Open season on Mormons in California?
posted at 8:15 am on November 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Mormons have been under attack in California since the passage of Proposition 8. The LDS church backed the winning measure that restored the “one man, one woman” definition of marriage to the state constitution after the state Supreme Court overturned it as a statute. From profane billboards to violent protests, the anti-8 demonstrators have focused their ire on Mormons, and now two envelopes of white powder have turned up in the mail at the Mormon Temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City:
The FBI says a letter containing a suspicious white powder sent to a Mormon temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles was not hazardous.
The temple was evacuated Thursday while a hazardous materials crew tested the substance and determined it was non-toxic.
A temple in downtown Salt Lake City received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk’s hand. The room was decontaminated and the envelope taken by the FBI for testing. A spokesman for the Salt Lake City Fire Department says the clerk showed no signs of illness, but the scare shut down a building at Temple Square for more than an hour.
It was depressingly predictable that the fringe of the protestors would eventually move towards terrorism. They’ve assaulted old ladies and threatened more violence, all because they lost on a ballot proposition. In fact, they lost by over 500,000 votes and almost five percentage points, 52.2% to 47.7%. Of California’s 58 counties, only 16 of them carried a majority of voters opposing it. It wasn’t just the old ladies and Mormons who opposed Proposition 8.
I have no problem with gay marriage, as long as the recognition comes through legitimate political means — either through referendum or legislative action. California voters have now twice stated by referendum that they do not want to grant government recognition of marriage to same-sex couples. That’s a pretty clear message that the people of California do not want a public policy that gives official recognition to same-sex couples, outside of partnership contracts.
This fortnight-long temper tantrum certainly won’t help the anti-8 cause when the inevitable referendum appears to reverse the constitutional amendment Californians added in this election. I’d expect to see that on the ballot every two years from now on, but if its backers keep acting like lunatics, they can expect to lose by greater margins in the future.
Update: I should address a few points in the comments. First, the reason I support the legitimate process of referendum or legislative action is because they won’t produce nutty results like polygamy or “interspecies marriage”, as someone accuses me of tacitly endorsing. How many people would vote to allow polygamy or adult incest? 5%? Judicial fiat, on the other hand, can produce some very strange results.
Also, recognition of marriage is already public policy. No one has proposed any laws barring two consenting non-related adults from cohabitating, nor should they. This isn’t a federal question, but a question of what types of relationships will get state recognition, and that’s an issue legitimately resting with the electorate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 7 Next »
It’s not a matter of legality. The Mormons were supporting Prop 8, and they were in the way of those railing against it.
pinkelephants on November 14, 2008 at 9:05 AM
And there are GAYS who oppose GM.
How does that work for your thought process?
artist on November 14, 2008 at 9:05 AM
——–
Who cares.
Dave Rywall on November 14, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Ummm, you equate a couple of wack jobs, to these protests, attacking the a church service, attacking conservative speakers, defacing national monuments, beating children wearing McCain pins, defacing their own cars and claiming conservative did it, busting into homes and beating conservative voters, you won’t win this argument. You point out one or two specific cases regarding one specific area of saving unborn lives…and I give you a list of violent attacks from private homes to schools to national landmarks to church’s…not even a good try. As I said, proof to you is useless.
Now where in the past 10 years has this “abortion violence” taken place?
So tell me, how do you like your baby’s killed…do you prefer to have them born the left to starve to death, or do you like when they are just partially born, then the skull crushed, or do you prefer going in with the forceps and ripping the baby apart just before birth.
Which one of these partial birth aborts do you prefer…that is what you are embracing at these clinics.
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 9:07 AM
The only attacks are against Gypson (dave rywall) and Tom Shiply..
if only because the trolls pop in and like to stir up trouble and be a general pain in the arse.. (no pun intended seeing how this thread is about gays)
Gypson complains about fringe right groups and completely ignores what is going on in front of his eyes( maybe it has to do with where his head is shoved) regarding this extreme moonbatty group.
If you have to ask, I’m sure everyone here knows someone who is gay.. in fact, I knew several who went to my christian church that I called my friends.
My nickname for them was ‘Token’ even.. (sorry, I stole that joke from South Park)
DaveC on November 14, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Who cares.
Dave Rywall on November 14, 2008
ABout what I expected.
LOL!
artist on November 14, 2008 at 9:07 AM
As I understand California law, civil unions already give gays the same legal rights as married couples (e.g., inheritance rights, employer health benefits, etc.). So why the insistence on the right to use the term “marriage”? Maybe for the same reason that the hispanic bar here in Arizona is trying to get the AZ Supreme Court to ban the use of the terms “illegal” and “aliens” in our courts. If they can control the language, then they can control the debate. And if they can control the debate, they win the debate.
AZCoyote on November 14, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Karen, no attack. But I am curious about how you see this proposition. With all issues there is an upside and a downside. Please tell me how you see both sides, with short and long-term consequences.
I am against it for the sole reason of the definition being altered which would create an open door to redefine education and our social structure.
Thank you
sherry on November 14, 2008 at 9:08 AM
That’s right!
Blake on November 14, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Dave Rywall on November 14, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Well, first of all, I don’t know that Ed considers himself to be on the “right.” Second, Ed generally plays all sides of issues — we all know this. And third, he is a nice, PC guy and doesn’t want to offend anybody.
Even someone like you.
BigD on November 14, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Besides.. from what I’ve seen in your past posts.. you are too nice..
Drywall is just a dank and fun to make fun of..
DaveC on November 14, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Wow, what a zinger, Dave. I can see the headlines now: “Watch out for DRywall in a debate!”
mr.blacksheep on November 14, 2008 at 9:10 AM
I really wish you would stop screaming and cussing. You’d be a lot more effective if you spoke like a normal human being. Thanks.
Now, I haven’t heard one person here support people blowing up abortion clinics either. There is most definitely a line between protesting and domestic terrorism – and mailing out white powder and attacking old ladies is soooo over that line. The point was made that people that blow up abortion clinics get prosecuted… let’s see that happen now.
pinkelephants on November 14, 2008 at 9:10 AM
You do realize that this proposition was defining a marriage as between ONE man and ONE woman. I did not outlaw anything to do with being gay. That covers all the other types of relationships including the gay relationship. But of course, it’s moronic to point out that the proposition didn’t focus on gay people, but traditional marriage. Gay people are so narcissistic that they want this to be just about them. Gay people want to play the ‘victim’. If gay marriage passes, it will be something else (likely fairness doctrine in sex ed or something ridiculous for their ‘rights’).
As for Ed supporting homsexual marriage. . . the answer is that he’s Catholic. He does what his priest says. If his priest would deny him communion for supporting homosexual marriage, he would be against it. Catholics do very little thinking on moral issues on their own. Their opinions are based on what the priest tells them without question.
ThackerAgency on November 14, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Who is to stop them; our President-elect family friend of Bill Ayers? Californians accommodated some of Ayers most evil accomplishments, as the radical gays hosted his venue in San Francisco when they organized during the 1960s. “Yes We Can” means they can do whatever the hell they want, and no one is going to stop them.
The Gays and Mormon Hierarchy have a longstanding contention. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is not an option as interviews are conducted to specifically delve into the inner psyche (by untrained Mormon leaders aka Bishops) to delineate individuals within their populace. Orson Scott Card wrote of “loving the sinner but hating the sin” as the modern Mormon member’s attempt to coincide Mormon Doctrine with its lost lambs. It isn’t as if Mormons hate homosexuals; there are plenty from their own families and population. But Card’s advise for Gay Mormon men to marry and have children in order to fit in is hardly fair or right. Yet how else would a theocratic patriarchal order persist? Stay the route of intolerance requiring honor killing as Islam does? Alongside strong social conservatives, Mormons and Catholics promote the clarification of LEGALITIES, not capital punishment or the banishment of sinners.
That it took a constitutional amendment to preserve the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman in America is the ironic legacy of tolerance.
Unless I am mistaken, is there not a legal means for Gays to Will their property to whomever, and to designate whomever with their Power of Attorney to enable hospital visitations and the right to enforce the patient’s Living Will? As it is, Gay organizations have government sponsorship from tax funded grants via Weed And Seed programs enabling Gays to provide community organization leadership via youth programs not only as sponsors of youth programs but as leaders and instructors of youth within the youth programs. Gays are protected within Teachers Unions to promote their ideology as course curriculum from Kindergarten through higher education and graduate schools. Gays can be doting uncles or aunts if they so choose.
From the many Christian American Sects who preferred lenient moral permissiveness to clarity and the necessary discipline, Mormons and Catholics have no problem supporting Gays as professionals or as personal friends while not endorsing the lifestyle. Most of America really did not want to get involved until the Gays forced everyone’s hand to the vote.
YES WE CAN illegitimate abuse vs. YES WE CAN preserve legitimacy
The specificity of “marriage” NOT UNDERGOING REVISION TO ACCOMMODATE GAY FASCIST NEWSPEAK has won AGAIN by popular vote to become a Constitutional Amendment protecting the word and the ceremony, “marriage” from abuse.
maverick muse on November 14, 2008 at 9:11 AM
The Lord said, “Those who hate me love death.”
So the disease ridden sodomists are feted and the shedding of innocent blood is condoned as if to prove Him right.
Akzed on November 14, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Yes you do, you are condoning their protests, and their protests are violent. You can’t have it both ways…well you can, because you are a liberal and have no real standards.
Next.
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 9:12 AM
I am against it for the sole reason of the definition being altered which would create an open door to redefine education and our social structure.
sherry on November 14, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Hening on November 14, 2008 at 9:12 AM
I have no problem with gay marriage either. I hope all marriages are happy.
But that is not the issue here. The issue is redefining marriage to now mean the joining of one unrelated adult and another unrelated adult. That will be the new definition of marriage.
All the conservatives who keep framing this as “banning ‘gay’ marriage” are falling into the rhetorical trap set by the left.
Homosexuals have the exact same right to marriage as everyone else. So that is not the issue. What they want is to redefine marriage to allow joining of same-sex adults. People would be wise to state the issue as such.
When looked at it from that perspective, and taking into account that the reasoning given by the homosexual activists is that not redefining marriage would be “discrimination”, well then it is also discrimination to not redefine marriage to allow polygamy, polyamory and every other non-man-woman union.
So, Ed, do you also not have a problem redefining marriage to be any number of unrelated adults to any number of unrelated adults?
Then again, maybe we should also allow related adults to ‘marry’ as well. Afterall, based on the reasoning of the homosexual activists, that they should not be discriminated against based on whom they love, then a daughter can’t help that she is in love with father and wants to marry him. Right?
So, to not discriminate, we should just scrap marriage as it is now and redefine it completely to include all sexual orientations. Right?
Because it is discrimination to only redefine marriage to be between two adults. Why is it ‘ok’ to redefine marriage to mean between same sex adults as well as man-woman, but not ok to redefine marriage to mean between multiple adults? What about bisexuals? It is discrimination to not allow bisexuals to marry their man and woman lovers. Right?
I’m just using the argument of the Left, who say that the current legal definition of marriage is discriminatory. Well, it’s not just discriminatory against homosexuals, it is against bisexuals and polygamists as well. So why aren’t we advocating scrapping the entire idea of two-person unions and just allowing anyone to marry anyone they choose and as many people as they choose? Anything less would be discrimination, right?
Michael in MI on November 14, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Normal is as normal does. You see, that is the entire problem with this entire issue. You have some very abnormal people yelling and screaming trying to intimidate everyone else into redefining normal so they will fit under the tent. If they acted normal, they would be normal and would already be under the tent. Can’t do it.
MikeA on November 14, 2008 at 9:14 AM
I personally am disappointed that someone so avowedly Catholic as Ed would cavalierly state that he does not oppose gay marriage. Anyone who has seen homosexuals in their natural environment knows they are deeply disordered and are not “normal.” Treating their relationships as the equivalent to heterosexual ones is a good idea for anyone concerned why?
With that said, I do have to caution you on the “slippery slope” argument. Courts have affirmed gay marriage based on somewhat different arguments. California did based on equal protection (In re Marriage Cases), which says that a gay marriage ban is sex discrimination. Massachusetts went much farther (Goodridge) by using substantive due process principles to say “the government has no good reason to not allow gay marriage.”
The “slippery slope” from gay marriage to polygamy and incest only works if courts use substantive due process to find a right to gay marriage. Then, the door is wide open for polygamy and incest, because you can make the slippery slope argument that “if homosexuals can marry, why can’t three people, or why can’t I marry my cousin?” But equal protection isn’t going to get you polygamy and incest — and I imagine that a liberal Supreme Court would be smart enough to ground a right to gay marriage in those terms.
With that said, the “interspecies” argument — that gay marriage will lead to people being allowed to marry dogs and cats and so forth — is a red herring that I wish people would stop pushing. A fundamental precept to any marriage is the consent of the parties. An animal cannot give consent. The slippery slope just doesn’t work.
Dave, I think you are incorrect with respect to your claim that there is no movement toward incest or polygamy. There are tens of thousands of polygamous families in Utah and Arizona. Moreover, I know many Mormons (including some higher ranking guys at the “stake” level) who refuse to condemn polygamy and say that it is a valid way to live ones life, perfectly safe, etc., but that the doctrine of the church forbids it, so that’s the end of the story. So while the LDS church would not push polygamy directly, they certainly wouldn’t be howling in protest if any FLDS guys did it. As for incest, incest is relatively common in the world, especially cousin-marriage. A lot of incest supporters make the argument that the risk of genetic contamination is very minimal, etc. It’s more common than you think.
Outlander on November 14, 2008 at 9:14 AM
<blockquoteDave Rywall on November 14, 2008 at 9:05 AM
You do more to prove the point that gays are unhinged than you can possibly fathom.
Hening on November 14, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Right, I still have not seen from this drywall chick, why the insistence on the word “marriage”. We already have a 10,000 year definition, and civil union provide the same for the gay community.
right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 9:15 AM
That’s why som many of them voted for hussein then, I guess, because he’s pro-abortion and their church is anti-abortion. Brilliant analysis, as usual, Thackass.
Akzed on November 14, 2008 at 9:16 AM
…as an astute observer both of national political affairs and of human folly, I’m surprised that you think that these are the actions of a “fringe”.
Clearly, this is the tactic engaged upon whenever the homosexual community is thwarted or encounter any opposition. Remember the boycotts in Colorado, the shennanigans over the Doctor Laura TV show, the attendance at the mass in San Francisco by the “decadence” crowd, even back to invading a communion at St. Paul’s Episcopal cathedral in New York (I believe it was) back maybe 25 years ago…slopping the wine on the floor and crushing the wafers underfoot.
Like spoiled children, these people — yes, the dreaded “these people” — don’t seem to understand the democratic process.
Nobody’s stopping them from doing the many and varied things that they do. They’re just not getting what they want.
…nor do I, and frankly I’m all worn out with this “having to care” about their “plight”…if they can hoodwink the voters of California into giving into their demands, or, as you suggest, wear ‘em down by putting their bloody referrendum onto the ballot year after year, so be it.
…personally, I don’t believe that they deserve to succeed, by virtue of the methods they seem prepared to use to succeed.
For my part, let ‘em sin. The most foolish thing a believer can do is stop someone from sinning. It’s like stopping a fish from swimming, a bird from flying or a Democrat from stealing an election…it’s in their DNA. Let ‘em sin. Remember Prohibition…first you create the sin, and then dare the sinner to be clever and resourceful….
…in this case, again, they’re not being kept from doing any bloody thing. If hospitals are keeping them from seeing their playmates, b*tch at the hospitals, not at old ladies with styrofoam crosses. If insurance companies won’t throw the net wide enough to cover “domestic partners”, which takes in quite a few more folks than homosexuals today, b*tch at insurance companies.
Leave the Mormons alone.
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Actually, homosexuals in California do have equal marriage rights under the law. A homosexual man is free to marry any woman who will marry him, and a homosexual woman is free to marry any man who will marry her. That’s the same as heterosexuals. Ergo, equal rights.
mr.blacksheep on November 14, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Thank you for the link. I made a mistake with my post. I am against gay marriage but implied that I am for it by using the word against, which I think you read as against the proposition. My mistake in word choice.
sherry on November 14, 2008 at 9:18 AM
It’s called a free society, dumba*s. So when are you going to call for an immediate stop to protests at abortion clinics because the vote didn’t go their way?I’m not a dumbass, Dave, so can the insults. I’m not going to call for an immediate stop to protests at abortion clinics any sooner than I am going to call for the opponents of Proposition 8 to stop their grousing about how that vote went down. It really must be a fundamental right in a free society that everyone must be able to voice their dissatisfaction without fear of reprisal from those that disagree with them.
Protesting is fine, no matter what your beef–as long as the rule of law is respected regarding traffic, etc. Terrorism is not, breaking the law is not, no matter who is doing it and no matter how righteous they think their cause is. Period. If you cannot see the difference there, well…you are intellectually dishonest and have no business at all calling someone a dumbass for a simple observation of fact.
And now I am off to work.
Bob's Kid on November 14, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Bingo. All this talk about homosexuals not having the same rights to marry is bogus.
The actual issue is redefining marriage. But conservatives fall into the trap of agreeing that homosexuals somehow don’t have the right to marriage. They do. They just want to redefine marriage to mean same sex couples.
This is not about rights. It is about redefining what is marriage.
Michael in MI on November 14, 2008 at 9:20 AM
There are a lot of Catholics that support homosexual marraige against Church teachings, and those that don’t. At least give him the respect of assuming that he came to a rational decision on his own and avoid dumping on Catholics and Ed at his own site.
theotherKate on November 14, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Could you re-read Ed’s column again, please? I understood it to say that he would accept what the PEOPLE decided through their decisions at the ballot box as opposed to the determination of an unelected judge/court. Explain why I am wrong.
Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Maybe Huckabee and his ilk will join forces with the gays to fight the evil Mormon power.
JA on November 14, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Thank you!
You have addressed gays as “Childish bitches”, “male butt pirate”, and “Homo’s” all on this thread. Others have used the henious “f*g”. That is the hate I am speaking of.
I understand your point, I understand everyone’s point, but demonstrating such intolerance towards the gay community is disgraceful.
Karen_VA on November 14, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Oy! This is going to be a long, long fight.
theboss on November 14, 2008 at 9:21 AM
I’m recalling the pix of that gay festival in SF last year? couple years ago? If that’s what they are dealing with, I don’t blame the Mormon Church, Cal. voters or the black and Hispanic populations for their vote. That was pretty disgraceful and really bad publicity. Gays can never win sympathy from anyone with behavior like that.
jeanie on November 14, 2008 at 9:22 AM
I was struck by this when someone else replied to it…I was shocked, and I do mean shocked, that anyone still thinks like this.
Mind you, I’ve done the research, and my family’s not been Roman Catholic since it was possible to deny transubstantiation and not be burned at the stake for it. The “Puritan” in the nick is historical.
But, one would think that the whole “slaves to Rome” think had gone out when Kennedy made it to the White House.
Critical thinking, people…critical thinking….
Rome has its problems, but they’re theological, and not insurmountable…not social, political or ideological…especially under the current Bishop of Rome.
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2008 at 9:24 AM
The Mormon Church has not paid one dime towards the passing of prop 8. Mormons have contributed to its passing because they believe it will fundamentally change society. I can see one of these crazies going into a church with a gun and trying to take out its members. Just remember that most of us believe in gun ownership.
The Catholic Bishop in San Fran is the one who called the LDS Church and asked them to support the initiative. So how come they aren’t targeted? Not that I want anyone targeted, but get a grip 2%? I guess it is easy to target Mormons because the Evangelicals have done such a good job of calling them everything but Christians. The Catholic Church has stood up for them. Where are the Evangelicals?
Bambi on November 14, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Ezekiel 3:18 –
When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Akzed on November 14, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Because he said, “I have no problem with gay marriage.”
Akzed on November 14, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Well said. I’m tired of the holier-than-thou left playing on this “republicans are stupid” rhetoric that’s gone on since Quayle. It’s really old. When there’s no other argument, just call them stupid and walk away. This is what we saw with Palin. They found nothing that would hold up against her, so they started to tear her down by painting her as a fool.
The slippery slope that is gay marriage is NOT that far fetched. The heart of the gay marriage issue is acceptance. I understand that. However, it should not be passed until, as a nation, we are ready to accept those that choose to marry more than one person, etc….
pinkelephants on November 14, 2008 at 9:25 AM
By golly lets just exterminate them darn mormons. Seriously, this is beyond ridiculous.
Virginia Shanahan on November 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM
harsh
Catholics I’ve known run an entire gamut of opinions, including priests. However, unlike Mormon priests, Catholic Priests undergo a very vigorous education and maturation prior to “employment” as a parish pastor. Though historically, no discussion/argument was tolerated on equal terms between parish member and pastor, and in the present discord is not tolerated by the priest, that does not prevent thought from occurring as modern Catholics of America and Europe are not of the same lot as former generations belonged. It’s the price one pays for exposure to information. Though the majority of people prefer ignorance to knowledge, there are yet those who use the gift of curiosity that marks a virtue belonging to children whom Jesus blessed. Many are called but few are chosen may apply to this point.
Ed is a devout Catholic with a very thoughtful mind that I respect with high regard.
maverick muse on November 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM
I watched the video, and as a parent of a 5 and 4 yr old, that is my problem. I’m not religious, but if I had to make a choice, I’d rather my kids be taught some form of Christianity than about same sex relationships, or any relationships. At 5 yrs, my kid does NOT need to learn about sex. Period! When I think they’re old enough, I’d like to be able to make that decision, to teach them about relationships. Not the teachers at the school they’re in.
4shoes on November 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM
I am of the mindset that love is love and that if two people in love wish to marry they should. That is probably an overly simplistic view, but that is how I see it.
I do understand that the law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The voters have spoken in California, and I agree that the issue should be dead.
Karen_VA on November 14, 2008 at 9:29 AM
What happened to the “will of the people?”
This has now been voted on TWICE, and the second one had to overturn 4 justices on the whacky California Supreme Court.
It should be between one man and one woman, as it has always been, but if this group wants to make it legal, do it at the ballow box and let the people decide.
I am pretty sure they have now decided TWICE! Move to Massachusetts and try to get it passed there or something, just leave people alone.
ReaganConservative3 on November 14, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Thacker Agency is an anti-Catholic bigot and a troll. Ignore him.
Ed Morrissey on November 14, 2008 at 9:32 AM
The homosexual issue goes back to 1973, when the gays, threatening all kinds of hell, managed to talk the APA into taking homosexuality out of the DSM. Ever since, they have embarked on a remarkably successful campaign to convince the public that (1) homosexuality is something you’re born with and (2) homosexuality is normal. But once people adopt those two assumptions, suddenly civil unions and gay marriages and gay adoption and all of these issues almost sound like common sense.
Conservatives are losing the culture wars, and badly.
Outlander on November 14, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Thanks! I usually just post funny quips or sarcastic comments, but this one got my blood going this morning. Or maybe it was the coffee. :)
Karen_VA on November 14, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Whether you believe in God the creator or evolution, what benefit is there in “love” that results in the mutual destruction of the couple’s anal suspensors?
Just wondering.
Akzed on November 14, 2008 at 9:34 AM
I agree with Ed. I’m more offended by irate subgroups of society that pound away and legislate through the courts to get what they want rather than through the legislature. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be homosexual marriage anywhere.
For me, this is one of those issues where the Republican Party has lost it’s love of liberty. Marriage is a religious institution that the government took over as a way of ‘protecting’ morality. Which now is a tyranny carried out in the name of righteousness by a majority that at the time were of the same religion.
Over time it’s now just part of the governments business with selling marriage licenses and having modifications to the tax code depending on marital status. How equal marriage is argued in courts is that it’s something afforded by the government and that homosexuals and other groups are being denied unfairly.
Because of this, it will only be a matter of time before polygamists argue their case. I had to laugh when I heard the stance of Gloria Steinem (ick!) that she thinks marriage should be defined between “multiple conjugal partners.” WTF is that?
You want a real fix for this? If people had the stones to really right the wrong here is that the government shouldn’t be in the marriage business. If you want to get married, get a religion. Then it will be the religion’s choice. If you don’t have one, just move in together.
krl on November 14, 2008 at 9:36 AM
…Mr. Rywall…what a rude, unreasoning boor you are.
…folks who don’t line up with you — we righties, I presume — are lumped together as yahoos…which conjurs up a whole Pandora’s Box of stereotypes…I thought you lefties were above that sort of thing….
…added to which, you seem unable to discuss this issue dispassionately…do you have a dog in this fight? Are you in California? Are you in some other state, province or dogpatch which aspires to allowing homosexuals to ape their heterosexual neighbors?
…you seem capable of rational cognition…why not throttle back and do your point of view some good…and less violence…and actually contest your point, not shout it, spit it, and make it smell to high heaven….
…and, if you’re in someone’s pay to disrupt and discomfit those blog spots some moneybags doesn’t like, tell your employer that he’d be better served by somebody smoother and more persuasive….
…in short, Mr. R, try to be less elementary schoolyard…we’re grownups here….
Puritan1648 on November 14, 2008 at 9:37 AM
The problem is the term marriage — it denotes, historically, religiously, and legislatively, a man and a woman; it does not include any two partners, that’s what Gays want to do with the definition, that is, alter it to include their relationships.
Elton John made it pretty clear himself, “I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership.”
Richard Romano on November 14, 2008 at 9:37 AM
I’m beginning to think that this is all a concerted effort on the anti-8 people to procure a martyr.
Sooner or later they are going to accost someone with a gun and then we’ll hear about how much people really hate gays.
Of course, it should be noted that they’re picking on Mormons – people noted for their pacifism.
And it should also be noted that they’re not “disrupting” any black churches in the ghettos.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 9:38 AM
How can one claim to be a “Christian” or “Catholic” or “Mormon” and be in favor of this? Based on respective theologies and adherence to Scripture, how is this possible?
It’s like that article some time ago of the pro-choice priest. Does. Not. Compute.
wccawa on November 14, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Sherry,
I understood and posted that to back you up. It comes as a shock to even those that think they accept homosexuals to marry that it is being forced on their children at five years old. Parents are being removed from the equation of raising their own children, and the so-called victims only want their voice to be heard in this matter.
Hening on November 14, 2008 at 9:39 AM
This would be the proper statement for Ed to make if he were addressing the issue properly.
We are not deciding on marriage and “gay marriage”. We are deciding on whether or not to completely redefine what is marriage is America.
And, as I said earlier, if we are redefining it based on not discriminating against any sexual orientation, then we cannot simply redefine it to allow any two adults. We must allow polygamy and polyamory as well.
Again, I really don’t understand why people want to talk about “allowing ‘gays’ to marry”. Homosexuals are already allowed to marry. Someone stated earlier, any homosexual man can marry any woman. And any homosexual woman can marry any man.
The issue is redefining marriage. And redefining it as anything less than any number of consenting adults marrying any other number of consenting adults will be discriminatory.
The only thing I can see as to why so many people on the right keep messing up this simple issue, is because they want to be seen as sympathetic to homosexuals. That’s understandable, but that does not help the issue.
As a hypothetical, let’s say that America redefines marriage to be same-sex couples as well. Okay, fine, then what is the logical reason for not redefining to allow for polygamy? If we are changing our laws based on feelings and sexual orientation and not wanting to keep people from marrying anyone they love, then shouldn’t we change them all the way?
Has anyone ever asked any of the homosexual activists if they are interested in also redefining marriage to allow polygamy? And if they answer that they are not, then on what basis are they denying polygamists that option, considering it is discrimination, which is the entire basis of the homosexual agenda.
Michael in MI on November 14, 2008 at 9:40 AM
I am a Mormon. I live in the Midwest and never heard one word about being ordered to send money for Prop 8! Politics are not allowed at or in Church, the building, the church rolls cannot be used for anything but church business. They encourage people to get informed and vote but NEVER who or what to vote for, yet when Romney ran for President we found out that we were the last group that it was OK to be bigoted against. They aren’t rioting at Catholic or Baptist churches – primarily us. So I have decided that I now support gay marriage, in fact, I insist on it. As for abortion, I give up, abort away. Gays will find out that marriage and the laws that go with it will not be so great when they decide it isn’t for them. As for abortion, those that choose to kill their own young – well after a few generations, there won’t be so many. We are fighting battles that cannot be won, lemming must go over the cliff and I have decided to quite trying to stop them. I am no longer a bigot, just a cynic.
opionated lady on November 14, 2008 at 9:40 AM
If you don’t have one, just move in together.
Well, government will always have to be in the marriage business (or at least the civil union business) because of the legal and tax benefits that married couples receive.
I agree that marriage as defined by religions is up to them. But when it comes to government marriage (or civil union, whatever you want to call it) there will have to be allowances for gay couple to be joined as a union in the eyes of the state.
Tom_Shipley on November 14, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Pepsi has given Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) a half-million dollars to help push the homosexual agenda in the workplace. PFLAG is a political advocacy group that promotes radical homosexual political causes like same-sex marriage, hate-crime laws, and gay adoption.
Pepsi has a long tradition of financial support for homosexual groups. According to Jacqueline Millan, director of PepsiCo Corporate Contributions, “We are delighted to continue our partnership with PFLAG…(in) promoting the necessary message of inclusion to untapped groups…and that is a crucial step toward building a healthy working environment.”
Despite the fact that 30 states have passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, Pepsi continues to support the efforts by same-sex groups pushing for homosexual marriage. -Don Wildmon, AFA
Majorities in thirty states have spoken, yet companies like Pepsi side with a few thousand perverts.
Akzed on November 14, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Got it. Thanks. Very good link, by the way. Pretty powerful.
sherry on November 14, 2008 at 9:43 AM
These gays keep trying to push this crap down our throats, and its not gonna work. I don’t think they should be allowed to marry, that is a Christian value. Homosexual activities between Neil and Bob is not what God wants, period. Most gays don’t seem very monogamous anyway. I guess if they get this, they will want to marry their favorite barnyard animal next. It Just keeps on going, they want everything they do to thought of as normal behavior, and its not.
la.rt.wngr on November 14, 2008 at 9:43 AM
These anti-Prop 8 terrorists are doing more to argue FOR prop-8 than any of the prop-8 proponents!
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 9:44 AM
I have four kids that are all out of that age bracket and can all think for themselves when they hear this “stuff” at school. They come home and talk to their parents about these issues. It’s a tougher job than ever raising your children in this country, especially if you are a faith based family. Don’t let your guard down when it comes to you family.
Hening on November 14, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Akzed on November 14, 2008 at 9:25 AM
You misunderstood the question, it didn’t have anything to do with whether or not Ed was for gay marriage but Thacker’s contention that he was unable to think beyond his Priest’s instructions. Sort of a funny thing to say about someone who blogs for a living. But Ed answered later. I am sure the information will color my further readings of Thacker’s posts or I will probably forget because it is hard to keep so many folk’s straight. No pun intended.
Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Tom… the tax code is part of government trying impose morality by creating and economic incentive to get married. It could, and should, be scrapped.
Legal issues can be handled too. Everyone should have a will, and living wil, etc. as those decisions are personal.
krl on November 14, 2008 at 9:46 AM
I read somewhere (probably here) that 70-80 percent of blacks who voted Obama voted for Proposition 8.
Of course the Mormons are targets! Preferably women and children first, if they don’t scratch.
Marcus on November 14, 2008 at 9:46 AM
None taken.
Akzed on November 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM
A good friend of mine is graduating from the Oakland Police Academy today. They were going to have a party for him tomorrow but had to cancel. The reason: he has to be at the Mormon tabernacle tomorrow in riot gear. Talk about a wild first day on the job. :|
teffertoes on November 14, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Gosh Drywall, you’re such a valuable addition to the debates here at HotAir. How is it that this a–hole does not wind up banned? Are his endless non-sequitirs and tedious repetition of nitwit lefty talking points considered high quality counterpoint?
Django on November 14, 2008 at 9:49 AM
I’m starting to wonder if Rywall is a staffer at HA, working to increase hit count for advertising sales purposes. And now Ed is playing the game too. Hummmm.
MikeA on November 14, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Legal issues can be handled too. Everyone should have a will, and living wil, etc. as those decisions are personal.
There’s also the issue of hospital visitation and consent (see the Terry Schiavo case). Do living wills address those issues?
Tom_Shipley on November 14, 2008 at 9:50 AM
It certainly would be ‘funny’ if a bunch of these homosexual terrorists showed up in a Jeremiah Wright-like church.
Which reminds me of a Get Fuzzy cartoon where Satchel asks Bucky who would win if Kenny G and Michael Bolton would get into a fight.
Bucky’s answer?
“We ALL would.”
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Neo-liberals who profess “tolerance” and eschew “torture” practice and enforce domestic terrorism. And it is the Gay Left who provide the immediate fascist thug force attacking civilians.
Old ladies, easy pickings.
But as Mormons have been specifically aligned within the Gay sights for target practice, easy pickings does not explain the choice since Mormons are not an unpopular sect as they once were. However, given the Mormon penchant to blame “bitterness” on those who depart, the percentage of ex-Mormon Gays in the terrorist group may be a statistic worth the rhetorical “why” categorization.
This past decade saw an intense American Catholic Bishop organized effort to protect children from molestation by pedophiles. Cathedrals could just have easily been the target of Gay domestic terrorism. Do Gays have a sentimental penchant for the Catholic Church? Perhaps it boils down to fear; Gays fear the Catholics whereas they despise Mormons without fear. Maybe its the manner Confessions are sought and absolution received.
Gays remain the only ones with a guilt complex here. If they don’t believe (Mormon) Doctrine, it should be irrelevant and no longer a concern in their minds. Gays have their own “church” community. But being such sore losers, having lost “matrimonial rights” the Gays want to dictate doctrine to their opponents. That’s been IT all along.
maverick muse on November 14, 2008 at 9:54 AM
It certainly would be ‘funny’ if a bunch of these homosexual terrorists showed up in a Jeremiah Wright-like church.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 9:51 AM
The black panthers would beat some gay ass, they ain’t going near Trinity.
la.rt.wngr on November 14, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Thanks, I won’t. Personally for myself, I couldn’t care less what gay people want to do, if they’re all consenting adults. But when it comes to my kids, forget it. I’ve got a list of things for which I’ve decided I’ll pull my kids out of school and home school them.
4shoes on November 14, 2008 at 9:55 AM
How about a mosque?
Cowards pick their targets very carefully in order to avoid the obvious natural consequences.
Hening on November 14, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Seriously, this is always the thing people go to when trying to paint Christians as violent nutjobs, but when’s the last time one actually bombed a clinic or killed anyone to support that cause?
Surely such a story would make national headlines, but I haven’t seen one in many, many years. Is the press just keeping silent about it to protect Christians the way they protect Muslims?
I’ve never seen them care about protecting us before.
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Let the gays marry……in three generations all this will be gone.
grapeknutz on November 14, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Homosexuals Gone Wild part1
They didn’t hookwink the people on election day with what was peddled by their media pimps so they take to the streets. Much like a spoiled child after being told NO, little johnny don’t stick that into the electrical socket! It’s not about being equal, they had that already in the peoples republic of California, it’s about total control via the heavy boot of Government to enforce their will on children. Remember they can’t reproduce only recruit the younger the better ie. BOY SCOUTS let us in battles. Every time and place Homo’s try the people rebuke their advance, they run to the hall monitors (court system) to force their benign behavior again. Like Roe vs Wade the hall monitors forced idea of right will not set well, but soon their champion will take the throne. Me thinks I’ll clean my weapons and read my Bible now
nowhiners on November 14, 2008 at 9:58 AM
As with most things in age I find myself less strident about all sorts of subjects and long ago I started thinking about how I would deal with my children embracing things I am oppose to and what would be worth becoming estranged from same. So far it hasn’t come up. But my slippery slope fear is the movement of children’s sexual “rights”. My son says he doesn’t believe in “slippery slopes” but abortion is the perfect example. First it was limited to first trimester in a few places and now it is allowed everywhere at anytime and minors who can’t take an aspirin at school can keep this particular medical procedure a secret. I don’t want to see a time when exploiters of children are accepted. This nation has already reduced childhood to fifteen minutes, it’s no wonder we have such immature adults.
Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 10:00 AM
It will be interesting to see what happens regarding home schooling with the Democrats controlling everything. Gotta look closely at that first big education bill.
BigD on November 14, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Yep, well said.
4shoes on November 14, 2008 at 10:02 AM
FYI (from Wikipedia) on the status of civil unions in CA:
A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship available to same-sex couples, and to certain opposite-sex couples in which at least one party is at least 62 years of age. It affords the couple “the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law..”
Enacted in 1999, the domestic partnership registry was the first of its kind in the United States created by a legislature without court intervention. Initially, domestic partnerships enjoyed very few privileges—principally just hospital-visitation rights. The legislature has since expanded the scope of California domestic partnerships to afford many of the rights and responsibilities common to marriage. As such, it is now difficult to distinguish California domestic partnerships from civil unions offered in a handful of other states.
Proposition 8. The amendment would override a Supreme Court ruling that struck down Proposition 22, the earlier law that had forbidden same sex marriages, but does not seek to repeal any rights granted to domestic partnerships.
————————————
BTW, I wouldn’t condemn all of the pro-gay marriage people by the acts of about 8 people. Most groups, especially with deeply held beliefs, have a few people that get overly emotional and aggressive.
And the attack on the old lady was overblown. I saw the news clip yesterday. It looked to me that someone grabbed her cross after she was already lowering it.
jim m on November 14, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Yes we do!
4shoes on November 14, 2008 at 10:03 AM
So, are you Episcopalian or Unitarian Universalist?
Does your Pastor support gay marriage?
How does he feel about the Ressurrection of Jesus? Fact or Fiction?
I forget what you are Thacker. You see, there are so many Protestants who claim to be Christians but inevitably they end up believing all sorts of crazy things.
Puh-lease. Preotestants lecturing on moral clarity and resoluteness? Why don’t you go ask your council of ministers if wearing pink is sacreligious. I’m sure there’s a congregation out there for you Thacker… hey, why don’t you just break off and start your own! Other Protestants have done it about 30,000 times!
BKennedy on November 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM
This prolonged temper-tantrum is giving us a pretty clear insight into what the pro-homosexual lobby is really about.
Considering that they already have, through civil unions, similar LEGAL rights as married couples…
…and considering that sodomy laws have been ruled unconstitutional…
…and considering that there is no law about who someone can love or live with…
…then it becomes crystal clear that they are fighting over a word – a label – and one that has strong religious overtones.
These people are not looking to be left alone or for equal rights.
These people want their subversive choices to become normative and to outlaw, persecute and hurt anyone who would say otherwise.
Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 9:56 AM
And the vast majority of the Right would come out against these kinds of tactics. Where are the folks on the Left, asking for restraint and discussing what there next legal, socially acceptable action will be?
Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 10:06 AM
How many people would vote to allow gay marriage 50 years ago?
Don’t buy into it Ed. Some countries in Europe are now so indifferent to what the future holds for their children.
They won’t stop until they eliminate opposition to their gay agenda.
Above all, if there is any reason why we should not allow gay marriage, is that God already defined it, and the individual’s conscience know it.
It is not about knowing what is right – it is supressing what is right, because of the love of sin.
Rebellious man wants to poke his finger at God’s eye and convince others that they know better.
maynila on November 14, 2008 at 10:07 AM
If the white powder came from Prop 8 opponents it’s probably just crystal meth.
Prop 8 supporters need to organize some rallies of our own. Like at every state capitol on the same day (California especially).
I expect we will lose the Prop 8 argument shortly if we just sit back on our laurels – regardless of the outcome of the vote.
People see the protests against Prop 8 and opinion will sway to their side. The media will help drive the message that Prop 8 was a big mistake by uninformed haters.
USA Today has an article out today proclaiming after Prop 8’s passage support for gay marriage grows.
Mr Purple on November 14, 2008 at 10:08 AM
So far I have no grandchildren but I will work the rest of my life to keep these imaginary children out the the public schools system. My first problem is the teaching of the U.S. as an awful country, and it is all downhill from there.
Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Activists promote smoke and mirror hype in order to pervert public perception.
Ask legal questions at Ace of Spades for reliable answers.
I imagine that Americans can put whatever they want into their Living Will. It is the citizen’s WILL, not the State’s.
If anyone wants a Living Will, anyone can have one. Everyone should have one along with a Power of Attorney should you be rendered incompetent via an accident–specify in your Living Will if you want to elaborate.
Many attorneys are not “expensive” as their service provides absolute confidence, though online forms and legal aide volunteers can assist underprivileged people effectively to write correctly their Living Will.
maverick muse on November 14, 2008 at 10:09 AM
I am LDS. The Church in California did organize its members to volunteer and donate for Prop 8. The Church could not have made itself clearer on this issue.
The LDS Church will not be intimidated by terrorist tactics though. It’s not going to change its views.
The agenda of the leftist homosexual terrorists against the LDS Church is not to sway opinion or policy, but to exact revenge.
Ultimately, the California Supreme Court will rule this proposition as unconstitutional and the culture war will be taken to the next level in this country. It is inevitable. Escalation is unavoidable. Civil unrest and eventually open war will be upon us.
nitzsche on November 14, 2008 at 10:09 AM
No, not any of the things you describe are really on the slippery slope. What is on the slippery slope are discrimination lawsuits against churches whenever there is an intersection of church and state (tax law, faith-based initiative), and the removal of an individual Californian’s right to discriminate against what they would consider deviant or sinful behavior.
And so Dave Rywall’s shorts don’t give him a wedgie on this, I don’t mean a right to physical violence — what I do mean is a right to keep them off my property, and a right to speak out publicly against their behavior without being accused by the state of a hate crime.
Given what that community has given us with their promiscuous behavior, and what they have done to my church (the gay priest scandals, which have led to millions in deserved payouts to those victims physically affected), I am not in a charitable mood toward them. They persist in their sinful behavior; I shouldn’t have to support them in that behavior.
And I didn’t. This Californian voted Yes on 8.
unclesmrgol on November 14, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Every once in a while, homosexual activists come out from behind the mainstream roles they hide behind, and show their true colors: the colors of immaturity; the colors of selfishness; the colors of immorality; the colors of hate. Those are the colors of their rainbow.
This is just one of those times.
If anyone doubts the connection between the far-left and terrorists, they themselves are proving you wrong. They have decided they “deserve” to get what they want, and that the ends justifies the means.
They are domestic terrorists.
Sterling Holobyte on November 14, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Eight may be a slight understatement. I don’t want these people to be unhappy but I just lost an election also. And I wish nothing but the best for everyone and will work for my views to prosper through the process. I am not giving these people a pass. When intimidation works it debases us all.
Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Michael in MI on November 14, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Good point. Proposition 8 didn’t prohibit anything prima facie. It is an affirmative definition of marriage, approved by the voters.
BTW, Ed, the title of this story should be “Open Season on the Family in California.”
sgt_rich on November 14, 2008 at 10:15 AM
This, sadly, seems to have become the American way.
4shoes on November 14, 2008 at 10:16 AM
The people have spoken. They can cry all they want to. Califonians don’t want their children submitted to this sickness either.
la.rt.wngr on November 14, 2008 at 10:16 AM
I heard that President-Elect Obama is going to be holding a press conference to address the disturbing increase in violence on the left.
Anyone know what day? What time?
Anyone?
jeff_from_mpls on November 14, 2008 at 10:19 AM
None of it matters—all the votes, referendums, protests, white-powder filled envelopes—nothing. Our esteemed California Supreme Court will find a way, no matter how convoluted the legal “reasoning” they will use, to nullify Proposition 8.
In California “will of the people” doesn’t really count for much anymore.
GEC on November 14, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 7 Next »