Pelosi: Prop 8 supporters might have been too dumb to grasp what they were doing
posted at 8:53 pm on November 8, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Evidently, it’s now somehow illegitimate to vote on the substance of an issue without being fully informed of the legal posture first. Sure, a majority opposes gay marriage — but did they know that four justices of the California Supreme Court disagree with them (whereas three don’t)?
Speaking as someone who would have voted no on Prop 8: Who cares?
“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state.”
Treacher snarkily retrofits her “logic” to fit the election results:
“Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their views of race relations and male beauty were,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are picking the next President of the United States.”
Everyone see what she’s up to? I once served on a jury during a criminal trial and whenever a cop would testify, the judge would go out of his way to say that we shouldn’t let our respect for the law color our assessment of the credibility of his testimony. Simply judge him on the merits, we were told, just as we would anyone else. Pelosi’s saying the opposite. Never mind the merits; don’t you know that gay marriage is in the Constitution — as of, er, six months ago, per the decision of a narrowly divided court? Exit question for Madam Speaker: If Scalia and Thomas bring back freedom of contract, you’ll be super keen to block any amendments that would diminish freedom in our country by overturning the decision, right?
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 Next »
How many needy families in this lousy economy could have been fed with the millions the Mormon Church and the Vatican contributed to passing this measure? Talk about straying from the spirit and message of Jesus Christ himself……
Would you care to show me where all the money that Gays have been using to bash the rest of us that believe that marriage is a sacred thing between man and woman and is impossible between man/man and woman/woman could have been spent?
Do you think it even begins to match the funds that the LDS church has put toward the poor and destitute?
Cough it up.. find me the info. I can find you the informatino what what they doo for the poor without taking their pride. What can you do?
And can you also.. just out of interest point out to me where Christ taught men/men and women/women can marry? No? I didn’t think so.
Please don’t get preachy when you can’t even find the choir
Noelie on November 8, 2008 at 11:03 PM
And riddle me this…
San Francicans, probably the most liberal, ‘Code Pink’, Bush Chimpy McHitler crowd vote against naming a sewage treatment plant after good ‘ol GW, showing that at least some type of sense exists in at leat a portion of the electorate…
Yet continue to re-elect this freeze-dried up ol windbag who wouldn’t last 72 hours without botox.
W.
T.
F.
catmman on November 8, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Mark Levin calls her Stretch.
Jim Treacher on November 8, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Perhaps we could stay focused just a bit?
I don’t disagree with those of you who are arguing your beliefs using the religious component, but it really is irrelevant to the point. The people of California weren’t asked to vote on the ballot that God said gay marriage was a sin. People may have been guided in that belief, but that’s not the point.
The people of California voted the way they did, because they have already voted as much, what, twice now and had a liberal slanted, activist court thwart their will. We are talking about mans’ law here, not God’s after all.
And for those of you who feel the other side got the shaft (no pun intended),
If you are going to be intellectually honest with yourself, then accept the result and move on. The people have spoken. The pro-side had their say, they didn’t win – it’s that simple.
If that doesn’t sit well with you, I refer you to any liberal pundit who has been saying the same thing since Obama won.
catmman on November 8, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Ah, a true Liberal who understands NOTHING about how an economy works.
This money was SPENT in America. It bought time on TV, and adds in Newspapers, which gave revenue to those companies, which allowed them to PAY their employees.
Its also true that neither the Vatican, nor the Mormon church gave ANY money directly to the campaign. They just used their pulpits to tell their “flocks” that it would be a good thing to support this cause.
But please, don’t let facts get in the way of your rant… dang pesky facts… so inconvenient…
Romeo13 on November 8, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Ah, noneya, great logic. I guess investing in addressing root causes in our civilization’s morally relativistic slide is misapplied. It’s so much easier to put families and society back together after it’s fractured into total self-indulgent chaos. Don’t misapply Christ’s name and use Him as a battering ram. Either men and women are divine in nature or they’re not. Start from that. If you can’t, then it proves you’re reactionary and provacative. As a side note, the LDS Church and the Vatican don’t dislocate their arms in self-congratulation every time they do a good deed. They like to leave the cameras, the ad space, and the editorials to the much more advanced elites in our country. You obviously know nothing of the countless hours and monies contributed and invested world wide by these two entities. They don’t need a government’s direction. They take care of their own business.
Cold Steel on November 8, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Christ did speak specifically against divorce and remarriage, but the gospels don’t record him speaking on gay marriage. Saint Paul condemns homosexuals but does so along with adulterers.
dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Here it is!
Ugly on November 8, 2008 at 11:25 PM
My bad, you are correct. From the post immediately above your response I see that we are on opposite sides of this issue.
I’m curious why you would have voted no. Not one of these measures has passed in any state with “gay marriage” only getting legal status by the decisions of activist liberal jurists. If even a far-left state like California is unwilling to give same-sex marriage the status afforded “traditional” marriage why do you support it?
I would suggest that so much of the law is based on the idea of traditonal marriage only that the second and third-order effects of gay marriage have yet to be explored in the manner necessary before legitimizing a lifestyle choice that over 200 years of law hasn’t considered.
Shorthand conclusion: Before legalizing gay marriage, the entire law needs to be revised to deal with each and every situation where “married” gays interests might differ from the traditional definition of the term. In broad terms, the law would be the same but the details kill the idea that same-sex marriages are the same as real marriages.
highhopes on November 8, 2008 at 11:27 PM
awfully concerned about someone elses money,
shouldnt be surprised though.
Thinking about money,
do you think its right that gays cost more as a result of their social deseases and drug/alcohol abuse?
One big difference between Christian right and the lefts constituents is that the Christian pays way more into the tax base and receives less in return as opposed to the lefts constituents.
Do you think we could have have used all the money from AIDS research better if some people could have controled themselves better?
Dont go there
Sonosam on November 8, 2008 at 11:31 PM
My point, if you read my post, is that the way it appeared on the official voter’s guide and the sample ballot included (actually, started with) the phrase: “ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.” Whatever the language added to the constitution, the official voter guides and sample ballots made it clear for Prop 8 that it was taking away a right. That could not be the case 8 years ago since no judges had decided that there was a right to gay marriage in 2000.
I threw away my sample ballot, unfortunately, but that’s what I recall appearing on the ballot last Tuesday.
Does anyone else from California still have their sample ballot who might chime in?
Oh, and in anticipation of your next snide remark, up yours.
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 11:36 PM
As usual you zero in on divorce as if the massive social destruction caused by divorce justifies the further social destruction of homosexual marriage.
aengus on November 8, 2008 at 11:36 PM
The Mormon Church did not, as an institution, contribute any money to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. Mormons(those professing a belief in the tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) did collectively contribute significantly to the campaign.
It should not be a surprise that individual contribution to the campaign was encouraged by the church. The doctrines of the Mormon church identify marriage between a man and a woman as not only a fundamental building block of a moral society, but also as an integral part of personal salvation. The traditional family and its preservation are of the utmost concern to believers of the Mormon faith.
ztep86 on November 8, 2008 at 11:40 PM
That’s simply an absurd statement.
I will never support gay marriage but your comments belong back in the 1950s.
Just from my perspective I’d suggest that the group that costs most to society are the fatties and the cycle of raising morbidly obese children.
highhopes on November 8, 2008 at 11:42 PM
You need to read it again. Your words remind me of these words:
The situations are very dissimilar but I’m not sure how using money for this purpose instead of “giving it to the poor”–which both churches are famous for doing anyway–is “straying” from Jesus’s message.
baldilocks on November 8, 2008 at 11:42 PM
I did it in response to comments relying on the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality. I think divorce actually is directly damaging to traditional marriage while the impact of gay marriage on straights is more difficult to discern.
dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 11:44 PM
I don’t know where you’re getting your information dedalus, but this is plain wrong. How can you say Jesus didn’t speak about the issue of marriage in light of what the Scriptures say?
apacalyps on November 8, 2008 at 11:48 PM
While Sonosam’s statement may not have been appropriate and highhopes opposition to it is understandable I just want to say that the almost universally accepted idea that 1950s America was backward or latently perverse is in my opinion unwarranted.
Every television program and film about this decade presents the 1950s as dismally repressed as if everyone were dreadfully unhappy because they could not express themselves. The reality is that the mass majority of people were content and as Aristotle said ‘Happiness belongs to the contented’.
aengus on November 8, 2008 at 11:49 PM
That is a magnificent observation, aengus.
apacalyps on November 8, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Others know much more than I do about the Bible, but in my reading I’ve found direct comments on homosexuality in the epistles of Saint Paul but not in the spoken words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. What is interesting about divorce is that it is one of the few topics where Jesus refutes Mosaic law.
dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 11:53 PM
+1
Hey, thug -
Show us the data that says the elderly were the ones responsible for voting down Prop 8. (Or were you being more nuanced than that and factoring the higher mortality rate among African Americans and Latinos? Classy.)
And, while you’re at it, let’s see the mortality rate numbers for homosexuals versus heterosexuals.
Oh, and the live birth rate for homosexuals. (Those evil Mormons and Catholics are real breeders, you know. Better watch out for them!)
Then we can all do some number crunching and see how long it will take for your strategy to work.
Somehow I think that if you are planning on relying on death rates to get gay marriage accepted — rather than developing and communicating intellectual arguments to make your case to the majority population — you’ll be waiting more than 5 years.
It’s people like you who turned someone like me who was basically disinterested in the topic of gay marriage (and willing to vote for it) before i moved to California last year into someone who voted for Prop 8. Way to make your case.
Y-not on November 8, 2008 at 11:53 PM
God’s word clearly condemns practicing homosexuals. It’s one thing to have sinful urges, like an alcoholic craves booze, but it is another thing completely to demand society legitimize a sinful lifestyle. I want homosexuals to come to Christ but the first step in that is for them to understand that their urges are no different than the alcoholic or adulterer. Salvation relies on resisting those urges and obeying God.
highhopes on November 8, 2008 at 11:53 PM
It was a good time (I’m told), though mostly by white people.
dedalus on November 8, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Yes of course divorce has and is damaging traditional marriage. A traditionalist response would be to advocate (at the very least) the repeal of no-fault divorce and try to instill a repudiation of divorce at a cultural level.
However when people say that homosexual marriage would undermine marriage and you respond that divorce already has that is dishonest because your central concern is not for the defense of marriage (which your argument implies) but for universal equalitarianism.
Also you’ve never addressed the many examples of restrictions on religious freedom that the overt legitimacy of homosexuality would mandate. Catholic adoption agencies in Boston have been affected by high divorce rates but that has not required them to transgress their religious purpose as the reality of homosexual marriage has.
aengus on November 8, 2008 at 11:58 PM
I don’t disagree with your points, though if we were to base U.S. law on conforming behavior to Christ and salvation we’d define marriage as being between a man and a woman who haven’t already been married, unless they are widowed.
dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Noble effort, but you’ll never convince someone who is resorting to whining about how individuals who happen to observe a particular faith choose to donate their time and energy to make their case about losing a vote about gay marriage.
Anyway, soon we’ll have Obama’s army of civilian “volunteers” to take up the slack in helping the less fortunate that the evil Mormons and Catholics are too uncaring to bother to do. Of course, Catholics volunteering at the local pro-life counseling center or Mormons serving on their missions won’t be able to “count” that as their service… too evil (aka “traditional” or “conservative”), but they can volunteer at Planned Parenthood or at ACORN.
All will be well if you just stare at the Hypno Toad long enough.
Y-not on November 9, 2008 at 12:05 AM
That blacks did not have civil rights back then was of course a very bad thing but I don’t accept that as an argument that post-1964 America is morally superior to the point where modern people can turn down their noses at previous generations. Humanitarianism is the gold standard by which liberal-minded people considers themselves morally superior to all of human history.
aengus on November 9, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Thank you.
aengus on November 9, 2008 at 12:07 AM
I’m not in favor of gay adoption (unless it is done privately with a parent involved), nor am I knowledgeable about adoption laws on a state-by-state basis. I don’t think the issue of Catholic adoption agencies is a gay-specific issue, rather it is a more general question about a religious organization being both a public and private entity.
dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Y-not:
No, up yours. You are the one who responded to this 100% accurate statement (which wasn’t even addressed to you):
with this:
when in fact the two initiatives were indeed worded identically, aside from the fact that they bore different numbers and one amended the Family Code while the other amended the Constitution. And now somehow I’m the jerk for using the word “identical” to describe the actual wording of the actual initiatives rather than anticipating both your response and the fact that you were going to say “the wording” and mean “the legislative summary?” I don’t think so.
FWIW, Bill Lockyer, who was the AG in 2000, is no less of a moonbat than Jerry Moonbeam, and his ostensibly neutral “Analysis by the Legislative Analyst” was every bit as loaded:
Of course they didn’t frame it in terms of taking a right away, but by beating everyone up with the fact that no state recognized gay marriage at the time (while ignoring DOMA and the fact that the Hawaii Supreme Court had recently made such a right up on its own), they might just as well have come out and asked rhetorically “Why the hell are we bothering to vote on this pointless measure at all?” No one had to ask that question last Tuesday.
Xrlq on November 9, 2008 at 12:18 AM
I was born in 1964 so I’m biased in believing that things began getting better at a particular point during that year. Kidding aside, obviously my parents were from that earlier generation and there was much that was better about their lives and the time they lived in. My cultural conservatism is based on a belief that tradition and values can be smarter than government bureaucrats who want to legislate social change. However, there are times when tradition fights against needed change–civil rights being the clearest example.
dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 12:22 AM
the wording used by democrats in their proposals is so convoluted one needs to be a genius to dissect the meaning. if they had to word their bills in simple language they know they would go down the tubes.
this tactic is used to confuse voters and cause them to vote the opposite of what they wish to vote. i see it in dallas at every bond election.
looks like it backfired this time.
tough toenails
devadevadasa on November 9, 2008 at 12:23 AM
I understand your position. However you have to understand that the issue of homosexual marriage is one of legitimacy. Once homosexuals can be legally married then to deny them any other ‘right’ is legally discriminatory and any challenge to this new orthodoxy will not only be on shaky legal ground but definitionally wrong by the new moral standards that society has accepted.
Some commenters says that if homosexual marriage if legalised the polygamous marriage might be legalised and child marriage might legalised. They are wrong. There is no might or perhaps about it. Polygamous marriage and other alternative definitions of marriage must be legalised because that is the inevitable logical outcome of the non-discriminatory ideology that contemporary society embraces.
aengus on November 9, 2008 at 12:26 AM
Here is this big liberal elite calling us low-life commoners in the podunkland parts of California too stupid to make choices we deem right for what environment we want our children to grow up in and be exposed to….?
DL13 on November 9, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Is there some way to pass legislation that would permit middle aged Christian men to have a Bar Mitzvah? I’ve always felt when my Jewish friends had theirs I was missing out.
hawkdriver on November 9, 2008 at 12:28 AM
I would agree completely.
In the 1960s, both black and white cultures were vibrant if not always equal. The civil rights movement corrected the inequities based on skin color but it never really has addressed the dicotomies that emerged in this presidential election. Obama is billed as “black” but he is really “multi-racial” and has nothing in common with much of the black community. What is missing in 2008 is that sense of culture that was around in the 1950s.
It was only when the “feminists” emerged in the 1970s that the value of a female staying at home and raising a family was devalued in lieu of pursuing a corner office. Before that time, women took pride in making a home. I’m not suggesting that the female should necessarily be the one to stay home and keep the house but somebody should! America would be a better place if one half of a couple devoted themselves to raising a family instead of earning enough income to boost lifestyle.
It was in the 1980s when being a homosexual was first presented as something other than a abhorrent lifestyle choice. Homosexuality has always been around and is specifically damned in the Bible. The 1980s made it cool to be gay and that idea has progressed into 2008 when we are asked to accept homosexual partners as “married” couples.
In conclusion, I would suggest that 1950s America was a far better place to live than what we have now. It may not have been equitable (which is a problem) but we were far more functional, unified, and clear about our future. Children were raised in homes with both parents present. God was not demonized as something only to be discussed within the confines of a church. Most neighborhoods were safe.
highhopes on November 9, 2008 at 12:32 AM
DUDE! Forget legislation, that’s a clear lawsuit in the making! You are a victim of not being Jewish. Not only did you not have a Bar Mitzvah just think of how many Hannakah’s you’ve missed out on!
highhopes on November 9, 2008 at 12:35 AM
hee HEE, this liberalism just keeps getting gooder.
hawkdriver on November 9, 2008 at 12:40 AM
hummmmm They got their larger voter base, but the majority of the base doesn’t agree with one of the key issues. What a catch 22.
If the liberal elite expect their voters to be informed enough to vote on the key issues they are supposed to be supporting, they should take a break from being condescending for just a few minutes to speak honestly about them. Perhaps they do not, because on some level they know that they would loose a good chunk of votes. Ahhh another catch 22.
coco on November 9, 2008 at 12:40 AM
You make good points, as you usually do. Not sure, though, I fully subscribe to the slippery slope scenario where gay marriage leads to polygamy. However, it is getting a little late here–must be very late (or quite early) in Ireland. I need to get some sleep–Eirinn go Brach.
dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Xrlq,
I think the difference in describing it as a right being taken away is significant.
As someone who voted no, the consolation for me in its passage is that it teaches lefties that they can’t win every battle in the courts.
This way, if the issue coms up again (and it will) it will do so untainted by the intellectually dishonest interference of sanctimonious judges who wrote their opinion with one hand while they patted themselves on the back with the other.
Patterico on November 9, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Yes its quite late here. We can take up this discussion again another time. Goodnight.
aengus on November 9, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Well, let us help you with this, dedalus. We don’t want you to be confused on the issue any longer. Read what Jesus Christ, Himself, said in the Gospel of Matthew:
“The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Matthew 19:3-6
Have ye not read. Jesus quotes the account of creation in Genesis as His authority to a vital question about the most important of all human institutions (marriage and family).
cleave to his wife. Jesus quoted from Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 as absolute authority on the issue. A man shall be cleave/unite to his wife, not husband.
let not man put asunder. The creation account is thus the foundation for the institute of marriage, which was validated by the Creator Himself (Jesus Christ) and established to be a life-long union between one man and woman who were commanded to “be fruitful and multiply” Genesis 1:28.
As you can clearly see, Jesus does speak on the issue of homosexual marriage, because He established marriage is between a man and woman. This was God’s plan. Man and woman. Not man and man, or woman and woman. It was never even an option! What made it an option in people’s lives is submitting to their lustful thoughts.. and these same acts people think are harmless God takes very seriously. Finally, I want to show you again Jesus’s own Words on homosexuality. He told us marriage is between a man and a woman. So what does Jesus say about sex outside of marriage? We must remember ALL sexual sin is offensive to God. Homosexual or heterosexual sin, whether it is adultery, sexual promiscuaty, fornication, sex outside of marriage, or even lust, which Jesus said is “adultery of the heart” (Matthew 5:27-29) and is sinful in God’s sight. I hope that this helps you.
apacalyps on November 9, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Can you identify where the spirit and message of Jesus Christ taught that homosexuality was right, or even morally neutral?
Don’t substitute your own opinion for the spirit and message of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, it was Jesus Christ who made the clearest statement of all on marriage, and one directly relevant to the discussion.
Significant things here:
1) God created us male and female. Still the only two sexes in the world.
2) Marriage is of God (”what therefore God hath joined together“)
3) Marriage is from the beginning. It predates government
4) Jesus reinforced the scriptures, specifically asking, “Have ye not read.” As in, “Have you not read the scriptures.”
Your attempt to enlist Jesus Christ on your side of the argument is shameless. Argue that what Jesus Christ said no longer matters, if you want to make an honest argument. But don’t pretend you’re just defending the spirit and message of Jesus Christ. That’s wrong, dishonest, and shameless.
theregoestheneighborhood on November 9, 2008 at 12:55 AM
Thank you for the response. He is addressing the matter less directly than he addresses the matter of divorce, and less directly than Saint Paul addresses homosexuality.
My understanding is that Jesus followed Jewish law, which is clear on homosexuality as a sin. My point isn’t that he was in favor of gay marriage, rather that U.S. law ignores the very clear teaching he provides on divorce.
dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 1:00 AM
apacalyps,
If you don’t mind me asking are you the man in the video linked to your name or is that someone else?
aengus on November 9, 2008 at 1:00 AM
why do hot air arguments always end in biblical referencing…
Bizzy on November 9, 2008 at 1:03 AM
It is not so much creating laws to conform with the law of God. It is deciding what US law is based on now that so much of society has rejected religion as a base for law. A generation ago our family law was deeply seated in traditional religion. Now that has been angryily pushed aside.
So what do we base law on now. I believe that society has an interest in regulating marriage. If you place religion to the side. Marriage is still one man and one woman in all cuturals of the past. (Sometimes multiple women). But this is still the time proven “marriage” across time and cultures.
When you start messing with something as fundamental as marriage you should have overwhelming consensus. That is just not what is happening. There is in fact consensus to keep the definition of marriage what it has always been. Even people who are not especially religous see that as sensible.
It is time for the good of our society to vote. Let’s decided what is marriage and what is not by a voice of the people. If you don’t base law on God’s law you simply must base it on the voice of the people. If not you are basing law on a shifting value system of a few individuals who believe they know what is moral and right. And that somehow they have the right to impose their arbitrary views on all of society. They dont’ base their “knowledge” on any tradition or religious teaching. They just want to force everyone to accept their moral superiority.
Well they aren’t morally superior they have no right to determine something like marriage on their own. If you can’t accept God as the source of morality that only leaves majority rule. The morality of a few idividuals is being forced on everyone for no sensible reason. Certainly no unbiased moral reason. They are not God. Our society uses the voice of the people to determine our law. Not arbitrary rulers who rule over everyone telling them what is moral.
petunia on November 9, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Always? As in every last one? Or most? Or even half?
Or are you exaggerating a Hell (heh) of a lot?
baldilocks on November 9, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Hey, she hangs out with Murtha, insulting her constiuents is the in thing to do. Dumb voters, who needs them anyway. I’m sure she, and O-dummy will find a way to fix that little problem!
Salukidog on November 9, 2008 at 1:09 AM
What you say is quite true, but you leave out the most singular and significant thing about what Jesus said at this point.
Not only did Jesus take a different position on divorce, it was a stricter position. He said the Old Testament law was too lenient. Moses permitted divorce, but Jesus said that Moses only permitted it “because of the hardness of your hearts.” That is, the divorce Moses permitted was not really right in God’s eyes, but God knew the Jews — and by extension, the Gentiles, too — could not live up to it. So Moses permitted divorce.
So Jesus was more strict than the Old Testament. That’ll blow the minds of many who presume that Jesus was all about some vague feeling of loving God and others, and that your morality no longer mattered as long as you had the right feelings. (Hint: Love is not just a feeling)
theregoestheneighborhood on November 9, 2008 at 1:15 AM
I think you answered your own question: referencing. As in relevant reference material.
Relevant to what? How about this?
I’m a little curious how else you would discuss the spirit and message of Jesus Christ without referencing Scripture. Last I checked, Jesus Christ left the earth about 2000 years ago, so it’s not like you can call His press secretary…
theregoestheneighborhood on November 9, 2008 at 1:27 AM
But evidently, it’s now somehow LEGITIMATE to elect a President without being fully informed of his utter lack of qualifications and experience … so long as you believe He’ll give you free gas and a free house!
Woot!
spaceman spiff on November 9, 2008 at 1:33 AM
I was reading another site where I can’t post. One thing that really irritates me is that those who support same sex marriage act as though religous people picked a fight with them. No.
Marriage has always been in this country one man and one woman. It is the gays who want to change the law. It is the gays who are judging us and forcing their trendy morality on the rest of us. Gays are intolerant and even hateful of the rest of society.
petunia on November 9, 2008 at 1:41 AM
I think Nan’s take on judicial positivism is tighter than her new face. I know she had a facelift, but perhaps she should have asked to see the one underneath it first before taking the plunge.
sladenyv on November 9, 2008 at 1:50 AM
Well, dedalus. You stated that “the Gospels don’t record Him (Christ) speaking on gay marriage.” And I showed you clearly He did by establishing that marriage is between a man and a woman. So, I hope you don’t use this argument anymore. Jesus, in His own words (don’t forget, that Jesus is God) reaffirmed God’s plan was man and woman. Not man and man or woman and woman. It was never even an option! I don’t even get how you can say, “He is addressing the matter less directly than he addresses the matter of divorce”. How much clearer can He be? The Creator Himself (Jesus Christ) establishes marriage to be a life-long union between one man and woman. End of story. Period! I mean, you sort of come across as somebody who doesn’t want to accept what the Bible clearly teaches. Really, unless you are being willfully ignorant (that means, dumb on purpose) you must accept that Jesus addressed the issue of homosexual marriage. And we haven’t even mentioned the other Scripture condemning it. Thank you very much. Have a nice day/night.
apacalyps on November 9, 2008 at 2:05 AM
That is somebody else. His name is Kent Hovind and he is one of my heroes in the faith. One of the best scholars on the subject of creation vs. evolution in the world. He debates evolutionists all over the country and has never lost a debate. Thank you.
apacalyps on November 9, 2008 at 2:11 AM
That’s right. Christians carrying their Bible’s who say the gay lifestyle is wrong will be accused of hate crimes and pursecuted.
apacalyps on November 9, 2008 at 2:34 AM
70% of Black voters in California voted for Prop. 8.
Is Pelosi saying that 70% of Black voters in California are too stupid to vote?
29Victor on November 9, 2008 at 2:35 AM
Same sex marriage is an interesting issue. The notion of marriage itself, like religion, is deeply personal. It is about two individuals and their aspirations. I am in an interracial relationship. A heterosexual one. We would like to be married. Without Lovings vs. Virginia, our marriage would not be possible in many states until the late sixties. Mixed marriage prohibition laws were on the books despite the court ruling as late as 2000.
I grew up thinking that America was about freedom and equality. We all know that was not the starting point for our nation but we have made enormous progress towards that more perfect union. The recent election, and Bush’s appointments to key cabinet positions have demonstrated how far we have come.
I understand that there are religious reasons for frowning upon gay relationships, eating pork, working on the sabbath, divorce, having coffee, drinking alcohol, and having sex before marriage. But it seems to me that proposition 8 is about limiting freedom. Freedom to sin. It seems to me unfair that people can be married and divorced within days but other people who love each other dearly and want to have a committed relationship are prohibited by the state from doing do because the majority don’t approve.
I feel uncomfortable that people would impose their values on others this way. I think it is mean spirited. Gay marriage does not threaten anyone. It really is none of my business and has no impact on my life so I don’t see the harm in it. Nor do I understand why so many people are so highly motivated against it. It does not seem to cause issues in many other countries where it is legal.
I am grateful that I can marry my girlfriend. I know that in California our marriage would have been prohibited in earlier times. I think everyone deserves the chance to have their personal relationship recognized by the state regardless of what certain churches say.
I understand that some of the protests are offensive and counterproductive but I do not think that undermines the fundamental argument that we should all be treated equally and fairly by the law.
lexhamfox on November 9, 2008 at 2:39 AM
Pelosi is still an idiot, however.
lexhamfox on November 9, 2008 at 2:42 AM
That is not true. Certainly not any man and any woman. Through most of history it was only between certain men and certain women depending on faith, race, and approval of the prevailing religion. There have also been a range of other limitations.
lexhamfox on November 9, 2008 at 2:48 AM
That is absolute nonsense. I can walk down the street here in San Francisco and find people with signs and megaphones saying homosexuals are damned (marries or not) and people having sex before marriage are whore mongers. They are on a certain corner every day and even though their views obviously offend many people they are left alone and able to broadcast their views. They are protected by the Constitution just as those people who protest in bad taste at the graves of fallen heroes (Ed covered this well at CQ).
lexhamfox on November 9, 2008 at 3:06 AM
In California they can have their ralationship recognized if they register as domestic partners, so that’s taken care of already, Prop 8 or no Prop 8.
Bobbertsan on November 9, 2008 at 4:13 AM
yet people still vote for these idiots.
she may be on to something
Black Adam on November 9, 2008 at 4:39 AM
“How many needy families in this lousy economy could have been fed with the millions the Mormon Church and the Vatican contributed”
About the same (been fed ) as with the California teachers union donation to defeat prop 8
DSchoen on November 9, 2008 at 4:54 AM
Military recruiters not so lucky.
2005
2005
2005
We in the military saw 2005 as a banner year in San Francisco tolerance. I wouldn’t have to be holding any kind on sign if I walked down the streets of Shaky Town in my ACUs to get a taste of SF tolerance huh?
Makes me so proud to serve. sarc off/
SF is the most intolerant city on the planet!
hawkdriver on November 9, 2008 at 7:19 AM
I don’t really grasp the whole issue being debated here. I am a conservative, maybe a couple clicks to the right of the typical conservative. But I really don’t care what homosexual people do, or don’t do, or what they choose to call it. As a Christian I think it is sin, and according to the Bible I read, it is an abominable one. But people have the right and ability to decide if they are going to obey God or not. The entire story of that one forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden is about that choice. Everyone has to make that choice on their own. God is pro-choice, and set the world of man up that way. but that does not mean all choices are equal. Some lead to life and love and wholesome goodness. Some don’t. But still we must all make the choices, and we will all be judged by how we decide. Some things are sin and some things are not, but nothing that gets put on an ballot in some election will change that one iota. What is and is not sin is not a political issue. Politicicians delude themselves if they think they have that power.
MikeA on November 9, 2008 at 7:20 AM
Having read the 14th amendment more closely now, and given Obama’s links to terrorism, he may be impeachable under the 14th Amendment:
Aside from being a being a buddy to the terrorist Ayers, who has never repented,Obama’s has financial and supportive ties to Hamas (read here and here).
defendfreespeech on November 9, 2008 at 7:49 AM
I and other people I talked to almost mistakenly voted No on Prop 8 because of the wording. So, I still believe that support was higher than the final tally. Nevertheless, it won and trying to marginalize it by saying it won by a narrow margin doesn’t mean much.
And if they get it on the ballot again — so be it. One thing you can always count on are gay activists shooting themselves in the foot. They went ballistic about the yes on Prop 8 argument about how it was being used to indocrinate children but the field trip to the lesbian wedding, school books aimed at young children, and kindergarteners forced to sign LBGT pledges wasn’t made up.
Blake on November 9, 2008 at 8:02 AM
Of course Prop 8 was about limiting freedom… like the vast majority of laws written.
Am I allowed to steal? Isn’t that law limiting my freedom to enjoy myself with items “provided” by another?
Am I allowed to murder? After all, there are some people who irritate me and I would be better off without. Aren’t those laws limiting my ability to make my life better by removing these irritations?
Am I allowed lie? After all, if I end up as a jury trial witness, it could be pretty inconvenient to have to tell the truth. Isn’t it better to always get my way?
Am I allowed to trespass on others property? After all, many people have nicer homes than I do, with nicer stuff. Shouldn’t I be allowed to let myself in and enjoy the better life?
Do you really want me to continue? Most laws are about limiting freedoms. What I take exception to are people who make up “rights” out of thin air. Show me in the State or Federal Constitutions any right for gay people to marry. There isn’t one, and never was. So, no right was lost. But their freedom to change the definition of marriage to include a deviant lifestyle for the purpose of making it acceptable to culture… has been limited.
dominigan on November 9, 2008 at 8:13 AM
I don’t see any unfairness in the law. A gay man is still allowed to marry a woman. A gay woman is still allowed to marry a man. How is that unfair? It is applied fairly across all people of marrying age.
But twisting it to somehow apply in a way in which it has never, nor was intended, to apply… is just plain wrong.
The facts are… homosexuals today enjoy just about every legal protection that others do. They can designate heirs to their holdings when they die. They can designate others to make decisions in their stead. Hospitals have been changing visitation rights to include not just family members.
Homosexuals want to change the definition of marriage to justify a deviant lifestyle to feel normal.
But this is still wrong, but those of us who still know right from wrong.
Just because an alcoholic feels shame about their drinking doesn’t mean that we legalize it into a viable lifestyle.
dominigan on November 9, 2008 at 8:23 AM
I still say that the only solution to this festering, disgusting fiasco is agreed upon secession with negotiated redistribution of the land mass and its assets. This country is hopelessly and irrevocably divided and fractured and the divisions and hostility are only going to intensify. The nation has been in decline for years and after this last Election Day the United States of America is no more. This charade should stop and the hostile parties should, by mutual consent, separate themselves from each other.
rplat on November 9, 2008 at 8:26 AM
I wouldn’t care either Mike (as a brother in Christ) if that were all that was behind the Gay marriage movement.
Trotsky wrote: “Religious, as indeed any other, ideas being born out of the soil of the material conditions of life and above all the soil of class contradictions, only gradually clear themselves away and then live on by the force of conservatism longer than the needs that gave birth to them and disappear completely only after the effects of serious social shocks and crises.”
“This is the gist of the matter. We fight for the unity of the workers’ organisations above all lines of division: religious, national, linguistic or racial. Our task is to unite all the oppressed and exploited in one army against the bourgeoisie”
“Religion cannot explain anything that is happening in the world today. Its role is not, in fact, to explain, but only to console the masses with dreams and rub on their wounds the balm of a false promise. But one always awakes from a dream, and the effects of even the sweetest balm soon wear off, creating a pain more intense than ever. Religion is a false consciousness, when what is needed is a real consciousness – a scientific view of the universe and our place in it. The prior condition for winning our freedom as human beings is a radical break with dreams and a willingness to see the world as it is and ourselves as what we are: mortal men and women, striving for an existence worthy of human beings on this earth.”
All quotes from “Marxism and Religion By Alan Woods”
Recent story of “Gay Tolerance”
I am not anti-gay. My daughter, who was just married a month ago and is really just beginning her life, owes the quality of that life to a dear friend who is also a lesbian. She donated an organ to her. That sacrifice is sacred to me and makes her a special person on this Earth. I am still a Christian though and hold my Christian beliefs. My friends knows this. I keep her close in my heart and pray for her.
What I am against is any movement with the intend of taking the basic freedom of liberty from any man or woman. Marxism does that 24/7 right here in the US. From their ideology, from their websites they profess the need to marginalize religion. Changing the definition of marriage could be seen as part of that. It’s origin is theological.
In my opinion, everyone who chooses a person to be their partner and commits to the relationship in a state recognized manner has a right to the benefits under the law as any other couple. Do secularists marry? Yep! Could society recognize their union too without evoking religion and calling it a marriage? Yep! If they wanted. No Christian I know opposes gay marriage because they oppose gay rights. We oppose movements with the aim of diminishing the tenets of our faith.
hawkdriver on November 9, 2008 at 8:32 AM
I do not understand California at all.
They are one conflicted bunch.
drjohn on November 9, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Get of the “needy family” crap; that line is typical leftist obfuscation and subterfuge. I am from a “needy family” and I neither needed nor wanted a handout from charity or a nanny government to attain a credible level of success.
rplat on November 9, 2008 at 8:44 AM
They used minorities to get elected they don’t need them again for two more years when some house and senate seats come open. They figure this comment calling them dumb will pass by the time they need to pander to them again.
There were casualities to the Democrat’s voting blocks, Gay Rights (Prop #8) and Womens Rights N.O.W. (Hillary Clinton) I don’t believe either of these two entities, will figure out they were had, they are tethered firmly to the Progressive Lock Step. The Democrats know who they can take for granted neither of those groups will vote Republican. They tell themselves Democrats are more compassionate. NO they aren’t, they will use them to “Grab Power” and then mouth things like Nancy Pelosi did above, to soothe them but DO nothing.
Dr Evil on November 9, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Why is it that everything this woman says makes me laugh.
This comment coming from Mrs. Dumber than Dumb.
Gulf Coast on November 9, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Phheww! Thank God I’m not going to have to listen to the MSM go on and on about the inbred white KKK bigots who voted to deny gays their civil rights.
So a big THANK YOU! to the black voters of California for running interference for us white bigots.
Gang-of-One on November 9, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Response to dedalus’s comments:
“point out where Christ taught men/women can marry?” He was directly asked by his disciples if a man could have more than one wife. His response was no, a man should have one wife. They replied that God gave Moses and the Jews the right to have more than one wife. Jesus replied that was because “their hearts were hard.”
“gospels don’t record him speaking on gay marriage. Saint Paul condemns homosexuals but does so along with adulterers.” Christ was asked who would not go to the kingdom of heaven. He answer was murderers, adulterers, and sodomites. I suppose you think homosexual marriage is chaste?
Zola on November 9, 2008 at 9:06 AM
I blame Barack Hussein Obama!
California ban on gay marriage helped by black voters
http://www.freep.com/article/20081109/NEWS07/811090386/1009
patch on November 9, 2008 at 9:11 AM
hawkdriver, yes, of course there is more to the gay rights movement than their gay-marriage harangue. I too have read Trotsky, and I do see that the gay movement, as well as most of the other liberal “isms” are part of a broader socialistic bent. They invent such issues in order to have wedges to drive into the heart of traditional values on which the human existence has been founded for thousands of years. They want us to argue with them on these things because it is how they get their issues legitimized. And somehow we keep falling for it.
In my view, we the only way to fight these people is to marginalize them and their arguments. Every Christian parent should be a member of the PTA, or whatever serves that role in your town. Christians should teach their children to respect their Christian values, and then send them to college to become teachers, judges, and elected officials. But we will never win if we let the other side keep dealing the cards.
On such issues as this gay rights thing, like most of us, I have a gay person in the family. I have been treated vilely by this person for not having told him I accept his lifestyle as being OK. I have been consistent in saying that I respect him as a person, I think he is smart and productive in many ways, and that I don’t know how he will eventually be judged by God for his life choices; but that is not sufficient. What he wants, demands, is that I agree that homosexuality is not a sin. After years of battling that, I finally said that if would help him I could pretend it was not a sin. I could say it and repeat it and let him write it down and have me sign it; but that would not change it. It is sin because God said it is sin, and even if we could get 100% of the population to say otherwise, it will still be sin. He hs not spoken to me now in a long time, because, as he said, I’m hopeless.
MikeA on November 9, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Casualties of the Historic Election. This reminds me of when we bundled our, tv, phone and internet…I won’t name the company, they all offered the samething anyway, Bundling Service, supposedly you pay one bill instead of three, and it is cheaper, no it isn’t…so the Progressives told all “The Special Interest Groups” Woman, Gays, Minorities, if we bundle together, we can beat the Majority…remember we are a Republic, Majority Rule with Minority Protection. But here is what the Progressives, were selling “Tolerance” “Fairness” if we Bundle, we can deliver to Our “Special Interest Groups” How did that work out for N.O.W. -Hillary Clinton, and the topic of this Post? Wait till the Welfare folks find out, the somewhere over the rainbow, doesn’t exist either (Take A Look at the area in southside of Chicago, Barack Obama used to represent as a state senator) This was a Power Grab. Progressives are not even the majority of the Liberals, that make up the Democrat Party. They sold their “Groups” tolerance, when we get elected everything will be more “FAIR”…That was a real Tolerant act, hanging an effigy of a sitting “Woman” Governor, Vice Presidential Candidate, out in West Hollywood by a Gay man. There are Cracks in the Progressive Coalition. I bet Nancy Pelosi calling them a part of the Sum- Dumb, isn’t going to help. They say you get the Government you Deserve. Apparently that is coming true.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11082008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/overlooked_in_election_results_137687.htm
Dr Evil on November 9, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Every registered voter is sent a voter information guide. A big part of it are the arguments for and against the propositions. If Pelosi truly thought it was unclear, she and others would have submitted an argument stating so for publication in the voter information guide. They did not.
Blake on November 9, 2008 at 9:26 AM
These protests are NOT just peaceful: http://tfsternsrantings.blogspot.com/
Why doesn’t ever Fox news report such a thing. Oh yeah. I forgot. We don’t have an independent free press. They have been bought and paid for by the liberals and the pretend conservatives of our nation.
Noelie on November 9, 2008 at 9:39 AM
My apologies if this post is redundant, but I think many well-meaning people have missed the true significance of measures such as this. It’s not in allowing sodomites and sapphists to enter a contractual agreement, it’s rather an Orwellian perversion of the language.
oldleprechaun on November 9, 2008 at 9:41 AM
I’m familiar with Saint Paul on the topic in Corinthians. As far as Jesus goes, he is clearer on divorce than on homosexuality. “Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” (Luke 16:18).
Saint Paul in Corinthians confirms those who remarry following divorce along with homosexuals and many others won’t find the kingdom of God: “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6).
U.S. law protects many activities that, accoding to Saint Paul, prevent you from attaining heaven.
dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Excuse me, the role of the Constitution is to limit Government and not to establish any such personal ‘rights’ such as same-sex marriage. A State grants a license for couples to wed. The citizens of a State may amend the State Constitution which, in this case, denies the State the power to grant wedding licenses to same-sex couples. There is nothing in the Amendment that prohibits same-sex couples from living together, sharing the bounty of their collective buying power (often greater than heterosexual couples) or engaging in the same behavior practiced before the Amendment passed.
You’ve lost this fight but will likely win the ‘Don’t ask – Don’t tell’ fight to ‘Liberace’-size the military.
SeniorD on November 9, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Unrelated: I threw an f-bomb in a comment last night, and didn’t get banned! I have no point to make. I’m just jazzed about it.
Kevin M on November 9, 2008 at 10:07 AM
U.S. law hasn’t been bound by Christ’s teaching on marriage and divorce. It seems inconsistent from a Christian standpoint to accept straight divorce but then contend the marriage is being defended by stopping the gays.
dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 10:10 AM
So wait, let me get this right, spending private money to educate the public of the intent of a statewide measure so that they understand what they’re voting for or against as well as the unified view of the Church based on scripture is wrong?
I’m sorry, but your statement is absurd. You suggest that the Church spending money in the way that it dictates is wrong, but in the same breath, you’d hail the result of the $700 million dollars in funding that was used to fund Barack Obama’s Campaign.
I can only think that if these families were so “needy” in this lousy economy, that they’d use the money that they donated to Barack Obama to pay their damn house payment instead of letting it foreclose and CAUSE the lousy economy.
Reread this next time you feel the need to forumlate an argument consisting only of an appeal to pity and a sad Psychogenetic Fallacy.
leetpriest on November 9, 2008 at 10:16 AM
leetpriest on November 9, 2008 at 10:17 AM
sorry I was about to reply to this quote:
This isn’t a question of U.S. law, it’s California law.
leetpriest on November 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Fox News doesn’t report on it because if they do, they’ll piss off Barack Obama and his FCC Men in Black will fine Fox News into oblivion.
leetpriest on November 9, 2008 at 10:20 AM
It doesn’t get much more cynical than San Fran Nan waxing indignant about loss of liberty.
LimeyGeek on November 9, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »