what the bible says. and we’ll see what happens in the end, won’t we?
<blockquoteAs I said, I understand people who disagree with gay marriage. I don’t understand people who hate gays as you so obviously do.
again you’re a liar. just proving the truth of what I say. to disagree with gays is to ‘hate’ them to people like you…but again, I know whose you are…
keep twisting scripture….like your father…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:20 AM
you don’t believe what your own church says about the bible!!! why are you there? sounds like you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing…
link
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Except that you don’t. You judge everyone for not being Christian enough, completely against scripture, and you literally disobey scripture by calling everyone who disagrees with you an idiot.
Disagreeing is not a problem. Saying every single one of them are stupid is.
Surely you can see the difference.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 12:23 AM
He is wrong to deploy insults against political opponents.
I called him on this a few months ago on a Darwin thread and he got upset that I was taking “their” side, finding it unfair and not liking it one bit.
Aside from that incident, right4life is basically correct in his core arguments.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 12:24 AM
post your proof.
you’re much worse than that….
post your proof. you surely cannot stop lying…no surprise there!
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:25 AM
It’s more than an “incident”. Claiming all homosexuals are stupid is the epitome of bigotry and shouldn’t be tolerated just because you agree with him on this issue.
People like him debase the Body of Christ. Fred Phelps would be proud of him, but I know of no one else who would.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 12:26 AM
politics is the art of insults… come on.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Do you have amnesia? You posted all of this yourself. It’s in this thread for everyone to see.
Everyone here knows how hateful you are already. You do not appear as one who knows the Prince of Peace, and everything you type is tainted by that stain.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 12:28 AM
again, you’re a liar. post your proof, you cannot. you have to twist what I say, like the liar you are. again, it shows whose you are….
how would you know about the Body of Christ? again you have to resort to lies, and hatred. but since you do it, of course its holy and good!!
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:29 AM
what I posted is clearly not what you portray it to be. you have to lie about me. because you are so filled with hatred towards me, and are unable to counter what I say any other way.
who is this ‘everybody’? a bunch of gay people and their supporters…as if I care what they think about me.
please you are grasping at straws, and reveal yourself to be a deeply disturbed person…seek help.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:31 AM
We had a disagreement a few months ago. You were shocked that after I had agreed with you on core Christian issues I asked you to change your tone. To which I said and still say that I do expect the atheists and pagans to behave morally but I expect fellow Christians such as yourself to behave with the utmost decency even if it presents a disadvantage.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 12:32 AM
so why can’t you answer ‘esthier’, why you go to a church that you disagree with in a such a fundamental way?
you know you do not belong in that church…why do you stay? what is your purpose? sounds like you are trying to deceive others, and lead them astray.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:32 AM
I do=I do not
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 12:33 AM
I’m not going to stand around and let people lie about me without challenging them. I don’t mind a few insults, and if those who give them to me are so senstive they cannot take them, then they shouldn’t enter the fray. rarely do I begin insulting anyone, only respond to them. I feel it is part of self-defense.
you can disagree, thats fine.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:34 AM
You just posted it seconds ago. You really don’t remember?
Do you need me to spell it out further?
As to my other accusation, just look at what you’re saying to me, all because I don’t hate gay people. Suddenly that somehow proves I’m not a true Christian. You even singled out entire churches for ridicule.
So what’s the deal here? Are they not “true” Christians either?
You embarrass yourself but don’t have the integrity to realize it.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 12:35 AM
What a sick joke. Like almost every modern person nowadays you are projecting the made-up virtue of non-discrimination onto Christ.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Fair enough.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 12:37 AM
I never said I disagreed with my church. It has never once claimed homosexuals were stupid. Though it believes homosexuality is a sin, it doesn’t claim that homosexuality is worse than any other sin, like the sin of calling others “stupid”.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 12:38 AM
you need to read what it says, not what you want it to say. I don’t say there are no intelligent gay people, I said this poster is not, and asked him to see if he can find one that has some intelligence to debate with me. you’re just so full of hate for me, and so desperate to prove me wrong, you have to grasp at straws and lie about me…not that its any surprise, given the source.
just more proof you are really sick and twisted. you’re not a christian, because you don’t believe what paul wrote is scripture!! I’ve never run into anyone before who claimed to be a christian, and then deny what Paul wrote…amazing.
I don’t believe those who name the name of Christ can support gay marriage, abortion, communist revolutionary groups etc.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:40 AM
It’s a sick joke that Christ would not have called all gays stupid?
Fair enough? So it’s OK to go against scripture just because other people are doing it?
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 12:41 AM
you said Paul’s letters are NOT the word of God…I posted from the SBC website their DOCTRINE that disagrees with you…you are a deceiver.
of course there are no stupid homosexuals..they are all noble, graceful, intelligent, more evolved and wonderful than the rest of us….
to you, telling the truth is a sin.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:42 AM
No, it’s actually that I believe in what Paul wrote. Again, are you calling Paul a liar?
Of course not. Fred Phelps is more to your liking.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 12:44 AM
he couldn’t be any worse than you.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:46 AM
You’re being childish. I simply believe they’re human, some stupid, some brilliant and some in between.
You’re the one thinking in such one dimensional terms.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Ah. Protesting funerals and calling gays “fags” and claiming that God hates them, that’s all much better than a person who believes Paul.
I’m so glad you’re being so open.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 12:48 AM
as far as the assemblies of God…
These are nonnegotiable tenets of faith that all Assemblies of God churches adhere to. This list is derived from the official Statement of Fundamental Truths. Click links below to see the complete original statement with scriptures.
WE BELIEVE…The Scriptures are Inspired by God and declare His design and plan for mankind.
you shouldn’t be in the assemblies, or the SBC. or any other christian church for that matter….
no the episcopals with their gay bishop, and their ‘inclusiveness’ is much more to your liking…
holding a form of godliness is what you are all about…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:48 AM
yeah anyone who claims to be a christian, and doesn’t think Paul’s letter are the Word of God is a liar, a deceiver, a wolf in sheep’s clothing…
clear?
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:50 AM
I didn’t write that. I was observing that your comparison of right4life with Fred Phelps, equating a form of standing by principle with the all-time extreme of no-compromise fundamentalism (Phelps), was sophist to the point of absurdism.
I choose not to endorse right4life’s confrontational style of debate. My saying “Fair enough” is my way of saying I am not going to harass him on this point.
aengus on October 12, 2008 at 12:51 AM
‘esthier’ I’m done casting pearls before swine for this night…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Yes, well, apparently he disagrees. As he said, I’m worse than Phelps.
Alright. Fair enough.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 12:58 AM
I can see somebodies been having some fun on a Saturday night.
DFCtomm on October 12, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Give me one example. Or shut up.
Yeah, that’s fine. Disagreeing is fine. That’s not what I’m objecting too. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is when you say you are a Christian and you attempt to speak for all Christians, yet, as I said before, you take positions completely opposite to what the Bible teaches and what a Christian would believe. You don’t believe the Bible is the literal Word of God. You doubt Noah’s flood. You doubt the literal 6 day creation in Genesis. You argue creation is unprovable, but evolution isn’t (meanwhile, there is no evidence for evolution). You sneakily support homosexual sodomy. You attack Christians. And who knows what else?! I don’t know about you but I’d rather be around an honest sinner than a phony Christian any day. You are a real scammer.
Do you think homosexuality is a sin? Do you think it’s wrong? What about gay marriage? How do you feel about this?
That’s what I’ve said from the beginning. Sodomy means anal sex and this degenerate act is a primary reason God Almighty destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha. Why you felt the need to try and correct me on this a few pages ago is a mystery, but then again you do like to argue with Bible-believing Christians.
What is the point you are trying to make here? I understand the difficulty understanding this bit of Scripture, but what are you upset about? You have a problem with Lot? With the LORD? You don’t think it was fair the city was destroyed? Look, Lot’s willingness to sacrifice his daughters (the fact that they still were virgins in such a place indicates that he at least had some influence over his family) is hard to understand, yeah I get it, but it may well be that, by this time, he knew or suspected the angelic identity of the guests. Maybe he realized that God had sent him two angels (in the form of men) and he didn’t want to sin against God so he offered his daughters instead? I don’t know for sure? When I stand before the LORD I can always ask Him. I could ask Lot too. If I’m not mistaken, Lot’s in heaven right now, so maybe I’ll ask him when I get there! Either way, if I don’t get the answer now, I’ll get the answer when I get to heaven.
apacalyps on October 12, 2008 at 1:50 AM
Never said I did.
Never said that either.
Once again, never said that either. I believe they’re both unprovable and actually don’t find macro evolution all that convincing.
It is for me. I can’t speak for others. If JetBoy says he’s fine with God, then I’ve no reason to doubt him. If he’s being insincere, then he will know that.
Because your logic is circular, which was my entire point.
How so? Couldn’t they have decided not to have sex on their own? Kids are often rebellious.
Of course he knew their identities, but by offering his daughters, he was proving that he didn’t even trust them to help him in this situation. As you recall, they are the ones who ended the mob.
And disbelief is itself considered a sin.
So offering your virgin daughters to a mob intent on rape is not a sin?
Abortion seems mild in comparison. In fact, many argued that rape is worse or equal to death when it came to the argument that child rape is a crime that should be punishable by death.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 2:21 AM
I’m not sure that any religion makes one more or less moral. I’m an agnostic and I try to be moral. My not being afraid of a divine punisher doesn’t take away my feelings of remorse for doing something that goes against what I know to be moral. I go in for “Natural Law” and eschew laws based solely on divine revelation. When they coincide, such as “Thou shalt not steal,” I don’t mind.
Esthier, I was a Southern Baptist myself. I guess I still am, technically. They were for the most part a nice group of people, though you did get the occasional nutbag. The pastor of my church and the deacons were of inestimable help during the agonizing passing of my mother.
My position is that I’ve seen religion amplify both the good and bad of people. I’m not religious, and most organized religions I find distasteful, but I’m one heretic who doesn’t mind the faithful as long as they don’t mind me.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 4:08 AM
So yeah, once again the elephant in the room is ignored to take on the likes of right4life, apacalyps, and SaintOlaf.
This is probably because no one who thinks officiated sodomite relation recognition is a good thing has a justification for the stomping on religious freedom that always follows decisions by our black-robed overlords in the judiciary.
Homosexuals don’t exist. Human beings are not defined by who they are sexually attracted to. That is trying to define people based on their preferred relation to another. It is not an immutable characteristic.
If you are black, you are black because that is your skin color. Whether everyone else on earth is black or not, as long as the adjective that describes your immutable skin color is black, you are still black.
If you are a female, you are female because that is your gender. If males suddenly stopped existing, your genitalia and physiology and thus gender will not change.
But if you have an attraction to a particular kind of sex, but don’t engage in that sex, you can’t immutable be what you say you are. Homosexuality is the only “immutable characteristic” that exists based on your relationships and actions with other human beings. If you are “gay” but are married to a woman and have kids, and never in a single instance leave for a man, how do you possibly claim being gay is immutable? You “muted” it for your entire life.
Similarly, if a man claims he is straight but does nothing but bugger men, well, I’m pretty sure people would say he’s in denial.
The matrix doesn’t make sense. If you act “gay” even once you are called so forever. If you never act on your homosexuality, you can still claim to be “gay,” even though if you cheat on your wife with a man a better description would be “licentious pervert.”
BKennedy on October 12, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Do left-handed people exist? If a left-hander uses the right hand exclusively does that define him, even if he continues to possess the greater dexterity with his left hand?
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 9:35 AM
If a left-hander uses their right hand exclusively, they will probably become ambidextrous or right-handed just from experience and habit.
Like porking men vs. having a loving, normal relationship with women, one may have an innate preference for one or the other, but if one does the opposite of their preference, they have little claim to their initial immutability.
You want to stop the harassment for being homosexual? Uh, don’t act on it and don’t publicize it. You know, just like most straight people don’t advertise as part of their innate nature who they prefer to have relations with.
“But, but, not telling everyone I wish to have sex with a particular gender is confining! Why should I be silent! Silence no more!”
To normal people, this sounds like: “I banged my wife last night and enjoyed it! Hear me brag about things you don’t care about!”
The important difference being, of course, that there are no detrimental health effects to being left-handed. There are also more lefties than there are sodomites, the latter being at most 2% of the population, while our site owner happens to be left-handed.
BKennedy on October 12, 2008 at 9:44 AM
They’d have decreased agility using the opposite hand. You could make David Ortiz hit right-handed, but he wouldn’t be as good. There are few ambidextrous hitters in baseball, even those who can hit Major League pitching from either side are usually statistically better from one side.
Handedness develops early in individuals. As with sexual orientation people can make a choice either way, but their bodies have a preference.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 10:15 AM
I wouldn’t go that far with it. There’s a certain Iranian dictator that said the same about Isreal.
My parents that have been married for over 25 years would beg to differ.
leetpriest on October 12, 2008 at 10:15 AM
The last few times I watched MTV (which has been about twice a year over the past two decades) I saw fairly explicit displays of straight sexuality. The young drunken people in swimsuits hooking up during spring breaks come to mind.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 10:19 AM
“You folks” as in religious types who oppose hate crimes legislation only when it includes gays, but are noticeably silent when it comes to other classifications such as race, religion, etc. How did you misunderstand the word “classifications”, when these type of laws do exactly that? They distinguish categories, classifications, or whatever you want to call them, that bring about enhanced punishment for deliberately targetting such folks. I even gave two examples: race and religion.
I myself am ambivalent on the whole matter of hate crimes laws in general, but this position of many social conservatives whom I speak with is rank hypocrisy. I can respect the position of someone who believes there shouldn’t be any such laws for any classes period. That is at least a consistent position and doesn’t smack of hypocrisy. I can also respect those who genuinely seek to use such laws to prevent or punish transgressors who target what is perceived as a targetted group, as long as they aren’t used as weapons against other groups.
Of course I’ll latch on to something trivial, you’re missing the point, moron.
Perhaps you can be spared from the thought that you’re a moron that doesn’t understand mirrored sarcasm by the written aspect, although I doubt it.
Can you not honestly see that I am nitpicking a customary thought or action in order to mirror what your homosexual community does to marriage?
Thank God you won’t reproduce.
leetpriest on October 12, 2008 at 10:29 AM
correction to the previous post, the beginning of the quotation is at the beginning of the post.
I wouldn’t want anyone thinking that JohnAGJ’s homosexual tirade is my own work.
leetpriest on October 12, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Not sure what percentage makes a group meaningful. If left handers are 8% and gays are 2%, then gays miss the threshold? Would blacks qualify but not Jews, since the latter is only about 3% of the population?
There is a greater risk of disease transmission with straight sex than lesbian sex. Does that mean lesbian sex should be favored?
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Ugh.
This discussion has pretty much polarized two camps. One camp believes homosexuality is a sin, a holy wrong, or some sort of master plan for world domination. The other camp doesn’t.
The first camp is against gay marriage, the second isn’t. It’s all ideological, except for the nincompoops who got raped by male relatives as children and are waiting for the Gay SS to break down their door and take them to the FEMA camps.
Incidentally, I just spent my day yesterday at a wedding at a Catholic Church. The bride was on the brink of tears as she walked up the aisle, and the groom was beaming like he’d just won the lottery. Pleasantly enough, the priest’s sermon wasn’t any hellfire or brimstone, just a bit of uplifting talk about the wealth of the world being friends and family(very topical considering the economy). The two that married are literally the model couple. She’s a lovely college graduate who loves being doting to her husband and can’t wait to have kids, and he’s the loving, smiling guy who never met an outdoor activity he didn’t get hooked on. The night ended with the groom and his best man and groomsmen donning 80’s hair band wigs and rocking out to “We’re Not Gonna Take It Anymore” while jamming on inflatable guitars.
We’ve discussed the gay marriage issue before. I was against it. This couple, who are devoted Catholics, gave their opinion. Of all the opinions I’ve heard in favor of gay marriage, theirs convinced me more than any other. Heh.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 10:56 AM
please explain how you can be a devoted catholic, and deny the teaching of the church? heh its a good trick huh?
bottom line is the gay agenda is all about restricting the rights of christians, and anyone else who disagrees with them. I have posted several examples, which no one on the pro-gay side can dispute. They offer no assurances that the gay agenda will not restrict religion. All then can do is whine about the ‘hate’ of those who dare disagree with them.
fundamentally the gay movement is a bunch of whiny spoiled brats who have yet to grow up. it wouldn’t be any big deal, except for the proven threat to our freedom.
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Or perhaps you’re too stupid in framing your words that what appears to be sarcasm to you is actually pathetic nonsense to the rest of us.
My community? So when I retort about the nutjobs in yours, are you going to accuse me of an anti-Christian bias? Puh-leeze.
Who says I haven’t? Besides the more traditional route, there are alternatives nowadays. Then again, have you forgotten about the rhetoric from your side about how we recruit kids? Who needs to reproduce when idiots like you give us a ready “supply”? Pretty sick I would agree, but such is what fools like you seem believe.
Well, as much as I’ve enjoyed trading barbs with you and feeding into your stereotypes to stoke your fanaticism, this thread has about run its course and there are better things to do with my time.
JohnAGJ on October 12, 2008 at 11:37 AM
See U.S. Constitution Amendment 1.
The ruling in favor of same-sex marriage is for *more* freedom, not less. It sounds like you are the one who wants to restrict freedoms, not the “gay lobby.”
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 11:39 AM
A “good trick” that about 80-90% of Catholics quite easily pick up, especially with regards to contraception. I doubt the number of Protestants or Orthodox who quietly overlook peculiar doctrines of their traditions is very far behind this.
JohnAGJ on October 12, 2008 at 11:40 AM
I’m very anxious to hear your implementation plan, and how you would “involve” me as a male.
DFCtomm on October 12, 2008 at 11:43 AM
you’re a fool and a liar. I’ve already given several examples of the intolerance of the gay agenda, and what it seeks to do.
grow up
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 11:43 AM
yes as a gay ‘christian’ you have your pulse on the heartbeat of Christianity!!
got any more good laugh lines for me?
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 11:45 AM
oh and in the future people like you will be saying the same thing about the new pedophilia ‘rights’ the court discovers in the constitution….
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 11:47 AM
MTV is hardly indicative of anything but the lowest, foulest elements of current American pop culture. And again, I wouldn’t use public displays on television as emblematic of normal, everyday life.
Unless your friends all meet at the bar every night to sit at the same couch and explain how one of your friends has a new crazy girlfriend (who apparently does not have the time to go to said watering hole unlike your 8 other Friends).
In other words: real life is not a sit-com or a music video.
BKennedy on October 12, 2008 at 12:06 PM
First the homosexuals will demand gay marriage, special rights and hate crime legislation simply because of their sexual perversion..
then the pedophiles will demand adult-toddler marriages and special rights and hate crime laws in order to silence their oppositions free speech and freedom of religion…
then the people with beastiality perversions will demand Human-animal marriages and hate crime laws to silence their opponents free speech and freedom of religion.
IT’S THE MILITANT GAY AGENDA. Destroy free speech..Destroy Christianity!
Do you think you will feel less guilty about your sexual perversion if you destroy Christianity and force the public to worship at the altar of gayness?
You’re in for a let down.
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Little bit too much hyperbole SaintOlaf, but here is a documented case of what will happen.
Within a month or two, Allahpundit will make the next red meat post. The headline will read:
Heart-ache: Connecticut Catholic adoption agencies sued for discriminatory adoption practices.
And every “conservative” now heralding this wonderful judicial tyranny will then say “How could this have happened? I’m OUTRAGED! I did not foresee this event despite its long history of following gay marriage fiats! Government has gone too far!”
BKennedy on October 12, 2008 at 12:14 PM
I wouldn’t generalize about people based on either MTV’s Spring Break or the Folsom Fair. Both are extreme freak shows.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 12:15 PM
The homosexuals on this thread appear to be living in a sad state of denial.
I notice NONE of you lament the fact that your advocacy groups use DEVIOUS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL methods of implementing gay marriage.
You can’t get the votes so you use crooked methods to get it passed in the middle of an economic crisis..
How come you’re not complaining about that?
Frankly this is horrifying!
We should immediately organize a 10 million man march, surround D.C. and DEMAND THE RESIGNATION OF EVERY POLITICIAN IN WASHINGTON!!
WE ARE HEADING TO FACISM RAPIDLY!! Yet no complaints from the gays here..
You ignore the most obvious of all arguments here and continue living in denial.
Look. REDEFINING MARRIAGE AND FORCING HATE CRIME LAWS “PROTECTING” YOUR GROUP, YET OUTLAWING RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES IS GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE!!
Dedalus the same goes for you. I have already shown you numerous times that lesbians get herpes very frequently from lesbian sex…yet you keep insisting that is SO SAFE..WAKE UP LADY you’re in denial!!
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 12:18 PM
1.) You made the assertion but didn’t demonstrate with a study.
2.) The assertion wasn’t that lesbian sex was more likely to transmit herpes but rather that promiscuity did. More of an argument against multiple partners.
3.) You didn’t point to a mechanism that would make herpes more likely to be transmitted during lesbian sex than straight sex. Maybe there is more mouth-to-genital but there is probably less genital-to-genital contact.
4.) Herpes is one type of STD–one that has fewer consequences than HIV or hepatitis.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Great point.
Herpes is less dangerous than HIV so let’s all become lesbians!
On the plus side we’ll also be able to save the environment from the human plague within one generation!
SaintOlaf on October 12, 2008 at 1:26 PM
I’m glad to hear that they were. My mother had a similar experience. Before she had cancer, she went to church but wasn’t really involved. During her treatments, the church came together to offer support, taking turns cooking her meals and things like that. Suddenly she felt a sense of community. Now she’s the minister of small groups.
Of course that’s true. However, you are naive if you believe that heterosexuals are not as open about their relationships as gays. Straight people my age are just as vocal.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I posted a study earlier…but curiously none of you pro-gay types commented on it…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 1:37 PM
That would follow if one’s single criteria were limiting the potential from the consequences of STDs. However, sexual attraction isn’t based solely on that criteria.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 1:42 PM
young and stupid…why am I not surprised?
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 1:46 PM
I sure hope so. It would be a shame if some children were denied a loving same-sex home to grow up in because of the circumstances of their being in the custody of a religious organization.
Viscount_Bolingbroke on October 12, 2008 at 1:52 PM
I didn’t see it. It wasn’t in response to one of my posts, and I’ve only read about two-thirds of the thread. Points 2-4 are also considerations in response to the contention that gay sex is wrong in part because of the incidence of disease, which was the contention that I was responding to.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 1:58 PM
I am pretty sure that there is now clear evidence that a symbiotic relationship exists between herpes and HIV/AIDS. In other words, having herpes makes it easier to be infected with HIV and vice versa.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 1:58 PM
yeah gotta get those new recruits any way you can…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Decided to spit in God’s face again today I see.
Esthier on October 12, 2008 at 1:59 PM
oh NOOOOOO!!! I’ve profaned your most holy name…please forgive me Lord Esthier!!
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t you the one who disclosed that your mother is a devoted queer sex adherent? I wonder if those to whom she “ministers” are aware of her politics?
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 2:05 PM
anything goes in the church of her holiness Esthier…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 2:06 PM
They cart ya off to the death camps yet? That’s the Gay SS knocking at your door. Their uniforms are just fabulous.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Yes, because sodomites are stupid. They couldn’t find a non-religious adoption agency to go to that greenlights sending children to perverts, so instead they just brought a lawsuit against the single kind of organization they knew from the outset would deny them.
A lawsuit that ties up funds that could have gotten orphaned children homes, but instead has to be used to fight off the attorneys of rich perverts whose narcissism knows know bounds.
You sir are a blight and an enemy of this republic. You believe that the fake freedom to get whatever you want, whenever you want, at someone else’s expense overrides the constitutional right to religious freedom.
But then, you support officiated sodomy. History isn’t your strong suit.
BKennedy on October 12, 2008 at 2:11 PM
HIV would still need to be transmitted and an exchange of body fluid during penetration poses a higher risk than lesbian acts.
dedalus on October 12, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I’m sure you look very nice in your starched brown shirt!
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 2:12 PM
…and you wonder why religion gets made fun of by actual anti-religious people. You continue to make it hard by making the most asinine statements devoid of any logic.
I’m getting damned sick and tired of speaking up for Christianity and defending it against atheist fundamentalists and militant gays and Sharia muslims and all the other dickheads that love to rip on it. Douchebags like you are just making it harder.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Well now, that’s going to be a trick, isn’t it? According to what you’ve agreed with, the gays won’t take me because I’m straight and don’t hate religion! So how exactly am I going to get into their ranks, hmmm?
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:15 PM
uh moron, you’ve already proven you’re on the side of the fascists.
you are S L O W aren’t ya??
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Nailed it! Great piece of writing.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 2:18 PM
One day, your weak and misguided faith is going to be shattered. Whether there is a god or there isn’t, something will come through very clear in your mind as to how you’ve been lying to yourself all this time. I hope you get through it all right.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:19 PM
stupid too!! scum like you have been hoping for that for 2,000 years….keep dreaming!!
One day, to your HORROR, you’ll find out we were right…
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Yep, I am having trouble keeping up. So, um, why hasn’t the Gay New World Order killed the Pink Pistols yet? In case you didn’t know, that’s the most prominent gay pro-Second Amendment group in the nation, working for the rights of all American citizens to be able to defend themselves from, among other forces, their government. Why would the Great Homo Agenda of Power allow this, hmmm?
This is so fun. It’s like asking Stephen King questions about his new book.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Seriously, I do not understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that I am lying about what I remember or are you saying that my principles are lies I tell to myself?
Clarify, please.
platypus on October 12, 2008 at 2:21 PM
This is better than a movie. And it doesn’t even cost admission.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:22 PM
first true thing you’ve said!!!
uh if you haven’t guessed, they want to have the guns….duhhhhhhhhh
its like taking candy from a baby!! too easy!! *smirk*
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 2:23 PM
you looked in a mirror!!! poor thing!!
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM
The latter. In order for them to drive you to such sanctimonious pedestal-riding condemnations of others merely because of what they think, you not only show that you have no respect for the freedoms that America was founded to protect, but you would have to have been brought up with some very abusive teachings. Normal, healthy people do not have the unmitigated gall to question the faith of others just because they disagree with them. Your contempt for free speech and free thought seems to be shared by a few other depraved lunatics here.
As I said, I hope your revelation and epiphany go smoothly.
MadisonConservative on October 12, 2008 at 2:25 PM
madisonwackolib…why don’t you just take your meds, and take off the tin-foil…you’ll feel much better!!
right4life on October 12, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 17 Next »